The need for thorough phase II studies in medicines development for Alzheimer's disease

Poor Translatability of Biomedical Research Using Animals - A Narrative Review

The failure rate for the translation of drugs from animal testing to human treatments remains at over 92%, where it has been for the past few decades. The majority of these failures are due to unexpected toxicity - that is, safety issues revealed in human trials that were not apparent in animal tests - or lack of efficacy. However, the use of more innovative tools, such as organs-on-chips, in the preclinical pipeline for drug testing, has revealed that these tools are more able to predict unexpected safety events prior to clinical trials and so can be used for this, as well as for efficacy testing. Here, we review several disease areas, and consider how the use of animal models has failed to offer effective new treatments. We also make some suggestions as to how the more human-relevant new approach methodologies might be applied to address this.

On the design of early-phase Alzheimer's disease clinical trials with cerebrospinal fluid tau outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The focus of Alzheimer's disease studies has shifted to earlier disease stages, including mild cognitive impairment. Biomarker inclusion criteria are often incorporated into mild cognitive impairment clinical trials to identify individuals with "prodromal Alzheimer's disease" to ensure appropriate drug targets and enrich for participants likely to develop Alzheimer's disease dementia. The use of these eligibility criteria may affect study power.

METHODS

We investigated outcome variability and study power in the setting of proof-of-concept prodromal Alzheimer's disease trials that incorporate cerebrospinal fluid levels of total tau (t-tau) and phosphorylated (p-tau) as primary outcomes and how differing biomarker inclusion criteria affect power. We used data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative to model trial scenarios and to estimate the variance and within-subject correlation of total and phosphorylated tau. These estimates were then used to investigate the differences in study power for trials considering these two surrogate outcomes.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were similar for all eligibility criteria. The lowest outcome variance and highest within-subject correlation were obtained when phosphorylated tau was used as an eligibility criterion, compared to amyloid beta or total tau, regardless of whether total tau or phosphorylated tau were used as primary outcomes. Power increased when eligibility criteria were broadened to allow for enrollment of subjects with either low amyloid beta or high phosphorylated tau.

CONCLUSION

Specific biomarker inclusion criteria may impact statistical power in trials using total tau or phosphorylated tau as the primary outcome. In concert with other important considerations such as treatment target and population of clinical interest, these results may have implications to the integrity and efficiency of prodromal Alzheimer's disease trial designs.

Drug Development for Psychotropic, Cognitive-Enhancing, and Disease-Modifying Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder with limited available therapies. There is progress in developing treatments for neuropsychiatric indications in AD, including agitation, psychosis, apathy, and sleep disorders. Candidate therapies progress from nonclinical and animal assessment to trials in normal volunteers (phase 1), small phase-2 trials, and larger confirmatory phase-3 trials. Biomarkers play an increasingly important role in selecting participants, stratifying populations, demonstrating target engagement, supporting disease modification, and monitoring safety. There are currently 121 agents in clinical trials, including treatments for neuropsychiatric symptoms, cognition enhancement, and disease progression. There are 27 agents in phase-1 trials, 65 in phase-2 trials, and 29 in phase-3 trials. Most of the agents in trials (80%) target disease modification. Treatments are being assessed in secondary prevention trials with cognitively normal individuals at high risk for the development of AD. There is progress in target diversification, trial designs, outcome measures, biomarkers, and trial population definitions that promise to accelerate developing new therapies for those with or at risk for AD.

Alzheimer's Disease, and Breast and Prostate Cancer Research: Translational Failures and the Importance to Monitor Outputs and Impact of Funded Research

Dementia and cancer are becoming increasingly prevalent in Western countries. In the last two decades, research focused on Alzheimer's disease (AD) and cancer, in particular, breast cancer (BC) and prostate cancer (PC), has been substantially funded both in Europe and worldwide. While scientific research outcomes have contributed to increase our understanding of the disease etiopathology, still the prevalence of these chronic degenerative conditions remains very high across the globe. By definition, no model is perfect. In particular, animal models of AD, BC, and PC have been and still are traditionally used in basic/fundamental, translational, and preclinical research to study human disease mechanisms, identify new therapeutic targets, and develop new drugs. However, animals do not adequately model some essential features of human disease; therefore, they are often unable to pave the way to the development of drugs effective in human patients. The rise of new technological tools and models in life science, and the increasing need for multidisciplinary approaches have encouraged many interdisciplinary research initiatives. With considerable funds being invested in biomedical research, it is becoming pivotal to define and apply indicators to monitor the contribution to innovation and impact of funded research. Here, we discuss some of the issues underlying translational failure in AD, BC, and PC research, and describe how indicators could be applied to retrospectively measure outputs and impact of funded biomedical research.

The "rights" of precision drug development for Alzheimer's disease

There is a high rate of failure in Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development with 99% of trials showing no drug-placebo difference. This low rate of success delays new treatments for patients and discourages investment in AD drug development. Studies across drug development programs in multiple disorders have identified important strategies for decreasing the risk and increasing the likelihood of success in drug development programs. These experiences provide guidance for the optimization of AD drug development. The "rights" of AD drug development include the right target, right drug, right biomarker, right participant, and right trial. The right target identifies the appropriate biologic process for an AD therapeutic intervention. The right drug must have well-understood pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features, ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, efficacy demonstrated in animals, maximum tolerated dose established in phase I, and acceptable toxicity. The right biomarkers include participant selection biomarkers, target engagement biomarkers, biomarkers supportive of disease modification, and biomarkers for side effect monitoring. The right participant hinges on the identification of the phase of AD (preclinical, prodromal, dementia). Severity of disease and drug mechanism both have a role in defining the right participant. The right trial is a well-conducted trial with appropriate clinical and biomarker outcomes collected over an appropriate period of time, powered to detect a clinically meaningful drug-placebo difference, and anticipating variability introduced by globalization. We lack understanding of some critical aspects of disease biology and drug action that may affect the success of development programs even when the "rights" are adhered to. Attention to disciplined drug development will increase the likelihood of success, decrease the risks associated with AD drug development, enhance the ability to attract investment, and make it more likely that new therapies will become available to those with or vulnerable to the emergence of AD.

Preclinical Models of Alzheimer's Disease: Relevance and Translational Validity

The only drugs currently approved for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) are four acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and the NMDA antagonist memantine. Apart from these drugs, which have minimal to no clinical benefit, the 40-year search for effective therapeutics to treat AD has resulted in a clinical failure rate of 100% not only for compounds that prevent brain amyloid deposition or remove existing amyloid plaques but also those acting by a variety of other putative disease-associated mechanisms. This indicates that the preclinical data generated from current AD targets to support the selection, optimization, and translation of new chemical entities (NCEs) and biologics to clinical trials is seriously compromised. While many of these failures reflect flawed hypotheses or a lack of adequate characterization of the preclinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic (PD/PK) properties of lead NCEs-including their bioavailability and toxicity-the conceptualization, validation, and interrogation of the current animal models of AD represent key limitations. The overwhelming majority of these AD models are transgenic, based on aspects of the amyloid hypothesis and the genetics of the familial form of the disease. As a result, these generally lack construct and predictive validity for the sporadic form of the human disease. The 170 or so transgenic models, perhaps the largest number ever focused on a single disease, use rodents, mainly mice, and in addition to amyloid also address aspects of tau causality with more complex multigene models including other presumed causative factors together with amyloid. This overview discusses the current animal models of AD in the context of both the controversies surrounding the causative role of amyloid in the disease and the need to develop validated models of cognitive function/dysfunction that more appropriately reflect the phenotype(s) of human aged-related dementias. © 2019 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The de-Alzheimerization of age-related dementias: implications for drug targets and approaches to effective therapeutics

Alzheimer's disease (AD) was differentiated from senile dementia (SD) in 1910 due to its early onset and pathological severity. In 1976, this distinction was upended when SD was redesignated as AD to focus efforts and funding in dementia-related research. AD then became conflated with amyloid plaques and, to a lesser degree, neurofibrillary tangles complicating efforts in understanding dementia causality and its treatment. The resultant four-decade search for therapies-based almost exclusively on amyloid was an exercise in futility. While dementia is a complex, multifactorial syndrome, AD is viewed as a homogeneous, linear disease. An amyloid-agnostic approach is necessary to discover therapeutics for age-related dementias.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapeutics - 2: Beyond amyloid - Re-defining AD and its causality to discover effective therapeutics

Compounds targeted for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) have consistently failed in clinical trials despite evidence for target engagement and pharmacodynamic activity. This questions the relevance of compounds acting at current AD drug targets - the majority of which reflect the seminal amyloid and, to a far lesser extent, tau hypotheses - and limitations in understanding AD causality as distinct from general dementia. The preeminence of amyloid and tau led to many alternative approaches to AD therapeutics being ignored or underfunded to the extent that their causal versus contributory role in AD remains unknown. These include: neuronal network dysfunction; cerebrovascular disease; chronic, local or systemic inflammation involving the innate immune system; infectious agents including herpes virus and prion proteins; neurotoxic protein accumulation associated with sleep deprivation, circadian rhythm and glymphatic/meningeal lymphatic system and blood-brain-barrier dysfunction; metabolic related diseases including diabetes, obesity hypertension and hypocholesterolemia; mitochondrial dysfunction and environmental factors. As AD has become increasingly recognized as a multifactorial syndrome, a single treatment paradigm is unlikely to work in all patients. However, the biomarkers required to diagnose patients and parse them into mechanism/disease-based sub-groups remain rudimentary and unvalidated as do non-amyloid, non-tau translational animal models. The social and economic impact of AD is also discussed in the context of new FDA regulatory draft guidance and a proposed biomarker-based Framework (re)-defining AD and its stages as part of the larger landscape of treating dementia via the 2013 G8 initiative to identify a disease-modifying therapy for dementia/AD by 2025.

Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline: 2017

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need to develop new treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to understand the drug development process for new AD therapies.

METHODS

We assessed the agents in the AD pipeline as documented in clinicaltrials.gov for phase I, phase II, and phase III, accessed 1/5/2017.

RESULTS

There are 105 agents in the AD treatment development pipeline, of which 25 agents are in 29 trials in phase I, 52 agents are in 68 trials in phase II, and 28 agents are in 42 trials in phase III. Seventy percent of drugs in the AD pipeline are disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Fourteen percent are symptomatic cognitive enhancers, and 13% are symptomatic agents addressing neuropsychiatric and behavioral changes (2% have undisclosed mechanisms). Most trials are sponsored by the biopharmaceutical industry. Trials include patients with preclinical AD (cognitively normal with biomarker evidence of AD), prodromal AD (mild cognitive symptoms and biomarker evidence of AD), and AD dementia. Biomarkers are included in many drug development programs particularly those for DMTs. Thirteen of 46 phase II DMT trials have amyloid imaging as an entry criterion, and 10 of 28 phase III trials incorporate amyloid imaging for diagnosis and entry. A large number of participants are needed for AD clinical trials; in total, 54,073 participants are required for trials spanning preclinical AD to AD dementia. When compared with the 2016 pipeline, there are eight new agents in phase I, 16 in phase II, and five in phase III.

DISCUSSION

The AD drug development pipeline has 105 agents divided among phase I, phase II, and phase III. The trials include a wide range of clinical trial populations, many mechanisms of action, and require a substantial number of clinical trial participants. Biomarkers are increasingly used in patient identification and as outcome measures, particularly in trials of DMTs.

Protein aggregation and ER stress

Protein aggregation is a common feature of the protein misfolding or conformational diseases, among them most of the neurodegenerative diseases. These disorders are a major scourge, with scarce if any effective therapies at present. Recent research has identified ER stress as a major mechanism implicated in cytotoxicity in these diseases. Whether amyloid-β or tau in Alzheimer's, α-synuclein in Parkinson's, huntingtin in Huntington's disease or other aggregation-prone proteins in many other neurodegenerative diseases, there is a shared pathway of oligomerization and aggregation into amyloid fibrils. There is increasing evidence in recent years that the toxic species, and those that evoke ER stress, are the intermediate oligomeric forms and not the final amyloid aggregates. This review focuses on recent findings on the mechanisms and importance of the development of ER stress upon protein aggregation, especially in neurodegenerative diseases, and possible therapeutic approaches that are being examined. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI:ER stress.

Design of a Bayesian adaptive phase 2 proof-of-concept trial for BAN2401, a putative disease-modifying monoclonal antibody for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

Introduction

Recent failures in phase 3 clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) suggest that novel approaches to drug development are urgently needed. Phase 3 risk can be mitigated by ensuring that clinical efficacy is established before initiating confirmatory trials, but traditional phase 2 trials in AD can be lengthy and costly.

Methods

We designed a Bayesian adaptive phase 2, proof-of-concept trial with a clinical endpoint to evaluate BAN2401, a monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid protofibrils. The study design used dose response and longitudinal modeling. Simulations were used to refine study design features to achieve optimal operating characteristics.

Results

The study design includes five active treatment arms plus placebo, a clinical outcome, 12-month primary endpoint, and a maximum sample size of 800. The average overall probability of success is ≥80% when at least one dose shows a treatment effect that would be considered clinically meaningful. Using frequent interim analyses, the randomization ratios are adapted based on the clinical endpoint, and the trial can be stopped for success or futility before full enrollment.

Discussion

Bayesian statistics can enhance the efficiency of analyzing the study data. The adaptive randomization generates more data on doses that appear to be more efficacious, which can improve dose selection for phase 3. The interim analyses permit stopping as soon as a predefined signal is detected, which can accelerate decision making. Both features can reduce the size and duration of the trial. This study design can mitigate some of the risks associated with advancing to phase 3 in the absence of data demonstrating clinical efficacy. Limitations to the approach are discussed.