Should EOAD patients be included in clinical trials?

Alzheimer disease (AD) is a devastating neurodegenerative disease affecting 1 in 68 in the population. An arbitrary cutoff 65 years as the age of onset to distinguish between early- and late-onset AD has been proposed and has been used in the literature for decades. As the majority of patients develop AD after 65 years of age, most clinical trials address this population. While the early-onset cases represent only 1% to 6% of AD cases, this population is the active working subset and thus contributes to a higher public health burden per individual, and early-onset cases are the most devastating at the level of the individual and their families. In this review, we compare and contrast the clinical, neuropsychological, imaging, genetic, biomarker, and pathological features of these two arbitrary groups. Finally, we discuss the ethical dilemma of non-abandonment and justice as it pertains to exclusion of the early-onset AD patients from clinical trials

Progress in understanding variability in cognitive responses to cholinesterase inhibitor treatment

Limitations on the duration of clinical trials, and the constraints of participant selection for such studies, have left many unanswered questions regarding the optimal duration of drug treatment for Alzheimer's disease patients, as well as the subgroups of patients that benefit most. Carefully designed observational studies in naturalistic settings can provide important supplementary information to aid clinical decision-making and patient counseling. A paper by Wattmo and colleagues published recently in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy has provided important new information on differential responses to cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) treatment in specific subgroups of patients over a 3-year follow-up period. All of the participants in their study were started on one of three ChEIs after their initial assessment, and periodic assessments of cognitive change and the dosage of ChEIs as well as concomitant medications were subsequently recorded. In addition to providing strong evidence of nondifferential effects on cognition of the three ChEIs as used in this practice, the study identified clinically significant differences in the responses of specific subgroups of patients to the initiation of ChEI treatment. Of particular interest to clinicians is the finding that older patients and those with worse cognitive functioning at baseline had a better treatment response. The notion that treatment may be futile in the oldest or the most impaired patients was thus not supported by Wattmo and colleagues' cohort. Additional well-designed naturalistic studies of this type are needed to advance our knowledge of the long-term outcomes obtained with different therapeutic agents, and of the covariates that significantly modify responses to Alzheimer's disease treatments

Longitudinal Sensitivity of alzheimer\u27s Disease Severity Staging

Understanding Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) dynamics is essential in diagnosis and measuring progression for clinical decision-making; however, clinical instruments are imperfect at classifying true disease stages. This research evaluates sensitivity and determinants of AD stage changes longitudinally using current classifications of mild, moderate, and severe AD, using Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer\u27s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) thresholds. Age and pre-progression rate were significant determinants of AD progression using MMSE alone to stage AD, and pre-progression was found to impact disease progression with CDR-SB. Sensitivity of these instruments for identifying clinical stages of AD to correctly staging a moderate level of disease severity for outcomes MMSE, CDR-SB, and ADAS-Cog was 92%, 78%, and 92%, respectively. This research derives longitudinal sensitivity of clinical instruments used to stage AD useful for clinical decision-making. The MMSE and ADAS-Cog provided adequate sensitivity to classify AD stages

Validity, Significance, Strengths, Limitations, and Evidentiary Value of Real-World Clinical Data for Combination Therapy in Alzheimer's Disease: Comparison of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies

Background: Randomized controlled efficacy trials (RCTs), the scientific gold standard, are required for regulatory approval of Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions, yet provide limited information regarding real-world therapeutic effectiveness. Objective: To compare the nature of evidence regarding the combination of approved AD treatments from RCTs versus long-term observational controlled studies (LTOCs). Methods: Comparisons of strengths, limitations, and evidence level for monotherapy [cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) or memantine] and combination therapy (ChEI + memantine) in RCTs versus LTOCs. Results: RCTs examined highly selected populations over months. LTOCs collected data across multiple AD stages in large populations over many years. RCTs and LTOCs show similar patterns favoring combination over monotherapy over placebo/no treatment. Long-term combination therapy compared to monotherapy reduced cognitive and functional decline and delayed time to nursing home admission. Persistent treatment was associated with slower decline. While LTOCs used control groups, adjusted for multiple covariates, had higher external validity, and favorable ethical, practical and cost considerations, their limitations included potential selection bias due to lack of placebo comparisons and randomization. Conclusions: Naturalistic LTOCs provide complementary long-term level II evidence to complement level I evidence from short-term RCTs regarding therapeutic effectiveness in AD that may otherwise be unobtainable. A coordinated strategy/consortium to pool LTOC data from multiple centers to estimate long-term comparative effectiveness, risks/benefits, and costs of AD treatments is needed

Alzheimer’s disease progression by geographical region in a clinical trial setting

INTRODUCTION: To facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology. METHODS: Four similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). RESULTS: Regions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm

Effects of donepezil 23 mg on Severe Impairment Battery domains in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: evaluating the impact of baseline severity

INTRODUCTION: The US Food and Drug Administration approved a 23 mg daily dose of donepezil for treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) based on outcomes from a large trial comparing the 23 mg/day dose with the standard 10 mg/day dose. Results from this study indicated that after 24 weeks, donepezil 23 mg/day provided significant cognitive benefits over donepezil 10 mg/day, measured using the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB). In the analyses reported herein, we further characterize the range of cognitive domains impacted by treatment with donepezil 23 mg/day. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was conducted using data from a 24-week, randomized, double-blind trial comparing donepezil 23 mg/day versus 10 mg/day in 1,467 patients with moderate to severe AD (baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score 0 to 20). Changes from baseline to week 24 in the nine SIB domain scores were analyzed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (baseline MMSE 0 to 20), in patients with more severe baseline AD (MMSE 0 to 16), and in severity strata based on baseline MMSE scores (0 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20). RESULTS: In the ITT population, changes in six of the nine SIB domains favored donepezil 23 mg/day over donepezil 10 mg/day. LS mean treatment differences were significant for the language, visuospatial ability, and construction domains. In the more advanced cohort of patients (MMSE 0 to 16 at baseline), LS mean treatment differences were statistically significant favoring donepezil 23 mg/day in five of the nine domains: language, memory, visuospatial ability, attention, and construction. Descriptive analysis of LS mean changes in SIB domain scores in the four baseline severity strata showed variable patterns of response; overall, cognitive benefits of donepezil 23 mg/day were greatest in patients with MMSE scores of 0 to 15. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that donepezil 23 mg/day provides benefits over 10 mg/day across a range of cognitive domains. The magnitude of benefit and domains impacted varied depending on the stage of AD; significant benefits with higher dose donepezil were most apparent at more advanced stages of AD and were most prominent in the language domain

PRISM II: an open-label study to assess effectiveness of dextromethorphan/quinidine for pseudobulbar affect in patients with dementia, stroke or traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 trials supporting dextromethorphan/quinidine (DM/Q) use as a treatment for pseudobulbar affect (PBA) were conducted in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or multiple sclerosis (MS). The PRISM II study provides additional DM/Q experience with PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: Participants in this open-label, multicenter, 90-day trial received DM/Q 20/10 mg twice daily. The primary outcome was the Center for Neurologic Study-Lability Scale (CNS-LS), assessing change in PBA episode frequency and severity. The CNS-LS final visit score was compared to baseline (primary analysis) and to the response in a previously conducted placebo-controlled trial with DM/Q in patients with ALS or MS. Secondary outcomes included change in PBA episode count and Clinical Global Impression of Change with respect to PBA as rated by a clinician (CGI-C) and by the patient or caregiver (PGI-C). RESULTS: The study enrolled 367 participants with PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or TBI. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) CNS-LS score improved significantly from 20.4 (4.4) at baseline to 12.8 (5.0) at Day 90/Final Visit (change, -7.7 [6.1]; P < .001, 95 % CI: -8.4, -7.0). This magnitude of improvement was consistent with DM/Q improvement in the earlier phase-3, placebo-controlled trial (mean [95 % CI] change from baseline, -8.2 [-9.4, -7.0]) and numerically exceeds the improvement seen with placebo in that study (-5.7 [-6.8, -4.7]). Reduction in PBA episode count was 72.3 % at Day 90/Final Visit compared with baseline (P < .001). Scores on CGI-C and PGI-C showed that 76.6 and 72.4 % of participants, respectively, were "much" or "very much" improved with respect to PBA. The most frequently occurring adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (5.4 %), headache (4.1 %), urinary tract infection (2.7 %), and dizziness (2.5 %); 9.8 % had AEs that led to discontinuation. Serious AEs were reported in 6.3 %; however, none were considered treatment related. CONCLUSIONS: DM/Q was shown to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment for PBA secondary to dementia, stroke, or TBI. The magnitude of PBA improvement was similar to that reported in patients with PBA secondary to ALS or MS, and the adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of DM/Q. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01799941, registered on 25 February 2013