Downstream Biomarker Effects of Gantenerumab or Solanezumab in Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Disease: The DIAN-TU-001 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Effects of antiamyloid agents, targeting either fibrillar or soluble monomeric amyloid peptides, on downstream biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma are largely unknown in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease (DIAD). Objective: To investigate longitudinal biomarker changes of synaptic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and neurodegeneration in individuals with DIAD who are receiving antiamyloid treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: From 2012 to 2019, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trial Unit (DIAN-TU-001) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, investigated gantenerumab and solanezumab in DIAD. Carriers of gene variants were assigned 3:1 to either drug or placebo. The present analysis was conducted from April to June 2023. DIAN-TU-001 spans 25 study sites in 7 countries. Biofluids and neuroimaging from carriers of DIAD gene variants in the gantenerumab, solanezumab, and placebo groups were analyzed. Interventions: In 2016, initial dosing of gantenerumab, 225 mg (subcutaneously every 4 weeks) was increased every 8 weeks up to 1200 mg. In 2017, initial dosing of solanezumab, 400 mg (intravenously every 4 weeks) was increased up to 1600 mg every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Longitudinal changes in CSF levels of neurogranin, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), chitinase 3-like 1 protein (YKL-40), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light protein (NfL), and plasma levels of GFAP and NfL. Results: Of 236 eligible participants screened, 43 were excluded. A total of 142 participants (mean [SD] age, 44 [10] years; 72 female [51%]) were included in the study (gantenerumab, 52 [37%]; solanezumab, 50 [35%]; placebo, 40 [28%]). Relative to placebo, gantenerumab significantly reduced CSF neurogranin level at year 4 (mean [SD] ß = -242.43 [48.04] pg/mL; P < .001); reduced plasma GFAP level at year 1 (mean [SD] ß = -0.02 [0.01] ng/mL; P = .02), year 2 (mean [SD] ß = -0.03 [0.01] ng/mL; P = .002), and year 4 (mean [SD] ß = -0.06 [0.02] ng/mL; P < .001); and increased CSF sTREM2 level at year 2 (mean [SD] ß = 1.12 [0.43] ng/mL; P = .01) and year 4 (mean [SD] ß = 1.06 [0.52] ng/mL; P = .04). Solanezumab significantly increased CSF NfL (log) at year 4 (mean [SD] ß = 0.14 [0.06]; P = .02). Correlation analysis for rates of change found stronger correlations between CSF markers and fluid markers with Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography for solanezumab and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial supports the importance of fibrillar amyloid reduction in multiple AD-related processes of neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration in CSF and plasma in DIAD. Additional studies of antiaggregated amyloid therapies in sporadic AD and DIAD are needed to determine the utility of nonamyloid biomarkers in determining disease modification. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04623242.

Assessment of Efficacy and Safety of Zagotenemab: Results From PERISCOPE-ALZ, a Phase 2 Study in Early Symptomatic Alzheimer Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Zagotenemab (LY3303560), a monoclonal antibody that preferentially targets misfolded, extracellular, aggregated tau, was assessed in the PERISCOPE-ALZ phase 2 study to determine its ability to slow cognitive and functional decline relative to placebo in early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Participants were enrolled across 56 sites in North America and Japan. Key eligibility criteria included age of 60-85 years, Mini-Mental State Examination score of 20-28, and intermediate levels of brain tau on PET imaging. In this double-blind study, participants were equally randomized to 1,400 mg or 5,600 mg of zagotenemab, or placebo (IV infusion every 4 weeks for 100 weeks). The primary outcome was change on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) assessed by a Bayesian Disease Progression model. Secondary measures include mixed model repeated measures analysis of additional cognitive and functional endpoints as well as biomarkers of AD pathology. RESULTS: A total of 360 participants (mean age = 75.4 years; female = 52.8%) were randomized, and 218 completed the treatment period. Demographics and baseline characteristics were reasonably balanced among arms. The mean disease progression ratio (proportional decline in the treated vs placebo group) with 95% credible intervals for the iADRS was 1.10 (0.959-1.265) for the zagotenemab low-dose group and 1.05 (0.907-1.209) for the high-dose, where a ratio less than 1 favors the treatment group. Secondary clinical endpoint measures failed to show a drug-placebo difference in favor of zagotenemab. No treatment effect was demonstrated by flortaucipir PET, volumetric MRI, or neurofilament light chain (NfL) analyses. A dose-related increase in plasma phosphorylated tau181 and total tau was demonstrated. Zagotenemab treatment groups reported a higher incidence of adverse events (AEs) (85.1%) compared with the placebo group (74.6%). This difference was not attributable to any specific AE or category of AEs. DISCUSSION: In participants with early symptomatic AD, zagotenemab failed to achieve significant slowing of clinical disease progression compared with placebo. Imaging biomarker and plasma NfL findings did not show evidence of pharmacodynamic activity or disease modification. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03518073. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with early symptomatic AD, zagotenemab does not slow clinical disease progression.

Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Zagotenemab in Participants with Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease: A Phase I Clinical Trial.

Background: Zagotenemab (LY3303560), a monoclonal antibody, preferentially binds to extracellular, misfolded, aggregated tau that has been implicated in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Objective: The goal of this study was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of multiple doses of zagotenemab in participants with AD. Methods: This was a Phase Ib, multi-site, participant- and investigator-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in participants with mild cognitive impairment due to AD or mild to moderate AD. After screening, participants were randomized to zagotenemab 70 mg, 210 mg, or placebo every 4 weeks for up to 49 weeks and were followed up for 16 weeks. Results: A total of 13 males and 9 females, aged 59 to 84 years, were dosed. No deaths occurred during this study. A total of 4 serious adverse events occurred in 2 participants who then discontinued the study. The most commonly reported (3 or more participants) treatment-emergent adverse events were sinus bradycardia, headache, fall, and bronchitis. The pharmacokinetics profile showed generally linear exposures across the dose range studied with a clearance of ~8 mL/h. The half-life of zagotenemab in serum was ~20 days. A dose-dependent increase in plasma tau was observed. No other significant pharmacodynamic differences were observed due to low dose levels and limited treatment duration. Conclusions: No dose-limiting adverse events were observed with zagotenemab treatment. Pharmacokinetics of zagotenemab were typical for a monoclonal antibody. Meaningful pharmacodynamic differences were not observed.Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03019536.

APOE ε4's impact on response to amyloid therapies in early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease: Analyses from multiple clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 may interact with response to amyloid-targeting therapies. METHODS: Aggregate data from trials enrolling participants with amyloid-positive, early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) were analyzed for disease progression. RESULTS: Pooled analysis of potentially efficacious antibodies lecanemab, aducanumab, solanezumab, and donanemab shows slightly better efficacy in APOE ε4 carriers than in non-carriers. Carrier and non-carrier mean (95% confidence interval) differences from placebo using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) were -0.30 (-0.478, -0.106) and -0.20 (-0.435, 0.042) and AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) values were -1.01 (-1.577, -0.456) and -0.80 (-1.627, 0.018), respectively. Decline in the APOE ε4 non-carrier placebo group was equal to or greater than that in carriers across multiple scales. Probability of study success increases as the representation of the carrier population increases. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that APOE ε4 carriers have same or better response than non-carriers to amyloid-targeting therapies and similar or less disease progression with placebo in amyloid-positive trials. HIGHLIGHTS: Amyloid-targeting therapies had slightly greater efficacy in apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 carriers. Clinical decline is the same/slightly faster in amyloid-positive APOE ε4 non-carriers. Prevalence of non-carriers in trial populations could impact outcomes.

Association of Amyloid Reduction After Donanemab Treatment With Tau Pathology and Clinical Outcomes: The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: ß-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits biologically define Alzheimer disease. Objective: To perform post hoc analyses of amyloid reduction after donanemab treatment and assess its association with tau pathology and clinical measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Study of LY3002813 in Participants With Early Symptomatic Alzheimer's Disease (TRAILBLAZER-ALZ) was a phase 2, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted from December 18, 2017, to December 4, 2020, with a double-blind period of up to 76 weeks and a 48-week follow-up period. The study was conducted at 56 centers in the US and Canada. Enrolled were participants from 60 to 85 years of age with gradual and progressive change in memory function for 6 months or more, early symptomatic Alzheimer disease, elevated amyloid, and intermediate tau levels. Interventions: Donanemab (an antibody specific for the N-terminal pyroglutamate ß-amyloid epitope) dosing was every 4 weeks: 700 mg for the first 3 doses, then 1400 mg for up to 72 weeks. Blinded dose-reduction evaluations occurred at 24 and 52 weeks based on amyloid clearance. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in amyloid, tau, and clinical decline after donanemab treatment. Results: The primary study randomized 272 participants (mean [SD] age, 75.2 [5.5] years; 145 female participants [53.3%]). The trial excluded 1683 of 1955 individuals screened. The rate of donanemab-induced amyloid reduction at 24 weeks was moderately correlated with the amount of baseline amyloid (Spearman correlation coefficient r, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.66 to -0.39; P < .001). Modeling provides a hypothesis that amyloid would not reaccumulate to the 24.1-centiloid threshold for 3.9 years (95% prediction interval, 1.9-8.3 years) after discontinuing donanemab treatment. Donanemab slowed tau accumulation in a region-dependent manner as measured using neocortical and regional standardized uptake value ratios with cerebellar gray reference region. A disease-progression model found a significant association between percentage amyloid reduction and change on the integrated Alzheimer Disease Rating Scale only in apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 carriers (95% CI, 24%-59%; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of post hoc analyses for donanemab-treated participants suggest that baseline amyloid levels were directly associated with the magnitude of amyloid reduction and inversely associated with the probability of achieving complete amyloid clearance. The donanemab-induced slowing of tau was more pronounced in those with complete amyloid clearance and in brain regions identified later in the pathologic sequence. Data from other trials will be important to confirm aforementioned observations, particularly treatment response by APOE ε4 status. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03367403.

Donanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: A hallmark of Alzheimer's disease is the accumulation of amyloid-ß (Aß) peptide. Donanemab, an antibody that targets a modified form of deposited Aß, is being investigated for the treatment of early Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial of donanemab in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease who had tau and amyloid deposition on positron-emission tomography (PET). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive donanemab (700 mg for the first three doses and 1400 mg thereafter) or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the score on the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS; range, 0 to 144, with lower scores indicating greater cognitive and functional impairment) at 76 weeks. Secondary outcomes included the change in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the 13-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-iADL), and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), as well as the change in the amyloid and tau burden on PET. RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were enrolled; 131 were assigned to receive donanemab and 126 to receive placebo. The baseline iADRS score was 106 in both groups. The change from baseline in the iADRS score at 76 weeks was -6.86 with donanemab and -10.06 with placebo (difference, 3.20; 95% confidence interval, 0.12 to 6.27; P = 0.04). The results for most secondary outcomes showed no substantial difference. At 76 weeks, the reductions in the amyloid plaque level and the global tau load were 85.06 centiloids and 0.01 greater, respectively, with donanemab than with placebo. Amyloid-related cerebral edema or effusions (mostly asymptomatic) occurred with donanemab. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with early Alzheimer's disease, donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed. Longer and larger trials are necessary to study the efficacy and safety of donanemab in Alzheimer's disease. (Funded by Eli Lilly; TRAILBLAZER-ALZ ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03367403.).

Lanabecestat: Neuroimaging results in early symptomatic Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lanabecestat, a beta-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitor, was investigated as a potential Alzheimer's disease (AD)-modifying treatment. As previously reported, amyloid beta (Aß) neuritic plaque burden reduction did not result in clinical benefit. Lanabecestat's effects on neuroimaging biomarkers and correlations between neuroimaging biomarkers and efficacy measures are reported. METHODS: AMARANTH and DAYBREAK-ALZ were 104- and 78-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of lanabecestat in early symptomatic AD (AMARANTH) and mild AD dementia (DAYBREAK-ALZ). Patients randomly (1:1:1) received placebo, lanabecestat 20 mg, or lanabecestat 50 mg daily (AMARANTH, n = 2218; DAYBREAK-ALZ, n = 1722). Florbetapir positron emission tomography (PET), fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET, flortaucipir PET, and volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to measure Aß neuritic plaque burden, cerebral metabolism, aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangles, and brain volume, respectively. Additionally, florbetapir perfusion scans were performed in DAYBREAK-ALZ. Efficacy measures included 13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, Functional Activities Questionnaire, and Mini-Mental State Examination. These studies stopped early due to futility. RESULTS: Despite previously observed annualized reduction in Aß neuritic plaque burden, there were no treatment differences in annualized change of aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangle burden (AMARANTH, n = 284; DAYBREAK-ALZ, n = 70), cerebral metabolism (AMARANTH, n = 260; DAYBREAK-ALZ, n = 38) and perfusion (DAYBREAK-ALZ, n = 213). Greater brain volume reduction (AMARANTH, n = 1697 [whole brain]; DAYBREAK-ALZ, n = 650 [whole brain]) occurred on lanabecestat compared to placebo. Higher baseline aggregated tau neurofibrillary tangle burden, lower cerebral metabolism, and lower brain volumes correlated with poorer baseline efficacy scores and greater clinical worsening. Lower baseline cerebral perfusion correlated with poorer baseline efficacy scores. Reduction in cerebral metabolism or whole brain volume correlated with clinical worsening, regardless of treatment assignment. DISCUSSION: Tau pathology and cerebral metabolism assessments showed no evidence of lanabecestat slowing pathophysiologic progression of AD. Lanabecestat exposure was associated with brain volume reductions. Correlations between imaging measures and cognitive assessments may aid future study design.

Cognitive outcomes in trials of two BACE inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: The APECS and AMARANTH trials showed that beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors verubecestat and lanabecestat failed to slow cognitive and functional decline in individuals with prodromal or early Alzheimer's disease. Here, the performance on secondary and exploratory cognitive measures in both studies is reported. METHODS: APECS (verubecestat) and AMARANTH (lanabecestat) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 104-week clinical trials conducted by different sponsors. Measures included the 3-Domain Composite Cognition Score (CCS-3D), Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Letter/Category Fluency, and Digit Symbol Coding. RESULTS: Verubecestat showed worsening on the CCS-3D Total Score, Episodic Memory, and Attention/Processing Speed domains. Lanabecestat showed worsening on the RBANS Total Score, Immediate Memory, and Visuospatial/Constructional Indexes. Both BACE inhibitors showed worsening on Digit Symbol Coding and improvements on Letter/Category Fluency. DISCUSSION: In both studies, many measures showed treatment-associated cognitive worsening, whereas verbal fluency tasks showed improvement.

Disease Modification in Alzheimer's Disease: Current Thinking.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) has increasingly been recognized as a huge unmet medical need. Currently, there is no approved drug to cure, prevent, or even slow down the disease. It is imperative to develop disease-modifying treatments for AD to alter the underlying disease progression. This paper reviews the most up-to-date regulatory guidance on how to demonstrate disease modification and provides an overview of available methodologies and applications to clinical trials. The intent is to assist the field with future clinical trials designed to demonstrate disease-modifying effect in AD. The methodologies may be generalizable to broader neurodegenerative diseases.

Assessment of Transporter Polymorphisms as a Factor in a BCRP Drug Interaction Study With Lanabecestat.

Lanabecestat is a human ß-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 inhibitor in development to slow disease progression in patients with early Alzheimer's disease. The study evaluated the breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) inhibition potential of lanabecestat on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of rosuvastatin, a probe for BCRP activity, in healthy white subjects who were not carriers of SLCO1B1 (c.521T>C), not homozygotes for ABCG2 (c.421C>A or c.34G>A), and not heterozygotes of ABCG2 (c.421C>A and c.34G>A). The safety of lanabecestat + rosuvastatin, the effects of rosuvastatin on the PK of lanabecestat, and the effects of multiple genetic polymorphisms on rosuvastatin exposure were assessed. Geometric mean ratios of the maximum observed rosuvastatin concentration (Cmax ), area under the rosuvastatin concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to infinity, and time of maximum observed drug concentration (tmax ) when rosuvastatin was administered alone and with lanabecestat were contained within 0.8-1.25, as were lanabecestat AUC at steady state and tmax at steady state when lanabecestat was administered alone or with rosuvastatin. Lanabecestat Cmax at steady state increased 8% in the presence of rosuvastatin. Except for an approximately 80% increase of rosuvastatin AUC (P < .05) in the heterozygotes of ABCG2 c.421C>A relative to the CC genotype, there were no statistically significant associations between rosuvastatin exposure and polymorphisms assessed. Lanabecestat + rosuvastatin was associated with few treatment-emergent adverse events, all of which resolved and were mild. Lanabecestat does not meaningfully impact BCRP activity; therefore, restriction of concomitant administration with BCRP substrates, such as rosuvastatin, may be unnecessary.

Clinically Negligible Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interactions Between Lanabecestat and Dabigatran Etexilate, a Prototypical P-gp Substrate.

Lanabecestat, a novel ß-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 inhibitor evaluated for Alzheimer treatment, inhibits P-glycoprotein (P-gp) activity in vitro. After oral 50-mg lanabecestat administration, gastric fluid lanabecestat concentrations exceed half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50 ), suggesting P-gp inhibition at the intestinal wall. Plasma drug concentrations following 50 mg lanabecestat administered once daily are <10% of IC50 , suggesting minimal systemic P-gp interaction. Dabigatran etexilate (DE) is the prodrug of dabigatran, a thrombin inhibitor and P-gp substrate, making dabigatran exposure an intestinal P-gp activity indicator. This study (NCT02568397) was conducted in 60 healthy subjects receiving a single dose of 150 mg DE alone or during a lanabecestat treatment regimen. On day 16, lanabecestat and DE were coadministered; on day 20, DE was dosed 4 hours after lanabecestat. Safety was assessed using clinical labs, electrocardiogram, vital signs, Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale scores, adverse events, and eye and skin examinations. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic samples were collected up to 36 hours postdose. Geometric mean plasma dabigatran area under the curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) and the maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax ) increased by 15% and 17%, respectively, when coadministered with lanabecestat. When DE was dosed 4 hours after lanabecestat, there was no effect on plasma dabigatran AUC0-∞ , Cmax , or thrombin time. DE had no effect on lanabecestat's AUC0-∞ and Cmax at steady state (day 16) versus lanabecestat alone (day 15). No clinically relevant safety concerns were observed. Lanabecestat has no clinically meaningful effect on dabigatran exposure or on P-gp activity at the intestinal wall.

Efficacy and Safety of Lanabecestat for Treatment of Early and Mild Alzheimer Disease: The AMARANTH and DAYBREAK-ALZ Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Alzheimer disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by cognitive deterioration and impaired activities of daily living. Current treatments provide only minor symptomatic improvements with limited benefit duration. Lanabecestat, a brain-permeable inhibitor of human beta-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1/ß-secretase), was developed to modify the clinical course of AD by slowing disease progression. Objective: To assess whether lanabecestat slows the progression of AD compared with placebo in patients with early AD (mild cognitive impairment) and mild AD dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: AMARANTH (first patient visit on September 30, 2014; last patient visit on October 4, 2018) and DAYBREAK-ALZ (first patient visit on July 1, 2016; last patient visit on September 28, 2018) were randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 and phase 3 clinical trials lasting 104 weeks and 78 weeks, respectively. AMARANTH and DAYBREAK-ALZ were multicenter, global, double-blind studies conducted at 257 and 251 centers, respectively, located in 15 and 18 countries or territories, respectively. A population-based sample of men and women aged 55 to 85 years who met National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association criteria for early AD or mild AD dementia was screened using cognitive assessments, and the presence of amyloid was confirmed. Patients were excluded for unstable medical conditions or medication use, significant cerebrovascular pathologic findings, or a history of vitiligo and/or current evidence of postinflammatory hypopigmentation. AMARANTH screened 6871 patients; 2218 (32.3%) were randomized, and 539 patients completed the study. DAYBREAK-ALZ screened 5706 patients; 1722 (30.2%) were randomized, and 76 patients completed the study. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1:1) to once-daily oral doses of lanabecestat (20 mg), lanabecestat (50 mg), or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was change from baseline on the 13-item Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale. Secondary outcomes included Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Inventory, Clinical Dementia Rating, Functional Activities Questionnaire, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory. Efficacy analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat population. Results: Among 2218 AMARANTH patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.3 (7.1) years, and 1177 of 2218 (53.1%) were women. Among 1722 DAYBREAK-ALZ patients, the mean (SD) age was 72.3 (7.0) years, and 1023 of 1722 (59.4%) were women. Both studies were terminated early after futility analysis. There were no consistent, reproducible dose-related findings on primary or secondary efficacy measures. Psychiatric adverse events, weight loss, and hair color changes were reported in a higher percentage of patients receiving lanabecestat than placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: Treatment with lanabecestat was well tolerated and did not slow cognitive or functional decline. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02245737 and NCT02783573.

Derivation of cutoffs for the Elecsys® amyloid ß (1-42) assay in Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: An Elecsys® Amyloid ß (Aß [1-42]) immunoassay cutoff for classification of patients with Alzheimer's disease was investigated. METHODS: Cerebrospinal fluid samples collected from patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease were analyzed by Elecsys® immunoassays: (1) Aß (1-42), (2) total tau, and (3) phosphorylated tau. Cutoffs (Aß [1-42] and ratios with tau) were estimated by method comparison between AlzBio3 (n = 206), mixture modeling (n = 216), and concordance with florbetapir F 18 imaging-based classification (n = 75). RESULTS: A 1065-pg/mL (95% confidence interval: 985-1153) Elecsys® Aß (1-42) cutoff provided 94% overall percentage agreement with AlzBio3. Comparable cutoff estimates (95% confidence interval) were derived from mixture modeling (equally weighted: 1017 [949-1205] pg/mL; prevalence weighted: 1172 [1081-1344] pg/mL) and concordance with florbetapir F 18 imaging (visual read: 1198 [998-1591] pg/mL; automated: 1198 [1051-1638] pg/mL). DISCUSSION: Based on three approaches, a 1100-pg/mL Elecsys® Aß (1-42) cutoff is suitable for clinical trials with similar populations and preanalytical handling.

A novel approach to delayed-start analyses for demonstrating disease-modifying effects in Alzheimer's disease.

One method for demonstrating disease modification is a delayed-start design, consisting of a placebo-controlled period followed by a delayed-start period wherein all patients receive active treatment. To address methodological issues in previous delayed-start approaches, we propose a new method that is robust across conditions of drug effect, discontinuation rates, and missing data mechanisms. We propose a modeling approach and test procedure to test the hypothesis of noninferiority, comparing the treatment difference at the end of the delayed-start period with that at the end of the placebo-controlled period. We conducted simulations to identify the optimal noninferiority testing procedure to ensure the method was robust across scenarios and assumptions, and to evaluate the appropriate modeling approach for analyzing the delayed-start period. We then applied this methodology to Phase 3 solanezumab clinical trial data for mild Alzheimer's disease patients. Simulation results showed a testing procedure using a proportional noninferiority margin was robust for detecting disease-modifying effects; conditions of high and moderate discontinuations; and with various missing data mechanisms. Using all data from all randomized patients in a single model over both the placebo-controlled and delayed-start study periods demonstrated good statistical performance. In analysis of solanezumab data using this methodology, the noninferiority criterion was met, indicating the treatment difference at the end of the placebo-controlled studies was preserved at the end of the delayed-start period within a pre-defined margin. The proposed noninferiority method for delayed-start analysis controls Type I error rate well and addresses many challenges posed by previous approaches. Delayed-start studies employing the proposed analysis approach could be used to provide evidence of a disease-modifying effect. This method has been communicated with FDA and has been successfully applied to actual clinical trial data accrued from the Phase 3 clinical trials of solanezumab.

Delayed-start analysis: Mild Alzheimer's disease patients in solanezumab trials, 3.5 years.

INTRODUCTION: Solanezumab is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody in clinical testing for treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Its mechanism suggests the possibility of slowing the progression of AD. METHODS: A possible disease-modifying effect of solanezumab was assessed using a new statistical method including noninferiority testing. Performance differences were compared during the placebo-controlled period with performance differences after the placebo patients crossed over to solanezumab in the delayed-start period. RESULTS: Noninferiority of the 14-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog14) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living inventory instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) differences was met through 132 weeks, indicating that treatment differences observed in the placebo-controlled period remained, within a predefined margin, after the placebo group initiated solanezumab. Solanezumab was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified. DISCUSSION: The results of this secondary analysis show that the mild subgroup of solanezumab-treated patients who initiated treatment early, at the start of the placebo-controlled period, retained an advantage at most time points in the delayed-start period.

On the practical application of mixed effects models for repeated measures to clinical trial data.

The use of mixed effects models for repeated measures (MMRM) for clinical trial analyses has recently gained broad support as a primary analysis methodology. Some questions of practical implementation detail remain, however. For example, whether and how to incorporate clinical trial data that is collected at nonprotocol-specified timepoints or clinic visits has not been systematically studied. In this paper, we compare different methods for applying MMRM to trials wherein data is available at protocol-specified timepoints, as well as nonprotocol-specified timepoints due to patient early discontinuation. The methods under consideration included observed case MMRM, per protocol visits MMRM, interval last observation carried forward (LOCF) MMRM, and a hybrid of the per protocol visits and interval LOCF MMRM approaches. Simulation results reveal that the method that best controls the type I error rate is the per protocol visits method. This method is also associated with the least precision among the competing methods. Thus, in confirmatory clinical trials wherein control of type I error rates is critical, per protocol visits MMRM is recommended. However, in exploratory trials where strict type I error control is not as critical, one may prefer interval LOCF MMRM due to its increased precision. Points to consider with respect to both study design (e.g., assigning schedule of events) and subsequent analysis are offered.

Long-term weight gain in patients treated with open-label olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with olanzapine in combination with fluoxetine (OFC) demonstrate robust improvement in their depressive symptoms. Treatment with olanzapine may impact a patient's weight; thus, long-term weight gain and potential predictors (e.g., age and gender) and correlates (e.g., cholesterol and glucose levels) of weight gain were investigated in OFC-treated patients with MDD. METHOD: Outpatients who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, diagnostic criteria for MDD were included (N = 549) in the current analyses of this 76-week, open-label study (February 2000 to July 2002). Maximum, endpoint, and potentially clinically significant (PCS; > or = 7% increase from baseline) weight gain; time to PCS weight gain; and predictors and correlates of weight change were assessed. Patients were treated once daily with oral olanzapine (6, 12, or 18 mg) plus fluoxetine (25, 50, or 75 mg) capsules. Statistical significance for all tests was based upon p < or = .05. RESULTS: Mean baseline-to-endpoint weight change was 5.6 +/- 6.6 kg (12.3 +/- 14.6 lb). Weight gain plateaued by 52 weeks. Fifty-six percent of patients met criteria for PCS weight gain by 76 weeks, and the median time to PCS weight gain was 16 weeks. Low baseline body mass index (BMI), female gender, younger age, and increased fluoxetine dose were predictors of weight gain; olanzapine dose was not. Patients with early (< or = 6 weeks) rapid PCS weight gain were 4.6 times more likely to gain substantial (> or = 15%) weight long-term (weeks 7-76). Changes to endpoint in total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure values were positively correlated with weight change. CONCLUSION: Long-term (76 weeks) OFC treatment may lead to a large percentage (56%) of patients meeting criteria for PCS weight gain (> or = 7%). The risk of weight gain may be significantly increased for OFC-treated patients who have a low BMI or who are female, younger, or taking high-dose fluoxetine. It is important that prescribers balance the risk of weight gain with the benefit of treatment for individual patients with depression.

A double-blind, randomized study of olanzapine and olanzapine/fluoxetine combination for major depression with psychotic features.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of olanzapine (OLZ) monotherapy and an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination (OFC) with placebo (PLA) for unipolar major depression with psychotic features. Under a single protocol, two 8-week, double-blind trials were conducted at 27 sites. Patients (n = 124 trial 1, n = 125 trial 2) were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment groups: OLZ (5 to 20 mg/d), PLA, or OFC (olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/d + fluoxetine 20 to 80 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score. For trial 1, endpoint improvement for the OLZ group (-14.9) was not significantly different from the PLA or OFC groups. The OFC group had significantly greater endpoint improvement (-20.9) than the PLA group (-10.4, P = 0.001); this significant difference was present within 7 days of therapy and maintained at every subsequent visit. The OFC group also had significantly higher response rate (63.6%) than the PLA (28.0%, P = 0.004) or OLZ (34.9%, P = 0.027) groups. For trial 2, there were no significant differences among treatment groups on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total scores or response rates. The combination exhibited a comparable safety profile with OLZ monotherapy and no significant increases in extrapyramidal symptoms compared with placebo. Patients with major depression with psychotic features treated with OLZ monotherapy did not demonstrate significant depressive symptom improvement compared with placebo in either trial; however, an olanzapine/fluoxetine combination was associated with significant improvement compared with placebo in one trial and was well tolerated.

Long-term antidepressant efficacy and safety of olanzapine/fluoxetine combination: a 76-week open-label study.

BACKGROUND: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination has demonstrated effectiveness in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Although this combination is being used by prescribers, this is the first study to examine long-term use. Long-term efficacy and safety were therefore investigated in a group of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) with and without TRD. METHOD: 560 patients who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for MDD were enrolled in this 76-week, open-label study (Feb. 2000-July 2002). The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score was the primary efficacy measure. Safety was assessed via adverse events, vital signs, laboratory analytes, electrocardiography, and extrapyramidal symptom measures. RESULTS: MADRS mean total scores decreased 7 points from baseline (31.6 [N = 552]) at 1/2 week of treatment, 11 points at 1 week of treatment, and 18 points at 8 weeks of treatment. This effect was maintained to endpoint with a mean decrease of 22 points at 76 weeks. Response and remission rates for the total sample were high (62% and 56%, respectively), and the relapse rate was low (15%). Response, remission, and relapse rates for TRD patients (N = 145) were 53%, 44%, and 25%, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were somnolence, weight gain, dry mouth, increased appetite, and headache. At endpoint, there were no clinically meaningful changes in vital signs, laboratory analytes, or electrocardiography. There were no significant increases on any measure of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The olanzapine/fluoxetine combination showed rapid, robust, and sustained improvement in depressive symptoms in patients with MDD, including patients with TRD. The long-term safety profile of the combination was similar to that of its component monotherapies.