Lecanemab for Patients With Early Alzheimer Disease: Bayesian Analysis of a Phase 2b Dose-Finding Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Bayesian clinical trial designs are increasingly common; given their promotion by the US Food and Drug Administration, the future use of the bayesian approach will only continue to increase. Innovations possible when using the bayesian approach improve the efficiency of drug development and the accuracy of clinical trials, especially in the context of substantial data missingness. Objective: To explain the foundations, interpretations, and scientific justification of the bayesian approach in the setting of lecanemab trial 201, a bayesian-designed phase 2 dose-finding trial; to demonstrate the efficiency of using a bayesian design; and to show how it accommodates innovations in the prospective design and also treatment-dependent types of missing data. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a bayesian analysis of a clinical trial comparing the efficacy of 5 lecanemab 201 dosages for treatment of early Alzheimer disease. The goal of the lecanemab 201 trial was to identify the effective dose 90 (ED90), the dose achieving at least 90% of the maximum effectiveness of doses considered in the trial. This study assessed the bayesian adaptive randomization used, in which patients were preferentially assigned to doses that would give more information about the ED90 and its efficacy. Interventions: Patients in the lecanemab 201 trial were adaptively randomized to 1 of 5 dose regimens or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point of lecanemab 201 was the Alzheimer Disease Composite Clinical Score (ADCOMS) at 12 months with continued treatment and follow-up out to 18 months. Results: A total 854 patients were included in trial treatment: 238 were in the placebo group (median age, 72 years [range, 50-89 years]; 137 female [58%]) and 587 were assigned to a lecanemab 201 treatment group (median age, 72 years [range, 50-90 years]; 272 female [46%]). The bayesian approach improved the efficiency of a clinical trial by prospectively adapting to the trial's interim results. By the trial's end more patients had been assigned to the better-performing doses: 253 (30%) and 161 (19%) patients to 10 mg/kg monthly and 10 mg/kg biweekly vs 51 (6%), 52 (6%), and 92 (11%) patients to 5 mg/kg monthly, 2.5 mg/kg biweekly, and 5 mg/kg biweekly, respectively. The trial identified 10 mg/kg biweekly as the ED90. The change in ADCOMS of the ED90 vs placebo was -0.037 at 12 months and -0.047 at 18 months. The bayesian posterior probability that the ED90 was superior to placebo was 97.5% at 12 months and 97.7% at 18 months. The respective probabilities of super-superiority were 63.8% and 76.0%. The primary analysis of the randomized bayesian lecanemab 201 trial found in the context of missing data that the most effective dose of lecanemab nearly doubles its estimated efficacy at 18 months of follow-up in comparison with restricting analysis to patients who completed the full 18 months of the trial. Conclusions and Relevance: Innovations associated with the bayesian approach can improve the efficiency of drug development and the accuracy of clinical trials, even in the context of substantial data missingness. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01767311.

ARIA in patients treated with lecanemab (BAN2401) in a phase 2 study in early Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lecanemab is a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that preferentially targets soluble aggregated Aß species (protofibrils) with activity at amyloid plaques. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) profiles appear to differ for various anti-amyloid antibodies. Here, we present ARIA data from a large phase 2 lecanemab trial (Study 201) in early Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Study 201 trial was double-blind, placebo-controlled (core) with an open-label extension (OLE). Observed ARIA events were summarized and modeled via Kaplan-Meier graphs. An exposure response model was developed. RESULTS: In the phase 2 core and OLE, there was a low incidence of ARIA-E (<10%), with <3% symptomatic cases. ARIA-E was generally asymptomatic, mild-to-moderate in severity, and occurred early (<3 months). ARIA-E was correlated with maximum lecanemab serum concentration and incidence was higher in apolipoprotein E4 (ApoE4) homozygous carriers. ARIA-H and ARIA-E occurred with similar frequency in core and OLE. DISCUSSION: Lecanemab can be administered without titration with modest incidence of ARIA.

Lecanemab in Early Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The accumulation of soluble and insoluble aggregated amyloid-beta (Aß) may initiate or potentiate pathologic processes in Alzheimer's disease. Lecanemab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that binds with high affinity to Aß soluble protofibrils, is being tested in persons with early Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We conducted an 18-month, multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial involving persons 50 to 90 years of age with early Alzheimer's disease (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease) with evidence of amyloid on positron-emission tomography (PET) or by cerebrospinal fluid testing. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenous lecanemab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo. The primary end point was the change from baseline at 18 months in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; range, 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). Key secondary end points were the change in amyloid burden on PET, the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; range, 0 to 90; higher scores indicate greater impairment), the Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS; range, 0 to 1.97; higher scores indicate greater impairment), and the score on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-MCI-ADL; range, 0 to 53; lower scores indicate greater impairment). RESULTS: A total of 1795 participants were enrolled, with 898 assigned to receive lecanemab and 897 to receive placebo. The mean CDR-SB score at baseline was approximately 3.2 in both groups. The adjusted least-squares mean change from baseline at 18 months was 1.21 with lecanemab and 1.66 with placebo (difference, -0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.67 to -0.23; P<0.001). In a substudy involving 698 participants, there were greater reductions in brain amyloid burden with lecanemab than with placebo (difference, -59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, -62.6 to -55.6). Other mean differences between the two groups in the change from baseline favoring lecanemab were as follows: for the ADAS-cog14 score, -1.44 (95% CI, -2.27 to -0.61; P<0.001); for the ADCOMS, -0.050 (95% CI, -0.074 to -0.027; P<0.001); and for the ADCS-MCI-ADL score, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.2 to 2.8; P<0.001). Lecanemab resulted in infusion-related reactions in 26.4% of the participants and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions in 12.6%. CONCLUSIONS: Lecanemab reduced markers of amyloid in early Alzheimer's disease and resulted in moderately less decline on measures of cognition and function than placebo at 18 months but was associated with adverse events. Longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer's disease. (Funded by Eisai and Biogen; Clarity AD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03887455.).

The AHEAD 3-45 Study: Design of a prevention trial for Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum begins with a long asymptomatic or preclinical stage, during which amyloid beta (Aß) is accumulating for more than a decade prior to widespread cortical tauopathy, neurodegeneration, and manifestation of clinical symptoms. The AHEAD 3-45 Study (BAN2401-G000-303) is testing whether intervention with lecanemab (BAN2401), a humanized immunoglobulin 1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that preferentially targets soluble aggregated Aß, initiated during this asymptomatic stage can slow biomarker changes and/or cognitive decline. The AHEAD 3-45 Study is conducted as a Public-Private Partnership of the Alzheimer's Clinical Trial Consortium (ACTC), funded by the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Eisai Inc. METHODS: The AHEAD 3-45 Study was launched on July 14, 2020, and consists of two sister trials (A3 and A45) in cognitively unimpaired (CU) individuals ages 55 to 80 with specific dosing regimens tailored to baseline brain amyloid levels on screening positron emission tomography (PET) scans: intermediate amyloid (≈20 to 40 Centiloids) for A3 and elevated amyloid (>40 Centiloids) for A45. Both trials are being conducted under a single protocol, with a shared screening process and common schedule of assessments. A3 is a Phase 2 trial with PET-imaging end points, whereas A45 is a Phase 3 trial with a cognitive composite primary end point. The treatment period is 4 years. The study utilizes innovative approaches to enriching the sample with individuals who have elevated brain amyloid. These include recruiting from the Trial-Ready Cohort for Preclinical and Prodromal Alzheimer's disease (TRC-PAD), the Australian Dementia Network (ADNeT) Registry, and the Japanese Trial Ready Cohort (J-TRC), as well as incorporation of plasma screening with the C2N mass spectrometry platform to quantitate the Aß 42/40 ratio (Aß 42/40), which has been shown previously to reliably identify cognitively normal participants not likely to have elevated brain amyloid levels. A blood sample collected at a brief first visit is utilized to "screen out" individuals who are less likely to have elevated brain amyloid, and to determine the participant's eligibility to proceed to PET imaging. Eligibility to randomize into the A3 Trial or A45 Trial is based on the screening PET imaging results. RESULT: The focus of this article is on the innovative design of the study. DISCUSSION: The AHEAD 3-45 Study will test whether with lecanemab (BAN2401) can slow the accumulation of tau and prevent the cognitive decline associated with AD during its preclinical stage. It is specifically targeting both the preclinical and the early preclinical (intermediate amyloid) stages of AD and is the first secondary prevention trial to employ plasma-based biomarkers to accelerate the screening process and potentially substantially reduce the number of screening PET scans.

Lecanemab in patients with early Alzheimer's disease: detailed results on biomarker, cognitive, and clinical effects from the randomized and open-label extension of the phase 2 proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Lecanemab, a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets soluble aggregated Aß species (protofibrils), has demonstrated robust brain fibrillar amyloid reduction and slowing of clinical decline in early AD. The objective of this analysis is to report results from study 201 blinded period (core), the open-label extension (OLE), and gap period (between core and OLE) supporting the effectiveness of lecanemab. METHODS: The lecanemab study 201 core was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of 856 patients randomized to one of five dose regimens or placebo. An OLE of study 201 was initiated to allow patients to receive open-label lecanemab 10mg/kg biweekly for up to 24 months, with an intervening off-treatment period (gap period) ranging from 9 to 59 months (mean 24 months). RESULTS: At 12 and 18 months of treatment in the core, lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly demonstrated dose-dependent reductions of brain amyloid measured PET and corresponding changes in plasma biomarkers and slowing of cognitive decline. The rates of clinical progression during the gap were similar in lecanemab and placebo subjects, with clinical treatment differences maintained after discontinued dosing over an average of 24 months in the gap period. During the gap, plasma Aß42/40 ratio and p-tau181 levels began to return towards pre-randomization levels more quickly than amyloid PET. At OLE baseline, treatment differences vs placebo at 18 months in the randomized period were maintained across 3 clinical assessments. In the OLE, lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly treatment produced dose-dependent reductions in amyloid PET SUVr, improvements in plasma Aß42/40 ratio, and reductions in plasma p-tau181. CONCLUSIONS: Lecanemab treatment resulted in significant reduction in amyloid plaques and a slowing of clinical decline. Data indicate that rapid and pronounced amyloid reduction correlates with clinical benefit and potential disease-modifying effects, as well as the potential to use plasma biomarkers to monitor for lecanemab treatment effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01767311 .

Consistency of efficacy results across various clinical measures and statistical methods in the lecanemab phase 2 trial of early Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Lecanemab (BAN2401) is a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody that preferentially targets soluble aggregated Aß species (protofibrils) with activity at insoluble fibrils and slowed clinical decline in an 18-month phase 2 proof-of-concept study (Study 201; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01767311) in 856 subjects with early Alzheimer's disease (AD). In this trial, subjects were randomized to five lecanemab dose regimens or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in the Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) at 12 months with Bayesian analyses. The key secondary endpoints were ADCOMS at 18 months and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum-of-Boxes (CDR-SB) and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog14) at 18 months. The results have been published previously. Herein, we describe the results of sensitivity analyses evaluating the consistency of the lecanemab efficacy results in Study 201 at the identified dose, the ED90, across multiple statistical methods and multiple endpoints over the duration of the study. METHODS: The protocol-specified analysis model was a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM). Sensitivity analyses address the consistency of the conclusions using multiple statistical methods. These include a disease progression model (DPM), a natural cubic spline (NCS) model, a quadratic mixed model (QMM), and 2 MMRMs with additional covariates. RESULTS: The sensitivity analyses showed positive lecanemab treatment effects for all endpoints and all statistical models considered. The protocol-specified ADCOMS analysis showed a 29.7% slower decline than placebo for ADCOMS at 18 months. The various other analyses of 3 key endpoints showed declines ranging from 26.5 to 55.9%. The results at 12 months are also consistent with those at 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusion of the primary analysis of the lecanemab Study 201 is strengthened by the consistently positive conclusions across multiple statistical models, across efficacy endpoints, and over time, despite missing data. The 18-month data from this trial was utilized in the design of the confirmatory phase 3 trial (Clarity AD) and allowed for proper powering for multiple, robust outcomes.

A randomized, double-blind, phase 2b proof-of-concept clinical trial in early Alzheimer's disease with lecanemab, an anti-Aß protofibril antibody.

BACKGROUND: Lecanemab (BAN2401), an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, preferentially targets soluble aggregated amyloid beta (Aß), with activity across oligomers, protofibrils, and insoluble fibrils. BAN2401-G000-201, a randomized double-blind clinical trial, utilized a Bayesian design with response-adaptive randomization to assess 3 doses across 2 regimens of lecanemab versus placebo in early Alzheimer's disease, mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild AD dementia. METHODS: BAN2401-G000-201 aimed to establish the effective dose 90% (ED90), defined as the simplest dose that achieves ≥90% of the maximum treatment effect. The primary endpoint was Bayesian analysis of 12-month clinical change on the Alzheimer's Disease Composite Score (ADCOMS) for the ED90 dose, which required an 80% probability of ≥25% clinical reduction in decline versus placebo. Key secondary endpoints included 18-month Bayesian and frequentist analyses of brain amyloid reduction using positron emission tomography; clinical decline on ADCOMS, Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum-of-Boxes (CDR-SB), and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog14); changes in CSF core biomarkers; and total hippocampal volume (HV) using volumetric magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: A total of 854 randomized subjects were treated (lecanemab, 609; placebo, 245). At 12 months, the 10-mg/kg biweekly ED90 dose showed a 64% probability to be better than placebo by 25% on ADCOMS, which missed the 80% threshold for the primary outcome. At 18 months, 10-mg/kg biweekly lecanemab reduced brain amyloid (-0.306 SUVr units) while showing a drug-placebo difference in favor of active treatment by 27% and 30% on ADCOMS, 56% and 47% on ADAS-Cog14, and 33% and 26% on CDR-SB versus placebo according to Bayesian and frequentist analyses, respectively. CSF biomarkers were supportive of a treatment effect. Lecanemab was well-tolerated with 9.9% incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities-edema/effusion at 10 mg/kg biweekly. CONCLUSIONS: BAN2401-G000-201 did not meet the 12-month primary endpoint. However, prespecified 18-month Bayesian and frequentist analyses demonstrated reduction in brain amyloid accompanied by a consistent reduction of clinical decline across several clinical and biomarker endpoints. A phase 3 study (Clarity AD) in early Alzheimer's disease is underway. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov NCT01767311 .

Perampanel for adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures: a pooled dose-response analysis of phase III studies.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relationship between efficacy and perampanel dose, integrated actual (last) dose data from three phase III trials and an extension study (blinded Conversion Period; open-label Maintenance Period) were analyzed. METHODS: Seizure frequency data were analyzed in patients who were randomized to and completed the 13-week Maintenance Period of the phase III studies on perampanel 8 mg, and who received an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during (1) the extension 16-week blinded Conversion Period or (2) weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period. Due to a treatment-by-region interaction (p = 0.042), analyses excluded patients from the Latin America region (n = 162/1,480; 10.9% of the treated cohort). RESULTS: Of 372 patients randomized to 8 mg in the phase III studies, 273 completed the Maintenance Period at 8 mg and 267 entered the extension study. In patients who then had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during the extension blinded Conversion Period (n = 217), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -32.4% (8 mg, phase III Maintenance Period) to -44.2% (12 mg, extension blinded Conversion Period); 50% responder rates increased slightly from 37.3% to 42.9%. In patients who completed the phase III studies on 8 mg and had an actual (last) dose of 12 mg during weeks 1-13 of the extension Maintenance Period (n = 181), median percent change in seizure frequency per 28 days improved from -34.1% (phase III Maintenance Period) to -46.0% (weeks 1-13 extension Maintenance Period); 50% responder rates were 39.2% and 46.4%. Seizure control remained substantially unchanged in patients who completed the phase III studies at 12 mg and continued on that dose during the extension. SIGNIFICANCE: Increasing perampanel dose from 8 to 12 mg can produce additional benefits in seizure control in at least some patients who tolerate the higher dose.

Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

UNLABELLED: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed. PERSPECTIVE: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendations for the core outcome domains that should be considered by investigators conducting clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of treatments for chronic pain. Development of a core set of outcome domains would facilitate comparison and pooling of data, encourage more complete reporting of outcomes, simplify the preparation and review of research proposals and manuscripts, and allow clinicians to make informed decisions regarding the risks and benefits of treatment. METHODS: Under the auspices of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT), 27 specialists from academia, governmental agencies, and the pharmaceutical industry participated in a consensus meeting and identified core outcome domains that should be considered in clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: There was a consensus that chronic pain clinical trials should assess outcomes representing six core domains: (1) pain, (2) physical functioning, (3) emotional functioning, (4) participant ratings of improvement and satisfaction with treatment, (5) symptoms and adverse events, (6) participant disposition (e.g. adherence to the treatment regimen and reasons for premature withdrawal from the trial). Although consideration should be given to the assessment of each of these domains, there may be exceptions to the general recommendation to include all of these domains in chronic pain trials. When this occurs, the rationale for not including domains should be provided. It is not the intention of these recommendations that assessment of the core domains should be considered a requirement for approval of product applications by regulatory agencies or that a treatment must demonstrate statistically significant effects for all of the relevant core domains to establish evidence of its efficacy.