Debamestrocel multimodal effects on biomarker pathways in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are linked to clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Biomarkers have shown promise in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) research, but the quest for reliable biomarkers remains active. This study evaluates the effect of debamestrocel on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, an exploratory endpoint. METHODS: A total of 196 participants randomly received debamestrocel or placebo. Seven CSF samples were to be collected from all participants. Forty-five biomarkers were analyzed in the overall study and by two subgroups characterized by the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R). A prespecified model was employed to predict clinical outcomes leveraging biomarkers and disease characteristics. Causal inference was used to analyze relationships between neurofilament light chain (NfL) and ALSFRS-R. RESULTS: We observed significant changes with debamestrocel in 64% of the biomarkers studied, spanning pathways implicated in ALS pathology (63% neuroinflammation, 50% neurodegeneration, and 89% neuroprotection). Biomarker changes with debamestrocel show biological activity in trial participants, including those with advanced ALS. CSF biomarkers were predictive of clinical outcomes in debamestrocel-treated participants (baseline NfL, baseline latency-associated peptide/transforming growth factor beta1 [LAP/TGFß1], change galectin-1, all p < .01), with baseline NfL and LAP/TGFß1 remaining (p < .05) when disease characteristics (p < .005) were incorporated. Change from baseline to the last measurement showed debamestrocel-driven reductions in NfL were associated with less decline in ALSFRS-R. Debamestrocel significantly reduced NfL from baseline compared with placebo (11% vs. 1.6%, p = .037). DISCUSSION: Following debamestrocel treatment, many biomarkers showed increases (anti-inflammatory/neuroprotective) or decreases (inflammatory/neurodegenerative) suggesting a possible treatment effect. Neuroinflammatory and neuroprotective biomarkers were predictive of clinical response, suggesting a potential multimodal mechanism of action. These results offer preliminary insights that need to be confirmed.

A randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 study of mesenchymal stem cells induced to secrete high levels of neurotrophic factors in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal neurodegenerative illness with great unmet patient need. We aimed to evaluate whether mesenchymal stem cells induced to secrete high levels of neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF), a novel autologous cell-therapy capable of targeting multiple pathways, could safely slow ALS disease progression. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled ALS participants meeting revised El Escorial criteria, revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R) ≥25 (screening) and ≥3 ALSFRS-R points decline prior to randomization. Participants received three treatments of MSC-NTF or placebo intrathecally. The primary endpoint evaluated efficacy of MSC-NTF through a responder analysis and safety. A change in disease progression post-treatment of ≥1.25 points/mo defines a clinical response. A pre-specified analysis leveraged baseline ALSFRS-R of 35 as a subgroup threshold. RESULTS: Overall, MSC-NTF treatment was well tolerated; there were no safety concerns. Thirty-three percent of MSC-NTF and 28% of placebo participants met clinical response criteria at 28 wk (odds ratio [OR] = 1.33, P = .45); thus, the primary endpoint was not met. A pre-specified analysis of participants with baseline ALSFRS-R ≥ 35 (n = 58) showed a clinical response rate at 28 wk of 35% MSC-NTF and 16% placebo (OR = 2.6, P = .29). Significant improvements in cerebrospinal biomarkers of neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and neurotrophic factor support were observed with MSC-NTF, with placebo unchanged. DISCUSSION: The study did not reach statistical significance on the primary endpoint. However, a pre-specified subgroup suggests that MSC-NTF participants with less severe disease may have retained more function compared to placebo. Given the unmet patient need, the results of this trial warrant further investigation.

How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge.

The pharmaceutical industry is under growing pressure from a range of environmental issues, including major losses of revenue owing to patent expirations, increasingly cost-constrained healthcare systems and more demanding regulatory requirements. In our view, the key to tackling the challenges such issues pose to both the future viability of the pharmaceutical industry and advances in healthcare is to substantially increase the number and quality of innovative, cost-effective new medicines, without incurring unsustainable R&D costs. However, it is widely acknowledged that trends in industry R&D productivity have been moving in the opposite direction for a number of years. Here, we present a detailed analysis based on comprehensive, recent, industry-wide data to identify the relative contributions of each of the steps in the drug discovery and development process to overall R&D productivity. We then propose specific strategies that could have the most substantial impact in improving R&D productivity.

The impact of missing data and how it is handled on the rate of false-positive results in drug development.

In drug development, a common choice for the primary analysis is to assess mean changes via analysis of (co)variance with missing data imputed by carrying the last or baseline observations forward (LOCF, BOCF). These approaches assume that data are missing completely at random (MCAR). Multiple imputation (MI) and likelihood-based repeated measures (MMRM) are less restrictive as they assume data are missing at random (MAR). Nevertheless, LOCF and BOCF remain popular, perhaps because it is thought that the bias in these methods lead to protection against falsely concluding that a drug is more effective than the control. We conducted a simulation study that compared the rate of false positive results or regulatory risk error (RRE) from BOCF, LOCF, MI, and MMRM in 32 scenarios that were generated from a 2(5) full factorial arrangement with data missing due to a missing not at random (MNAR) mechanism. Both BOCF and LOCF inflated RRE were compared to MI and MMRM. In 12 of the 32 scenarios, BOCF yielded inflated RRE compared with eight scenarios for LOCF, three scenarios for MI and four scenarios for MMRM. In no situation did BOCF or LOCF provide adequate control of RRE when MI and MMRM did not. Both MI and MMRM are better choices than either BOCF or LOCF for the primary analysis.

Multiple imputation techniques in small sample clinical trials.

Clinical trials allow researchers to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of a treatment. However, the statistical analysis used to draw these conclusions will inevitably be complicated by the common problem of attrition. Resorting to ad hoc methods such as case deletion or mean imputation can lead to biased results, especially if the amount of missing data is high. Multiple imputation, on the other hand, provides the researcher with an approximate solution that can be generalized to a number of different data sets and statistical problems. Multiple imputation is known to be statistically valid when n is large. However, questions still remain about the validity of multiple imputation for small samples in clinical trials. In this paper we investigate the small-sample performance of several multiple imputation methods, as well as the last observation carried forward method.

Randomized trial of olanzapine versus placebo in the symptomatic acute treatment of the schizophrenic prodrome.

BACKGROUND: The prodromal phase of schizophrenic disorders has been described prospectively. The present study aimed to determine the short-term efficacy and safety of olanzapine treatment of prodromal symptoms compared with placebo. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-groups, placebo-controlled trial with fixed-flexible dosing conducted at four sites. Sixty patients met prodromal diagnostic criteria, including attenuated psychotic symptoms, as determined by structured interviews. Olanzapine 5-15 mg daily or placebo was prescribed for 8 weeks. RESULTS: In the mixed-effects, repeated-measures analysis, the treatment x time interaction for the change from baseline on the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms total score was statistically significant, and post hoc analyses revealed that the olanzapine-placebo difference reached p<.10 by week 6 and p<.05 at week 8. Ratings of extrapyramidal symptoms remained low in each group and were not significantly different. Olanzapine patients gained 9.9 lb versus.7 lb for placebo patients (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This short-term analysis suggests olanzapine is associated with significantly greater symptomatic improvement but significantly greater weight gain than is placebo in prodromal patients. Extrapyramidal symptoms with olanzapine were minimal and similar to those with placebo. Future research over the longer term with more patients will be needed before recommendations can be made regarding routine treatment.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus haloperidol during transition from intramuscular to oral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia who receive intramuscular (IM) medications typically are switched to oral (PO) antipsychotic maintenance therapy. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine versus those of haloperidol during transition from IM to PO therapy. We used additional data from a previously reported trial to test the hypothesis that the reduction in agitation achieved by IM olanzapine 10 mg or IM haloperidol 7.5 mg would be maintained following transition to 4 days of PO olanzapine or PO haloperidol (5-20 mg/d for both). We also hypothesized that olanzapine would maintain its more favorable extrapyramidal symptom (EPS) safety profile. METHODS: This was a multinational (hospitals in 13 countries), double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Acutely agitated inpatients with schizophrenia were treated with 1 to 3 IM injections to olanzapine 10 mg or haloperidol 7.5 mg over 24 hours and were entered into a 4-day PO treatment period with the same medication (5-20 mg/d for both). The primary efficacy measurement was reduction in agitation, as measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale-Excited Component (PANSS-EC) score. Adverse events and scores on EPS rating scales were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients (204 men, 107 women; mean [SD] age, 38.2 [11.6] years) were enrolled (131, 126, and 54 patients in the olanzapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively). In all, 93.1% (122/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 92.1% (116/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the IM period and entered the PO period; 85.5% (112/131) of olanzapine-treated patients and 84.1% (106/126) of haloperidol-treated patients completed the PO period. IM olanzapine and IM haloperidol effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours (mean [SD] PANSS-EC change, -7.1 [4.81 vs -6.7 [4.3], respectively). Reductions in agitation were sustained throughout the PO period with both study drugs (mean [SD] change from PO period baseline, -0.6 [4.8] vs -1.3 [4.4], respectively). During PO treatment, haloperidol-treated patients spontaneously reported significantly more acute dystonia than olanzapine-treated patients (4.3%[5/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.026) and akathisia (5.2% [6/116] vs 0% [0/122], respectively; P = 0.013). Significantly more haloperidol-treated patients than olanzapine-treated patients met categorical criteria for treatment-emergent akathisia (18.5% [17/92] vs 6.5% [7/107], respectively; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: In the acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia in this study, both IM olanzapine 10 mg and IM haloperidol 7.5 mg effectively reduced agitation over 24 hours. This alleviation of agitation was sustained following transition from IM therapy to 4 days of PO treatment (5-20 mg/d for both). During the 4 days of PO treatment, olanzapine-treated patients did not spontaneously report any incidences of acute dystonia, and olanzapine had a superior EPS safety profile to that of haloperidol. The combination of IM and PO olanzapine may help improve the treatment of acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia.

Effects of intramuscular olanzapine vs. haloperidol and placebo on QTc intervals in acutely agitated patients.

Prolongation of the QTc interval has been reported during treatment with oral antipsychotic agents and may be more pronounced during parenteral administration. Pooled QTc interval data from acutely agitated patients across four double-blind trials were compared. Databases included: placebo-controlled [two schizophrenia, one bipolar mania trials (n=565)]; haloperidol-controlled [two schizophrenia trials (n=482)]; geriatric placebo-controlled [1 dementia trial (n=204)]. Patients received 1-3 injections of intramuscular (IM) olanzapine (2.5-10 mg/injection), IM haloperidol (7.5 mg/injection), or IM placebo. At 2 and 24 h after IM olanzapine treatment, the mean QTc interval decreased approximately 3 ms from baseline in the placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases. When there was a statistically significant difference between IM olanzapine and IM placebo, QTc intervals decreased during treatment with IM olanzapine and increased with IM placebo. The incidences of prolonged (endpoint >/=99th percentile of healthy adults or >/=500 ms) or lengthened (increase >/=60 ms) QTc intervals during treatment with IM olanzapine (<3% placebo- and haloperidol-controlled databases, <12% geriatric placebo-controlled database) were never significantly greater than with comparators. These data suggest that IM olanzapine has a favorable QTc interval profile in acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia.

Calming versus sedative effects of intramuscular olanzapine in agitated patients.

Distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation is desirable for the treatment of acute agitation. In 3 double-blind studies, acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia (N = 311), bipolar mania (N = 201), or dementia (N = 206) were treated with intramuscular (1-3 injections/24 hrs) olanzapine (2.5-10.0 mg), haloperidol (7.5 mg), lorazepam (2.0 mg), or placebo. The Agitation-Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES; Eli Lilly and Co.) and treatment-emergent adverse events assessed sedation. Across all studies, 1 patient (lorazepam-treated, bipolar) became unarousable. There were no significant between-group differences in ACES scores of deep sleep or unarousable at any time across. Excluding asleep patients, agitation remained significantly more reduced with olanzapine than placebo (P <.05). The incidences of adverse events indicative of sedation were not significantly different with olanzapine versus comparators. For the treatment of acute agitation associated with schizophrenia, bipolar mania, or dementia, intramuscular olanzapine-treated patients experienced no more sedation than haloperidol- or lorazepam-treated patients and experienced distinct calming rather than nonspecific sedation.

Procedural learning in schizophrenia after 6 months of double-blind treatment with olanzapine, risperidone, and haloperidol.

RATIONALE: First generation antipsychotics induce extrapyramidal motor symptoms (EPS), presumably through dopamine D(2) receptor blockade at the dorsal striatum. This may also produce impairment of cognitive processes, such as procedural learning, that are dependent on this region. Haloperidol and, to a lesser extent, risperidone, are active in the dorsal striatum and may induce EPS and impairment of procedural learning. In contrast, the prototypical second-generation antipsychotic, clozapine, is less active in the dorsal striatum and does not induce EPS or impair procedural learning. Olanzapine is pharmacologically similar to clozapine and has a low incidence of EPS induction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the hypothesis that olanzapine would not have a deleterious effect on procedural learning. METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects with early phase schizophrenia were randomly assigned to double blind treatment with haloperidol, risperidone, or olanzapine. They were administered the Tower of Toronto test at an unmedicated baseline and again following 6 weeks and 6 months of treatment. RESULTS: Procedural learning, defined as the improvement observed between two blocks of five trials of the Tower of Toronto, was preserved after 6 weeks of all three treatments but showed a substantial decline after 6 months of treatment with haloperidol or risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: These data are consistent with the differential activity of the three medications in dorsal striatum structures and suggest that the advantages of olanzapine over haloperidol and risperidone in relation to extrapyramidal syndromes may also generalize to procedural learning. The results also suggest that the procedural learning disadvantages of haloperidol and risperidone accrue slowly but are apparent after 6 months of treatment.

Intramuscular olanzapine and intramuscular haloperidol in acute schizophrenia: antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety during the first 24 hours of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the antipsychotic efficacy and extrapyramidal safety of intramuscular (i.m.) olanzapine and i.m. haloperidol during the first 24 hours of treatment of acute schizophrenia. METHOD: Patients (n = 311) with acute schizophrenia were randomly allocated (2:2:1) to receive i.m. olanzapine (10.0 mg, n = 131), i.m. haloperidol (7.5 mg, n = 126), or i.m. placebo (n = 54). RESULTS: After the first injection, i.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol and superior to i.m. placebo for reducing mean change scores from baseline on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRPS) Positive at 2 hours (-2.9 olanzapine, -2.7 haloperidol, and -1.5 placebo) and 24 hours (-2.8 olanzapine, -3.2 haloperidol, and -1.3 placebo); the BPRS Total at 2 hours (-14.2 olanzapine,-13.1 haloperidol, and -7.1 placebo) and 24 hours (-12.8 olanzapine, -12.9 haloperidol, and -6.2 placebo); and the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale at 24 hours (-0.5 olanzapine, -0.5 haloperidol, and -0.1 placebo). Patients treated with i.m. olanzapine had significantly fewer incidences of treatment-emergent parkinsonism (4.3% olanzapine vs 13.3% haloperidol, P = 0.036), but not akathisia (1.1% olanzapine vs 6.5% haloperidol, P = 0.065), than did patients treated with i.m. haloperidol; they also required significantly less anticholinergic treatment (4.6% olanzapine vs 20.6% haloperidol, P < 0.001). Mean extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) safety scores improved significantly from baseline during i.m. olanzapine treatment, compared with a general worsening during i.m. haloperidol treatment (Simpson-Angus Scale total score mean change: -0.61 olanzapine vs 0.70 haloperidol; P < 0.001; Barnes Akathisia Scale global score mean change: -0.27 olanzapine vs 0.01 haloperidol; P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: I.m. olanzapine was comparable to i.m. haloperidol for reducing the symptoms of acute schizophrenia during the first 24 hours of treatment, the efficacy of both being evident within 2 hours after the first injection. In general, more EPS were observed during treatment with i.m. haloperidol than with i.m. olanzapine.