Trial of Solanezumab for Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aß) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The humanized monoclonal antibody solanezumab was designed to increase the clearance from the brain of soluble Aß, peptides that may lead to toxic effects in the synapses and precede the deposition of fibrillary amyloid. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving patients with mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 to 26 (on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition) and with amyloid deposition shown by means of florbetapir positron-emission tomography or Aß1-42 measurements in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients were randomly assigned to receive solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 80 in the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; scores range from 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment). RESULTS: A total of 2129 patients were enrolled, of whom 1057 were assigned to receive solanezumab and 1072 to receive placebo. The mean change from baseline in the ADAS-cog14 score was 6.65 in the solanezumab group and 7.44 in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference at week 80 (difference, -0.80; 95% confidence interval, -1.73 to 0.14; P=0.10). As a result of the failure to reach significance with regard to the primary outcome in the prespecified hierarchical analysis, the secondary outcomes were considered to be descriptive and are reported without significance testing. The change from baseline in the MMSE score was -3.17 in the solanezumab group and -3.66 in the placebo group. Adverse cerebral edema or effusion lesions that were observed on magnetic resonance imaging after randomization occurred in 1 patient in the solanezumab group and in 2 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease did not significantly affect cognitive decline. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900665 .).

A head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab and adalimumab in biological-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results of a randomised, open-label, blinded-assessor trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy and safety of ixekizumab (IXE) to adalimumab (ADA) in biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve patients with both active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and skin disease and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARDs). METHODS: Patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to approved dosing of IXE or ADA in an open-label, head-to-head, blinded assessor clinical trial. The primary objective was to evaluate whether IXE was superior to ADA at week 24 for simultaneous achievement of a ≥50% improvement from baseline in the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR50) and a 100% improvement from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI100). Major secondary objectives, also at week 24, were to evaluate whether IXE was: (1) non-inferior to ADA for achievement of ACR50 and (2) superior to ADA for PASI100 response. Additional PsA, skin, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcome measures were assessed at week 24. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was met (IXE: 36%, ADA: 28%; p=0.036). IXE was non-inferior for ACR50 response (IXE: 51%, ADA: 47%; treatment difference: 3.9%) and superior for PASI100 response (IXE: 60%, ADA: 47%; p=0.001). IXE had greater response versus ADA in additional PsA, skin, nail, treat-to-target and quality-of-life outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 8.5% (ADA) and 3.5% (IXE) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: IXE was superior to ADA in achievement of simultaneous improvement of joint and skin disease (ACR50 and PASI100) in patients with PsA and inadequate response to csDMARDs. Safety and tolerability for both biologicals were aligned with established safety profiles.

Initiation of symptomatic medication in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials: Hypothetical versus treatment policy approach.

In clinical trials in populations with mild cognitive impairment, it is common for participants to initiate concurrent symptomatic medications for Alzheimer's disease after randomization to the experimental therapy. One strategy for addressing this occurrence is to exclude any observations that occur after the concurrent medication is initiated. The rationale for this approach is that these observations might reflect a symptomatic benefit of the concurrent medication that would adversely bias efficacy estimates for an effective experimental therapy. We interrogate the assumptions underlying such an approach by estimating the effect of newly prescribed concurrent medications in an observational study, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.

Phase 3 trials of solanezumab for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta plaques, neurofibrillary tangles, gliosis, and neuronal loss. Solanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, preferentially binds soluble forms of amyloid and in preclinical studies promoted its clearance from the brain. METHODS: In two phase 3, double-blind trials (EXPEDITION 1 and EXPEDITION 2), we randomly assigned 1012 and 1040 patients, respectively, with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease to receive placebo or solanezumab (administered intravenously at a dose of 400 mg) every 4 weeks for 18 months. The primary outcomes were the changes from baseline to week 80 in scores on the 11-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog11; range, 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL; range, 0 to 78, with lower scores indicating worse functioning). After analysis of data from EXPEDITION 1, the primary outcome for EXPEDITION 2 was revised to the change in scores on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; range, 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater impairment), in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: Neither study showed significant improvement in the primary outcomes. The modeled difference between groups (solanezumab group minus placebo group) in the change from baseline was -0.8 points for the ADAS-cog11 score (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.5; P=0.24) and -0.4 points for the ADCS-ADL score (95% CI, -2.3 to 1.4; P=0.64) in EXPEDITION 1 and -1.3 points (95% CI, -2.5 to 0.3; P=0.06) and 1.6 points (95% CI, -0.2 to 3.3; P=0.08), respectively, in EXPEDITION 2. Between-group differences in the changes in the ADAS-cog14 score were -1.7 points in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (95% CI, -3.5 to 0.1; P=0.06) and -1.5 in patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease (95% CI, -4.1 to 1.1; P=0.26). In the combined safety data set, the incidence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or hemorrhage was 0.9% with solanezumab and 0.4% with placebo for edema (P=0.27) and 4.9% and 5.6%, respectively, for hemorrhage (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: Solanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds amyloid, failed to improve cognition or functional ability. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION 1 and 2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00905372 and NCT00904683.).

Statistical properties of continuous composite scales and implications for drug development.

Little research has been conducted on the statistical properties of composite measures comprising linear combinations of continuous component scales. We assessed the quantitative relationship between the composites and their individual components regarding their abilities to detect treatment effects. In particular, we developed the mathematical derivation of the treatment effect size of a continuous composite in relation to the treatment effect sizes of its components and proved multiple properties of the composite. We demonstrated that the treatment effect size of a composite is greater than the minimum treatment effect size of its components and that above certain thresholds of correlations of components and ratios of component effect sizes, the composite may outperform its components. Examples from Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical studies of solanezumab and donepezil using the composite Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) and its components, the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living inventory, instrumental items (ADCS-iADL) were consistent with the theoretical statistical properties. The understanding of the quantitative relationships between continuous composites and their components will be useful in clinical trial design and the development of new scales and composites across therapeutic areas.

Phase 3 solanezumab trials: Secondary outcomes in mild Alzheimer's disease patients.

INTRODUCTION: EXPEDITION and EXPEDITION2 were identically designed placebo-controlled phase 3 studies assessing effects of solanezumab, an antiamyloid monoclonal antibody binding soluble amyloid-ß peptide, on cognitive and functional decline over 80 weeks in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Primary findings for both studies have been published. METHODS: Secondary analyses of efficacy, biomarker, and safety endpoints in the pooled (EXPEDTION + EXPEDITION2) mild AD population were performed. RESULTS: In the mild AD population, less cognitive and functional decline was observed with solanezumab (n = 659) versus placebo (n = 663), measured by Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale Instrumental ADLs. Baseline-to-endpoint changes did not differ between treatment groups for Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living functional scale, basic items of the ADCS-ADL, and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes. Plasma/cerebrospinal fluid biomarker findings indicated target engagement by solanezumab. Solanezumab demonstrated acceptable safety. Efficacy findings for the moderate AD population are also provided. DISCUSSION: These findings describe solanezumab effects on efficacy/safety measures in a mild AD population. Another phase 3 study, EXPEDITION3, will investigate solanezumab's effects in a mild AD population.

Factors associated with adherence to treatment with olanzapine and other atypical antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVES: Poor treatment response is an important factor contributing to lack of treatment adherence. The goals of this research were to determine whether improvements in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) symptom domains predict the likelihood of staying on treatment and whether differential responses to treatment with various atypical antipsychotics in specific symptom domains account for differences in discontinuation rates or treatment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from 5 randomized, double-blind, 24- to 28-week clinical trials in 1103 olanzapine-treated and 1090 risperidone-, quetiapine-, ziprasidone-, or aripiprazole-treated adult patients with schizophrenia. The 5 PANSS factors were tested as potential predictors of treatment adherence for all treatment groups combined. Treatment differences in the 5 PANSS factors and individual items were assessed between olanzapine and the other atypical antipsychotics combined. Secondary analyses repeated for the 21 Heinrichs Quality of Life Scale (QLS) items. RESULTS: Improvement in PANSS positive factor was the strongest predictor of treatment adherence, irrespective of medication (based on standardized scores, hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], +1.40 to +1.79; P < .001). Improvement in PANSS hostility (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, +1.11 to +1.37; P < .001) and depressive (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, +1.05 to +1.27; P = .002) factors was also a significant predictor; negative and disorganized thoughts factors were not. All QLS items had significant predictive effects. Olanzapine-treated patients showed significantly greater improvements than all other groups at week 24 on all 5 PANSS factors (P = .028 for negative; P < .001 for all others) and on 3 QLS items. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in positive symptoms, regardless of treatment, followed by significant improvement in hostility and depressive symptoms, may best predict treatment adherence. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly greater improvements in these specific symptoms than patients treated with the other atypical antipsychotics examined. These findings may further explain why olanzapine-treated patients continue treatment more often.

Change in level of productivity in the treatment of schizophrenia with olanzapine or other antipsychotics.

BACKGROUND: When treating schizophrenia, improving patients' productivity level is a major goal considering schizophrenia is a leading cause of functional disability. Productivity level has been identified as the most preferred treatment outcome by patients with schizophrenia. However, little has been done to systematically investigate productivity levels in schizophrenia. We set out to better understand the change in productivity level among chronically ill patients with schizophrenia treated with olanzapine compared with other antipsychotic medications. We also assessed the links between productivity level and other clinical outcomes. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from 6 randomized, double-blind clinical trials of patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, with each trial being of approximately 6 months duration. Change in productivity level was compared between olanzapine-treated patients (HGBG, n = 172; HGHJ, n = 277; HGJB, n = 171; HGLB, n = 281; HGGN, n = 159; HGDH, n = 131) and patients treated with other antipsychotic medications (separately vs. haloperidol [HGGN, n = 97; HGDH, n = 132], risperidone [HGBG, n = 167; HGGN, n = 158], quetiapine [HGJB, n = 175], ziprasidone [HGHJ, n = 271] and aripiprazole [HGLB, n = 285]). Productivity was defined as functional activities/work including working for pay, studying, housekeeping and volunteer work. Productivity level in the prior 3 months was assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from no useful functioning to functional activity/work 75% to 100% of the time. RESULTS: Chronically ill patients treated with olanzapine (OLZ) experienced significantly greater improvement in productivity when compared to patients treated with risperidone (RISP) (OLZ = 0.22 ± 1.19, RISP = -0.03 ± 1.17, p = 0.033) or ziprasidone (ZIP) (OLZ = 0.50 ± 1.38, ZIP = 0.25 ± 1.27, p = 0.026), but did not significantly differ from the quetiapine, aripiprazole or haloperidol treatment groups. Among first episode patients, OLZ therapy was associated with greater improvements in productivity levels compared to haloperidol (HAL), during the acute phase (OLZ = -0.31 ± 1.59, HAL = -0.69 ± 1.56, p = 0.011) and over the long-term (OLZ = 0.10 ± 1.50, HAL = -0.32 ± 1.91, p = 0.008). Significantly more chronically ill and first episode patients treated with olanzapine showed moderately high (>50%-75% of the time) and high levels of productivity (>75%-100% of the time) at endpoint, when compared to risperidone or haloperidol-treated patients (p < .05), respectively. Higher productivity level was associated with significantly higher study completion rates and better scores on the positive, negative, disorganized thoughts, hostility and depression subscales of the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS). CONCLUSIONS: Some antipsychotic medications significantly differed in beneficial impact on productivity level in the long-term treatment of patients with schizophrenia. Findings further highlight the link between clinical and functional outcomes, showing significant associations between higher productivity, lower symptom severity and better persistence on therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00088049; NCT00036088.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for the treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: This was a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients meeting American College of Rheumatology clinical and radiographic criteria for osteoarthritis of the knee. At baseline, patients were required to have a ≥ 4 weekly mean of the 24-hour average pain ratings. Patients were randomized to either duloxetine 60 mg once daily (QD) or placebo. At week 7, the duloxetine dosage was increased, in a blinded fashion, to 120-mg QD in patients reporting < 30% pain reduction. The primary efficacy measure was Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) 24-hour average pain. Secondary efficacy measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Clinical Global Impressions of Severity (CGI-S). Safety and tolerability was also assessed. RESULTS: Of the total (n = 256) patients, 111 (86.7%) in placebo group and 93 (72.7%) in duloxetine group completed the study. Patients treated with duloxetine had significantly (P ≤ 0.001) greater improvement at all time points on BPI average pain and had significantly greater improvement on BPI pain severity ratings (P ≤ 0.05), WOMAC total (P = 0.044) and physical functioning scores (P = 0.016), and CGI-S (P = 0.009) at the study endpoint. Frequency of treatment-emergent nausea, constipation, and hyperhidrosis were significantly higher in the duloxetine group (P ≤ 0.05). Significantly more duloxetine-treated patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with duloxetine 60 mg to 120 mg QD was associated with significant pain reduction and improved function in patients with pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee.

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.

Standard and higher dose of olanzapine in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder: a randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose study.

The objective of this study was to assess the dose-response relationship of standard and higher doses of olanzapine in a randomized, double-blind, 8-week, fixed-dose study comparing olanzapine 10 (n = 199), 20 (n = 200), and 40 mg/d (n = 200) for patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and suboptimal response to current treatment. Patients meeting criteria for antipsychotic treatment resistance were excluded. Dose-response relationship was assessed by linear regression analysis with log-transformed dose (independent variable) and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score (dependent variable). There were no significant dose group differences in patients completing the study (overall, 67.8%). All dose groups showed statistically significant improvement in PANSS total scores from baseline to end point without significant dose-response relationship (P = 0.295). Post hoc analysis of response showed significant interaction between baseline PANSS and dose (P = 0.023), indicating better response at higher doses for patients with higher baseline PANSS. There was a significant dose response for mean change in weight (P = 0.003) with significant difference between the 10- and 40-mg-dose groups (P = 0.002; 1.9 [10 mg/d], 2.3 [20 mg/d], and 3.0 kg [40 mg/d]). There was a significant dose response for change in prolactin (P < 0.001) with a significant difference between each group (-10.5 [10 mg/d], -1.7 [20 mg/d], and 4.9 ng/mL [40 mg/d]; P < or = 0.018). Over 8 weeks, non-treatment-resistant patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder responded to all 3 doses of olanzapine, without a statistically significant dose-response relationship, suggesting that for many patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, particularly those who are mildly or moderately ill, 10 mg/d should be the initial dose of choice.

Assessing quality of life in Alzheimer's disease: Implications for clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Characterization of the quality of life (QOL) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) scale within the context of a clinical trial may inform its applicability in future trials. METHODS: Using data from 1322 patients enrolled in two phase-III studies (EXPEDITION 1 [NCT00905372] and 2 [NCT00904683]) of intravenous solanezumab in outpatients with mild AD dementia, correlations between patient- and caregiver-assessed QOL and between QOL and clinical outcome measures were examined. Longitudinal effects of solanezumab over 80 weeks were explored, controlling for patient and caregiver baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Caregivers rated patients' QOL worse than did patients themselves. Patients' QOL was correlated, albeit modestly, with clinical/health measures. Patients' QOL changed minimally over 80 weeks, although a treatment effect of solanezumab on QOL was detected. DISCUSSION: Further investigations are needed to determine the optimal measures with which to quantify and qualify QOL of patients with mild AD.

Improvement in hyperprolactinemia and reproductive comorbidities in patients with schizophrenia switched from conventional antipsychotics or risperidone to olanzapine.

This open-label, prospective, 4-month study in hyperprolactinemic patients with schizophrenia explored whether prolactin levels decrease after switching antipsychotic therapy to olanzapine. A secondary objective was to determine if reproductive morbidities and sexual dysfunction occurring with hyperprolactinemia improved with prolactin normalization. Clinically stable patients with schizophrenia, who had hyperprolactinemia defined as >18.8 ng/ml for males and >24.2 ng/ml for females, were randomized to: remain on current therapy (n=27) or switch to olanzapine, 5-20 mg/day, (n=27). Baseline prolactin levels in female patients randomized to receive olanzapine (n=14) were 66.3+/-38.7 ng/ml and were 82.0+/-37.6 (p=.32) in those remaining on their pre-study antipsychotic medication (n=14). In male patients, baseline prolactin levels were 33.7+/-12.1 and 33.5+/-13.8 ng/ml (p=.97), respectively, for those randomized to olanzapine (n=13) or remaining on pre-study treatment (n=13). At study end, patients switched to olanzapine experienced significant reductions in mean serum prolactin levels of 19.8+/-18.1 ng/ml in males (p=.02), and 32.3+/-47.5 ng/ml in females (p=.01), but prolactin continued to be elevated in patients who remained on pre-study antipsychotic treatment. After switching to olanzapine treatment, male patients experienced significantly (p=.03) increased free testosterone levels but there were no significant improvements in total testosterone levels; some female patients experienced improved menstrual cycling, as well as resolution of galactorrhea and gynecomastia, and sexual functioning was significantly improved in both genders. Patients switched to olanzapine, as well as those remaining on their pre-study medication, maintained clinical stability, their symptoms continued to improve, although there were no significant between-treatment differences in improvement. Treatment-emergent adverse events did occur in both treatment groups; however, they were not significantly different between groups. Olanzapine-treated patients experienced significantly lower eosinophil counts and higher elevations in low-density lipoproteins and standing blood pressure than non-switched patients. Olanzapine treatment may offer sustained reduction in serum prolactin and improvement in sexual and reproductive comorbid symptoms in patients with schizophrenia who have treatment-emergent hyperprolactinemia.

Function and clinical meaningfulness of treatments for mild Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: Effectiveness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments is commonly evaluated with coprimary outcomes; cognition with function to ensure clinical meaningfulness of a cognitive effect. METHODS: We reviewed the literature for functional outcomes in mild AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (distinct from combined mild-moderate/severe AD) treated with approved AD drugs. Cognitive and functional treatment differences in mild AD patients in solanezumab EXPEDITION/EXPEDITION2 studies were compared across time. RESULTS: Seven publications provided MCI/mild AD functional outcomes, one of which reported a significant functional treatment effect. Secondary analyses of EXPEDITION studies suggested a smaller functional effect of solanezumab relative to cognition. An increasing effect of solanezumab over 18 months was shown for cognition and function. DISCUSSION: Function as the sole measure to demonstrate clinical meaningfulness of cognitive effects in mild AD may have limitations. For disease-modifying treatments, point differences on cognitive and functional scales should be qualified with duration of treatment.

Discontinuation of treatment of schizophrenic patients is driven by poor symptom response: a pooled post-hoc analysis of four atypical antipsychotic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Stopping antipsychotic treatment can interrupt improvement and exacerbate the illness. The reasons for discontinuing treatment during controlled clinical trials were analyzed to explore this phenomenon. METHODS: A post-hoc, pooled analysis was made of 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials, 24-28 weeks in duration, involving 1627 patients with schizophrenia or a related disorder. Analyses combined all the atypical antipsychotic treatment groups in the studies. RESULTS: The majority of patients (53%) stopped their treatment at an early stage. Poor psychiatric response along with worsening symptoms was the most frequently given reason for discontinuing the course (36%), which was substantially more common than discontinuation due to poor tolerability of the medication (12%). This phenomenon was corroborated by less improvement in patients who discontinued treatment compared with those who completed, based on the PANSS total scores. Discontinuation due to poor response was, apparently, more predominantly linked to patient perception than to physicians' conclusions alone (80% vs. 20%). Discontinuation due to patient perception of poor response appeared to occur particularly early in the course of treatment. Patients who discontinued due to poor toleration of the medication responded in a more comparable manner with completers. CONCLUSION: Discontinuing treatment may lead to exacerbation of symptoms, undermining therapeutic progress. In these studies, poor response to treatment and worsening of underlying psychiatric symptoms, and to a lesser extent, intolerability to medication were the primary contributors to treatment being discontinued. Our findings suggest that adherence may be enhanced by effective symptom control, as objectively measured and as subjectively perceived. Such strategies may improve patients' willingness to undertake long-term therapy and increase the likelihood of a better prognosis.

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.

Cognitive and functional decline and their relationship in patients with mild Alzheimer's dementia.

BACKGROUND: In patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), the relationship between cognitive and functional progression is not fully understood; however, functional decline has been postulated to follow cognitive decline. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between cognitive and functional treatment effects in mild AD dementia patients. METHODS: Data of patients with mild AD were pooled from two multicenter, double-blind, Phase 3 studies. Patients were randomized to infusions of 400-mg solanezumab (n = 654), or placebo (n = 660) every 4 weeks for 18 months. Cognitive and functional outcome measures were assessed using the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), respectively. Analyses included comparisons among normalized scales, correlations between outcome measures, and path analyses to model the relationship of treatment effect on cognition and function. RESULTS: Normalized ADAS-Cog and ADCS-ADL scales showed cognitive impairment was more evident than functional impairment in mild AD. The correlation between cognition and function increased over time. Path analyses demonstrated that 87% of the treatment effect on function was driven by the treatment effect on cognition, with the remaining 13% due to direct treatment effect. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study are consistent with the hypothesis that functional impairment is primarily driven by and follows cognitive decline in mild AD dementia. The cognitive treatment effect appeared to explain the majority of the functional treatment effect. It is possible that a cognitive treatment effect may be considered as a leading indicator for functional outcomes in an 18-month clinical trial for milder stages of AD.

Cognitive Impairment Precedes and Predicts Functional Impairment in Mild Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: The temporal relationship of cognitive deficit and functional impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not well characterized. Recent analyses suggest cognitive decline predicts subsequent functional decline throughout AD progression. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relationship between cognitive and functional decline in mild AD using autoregressive cross-lagged (ARCL) panel analyses in several clinical trials. METHODS: Data included placebo patients with mild AD pooled from two multicenter, double-blind, Phase 3 solanezumab (EXPEDITION/2) or semagacestat (IDENTITY/2) studies, and from AD patients participating in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Cognitive and functional outcomes were assessed using AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living instrumental subscale (ADCS-iADL), or Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ), respectively. ARCL panel analyses evaluated relationships between cognitive and functional impairment over time. RESULTS: In EXPEDITION, ARCL panel analyses demonstrated cognitive scores significantly predicted future functional impairment at 5 of 6 time points, while functional scores predicted subsequent cognitive scores in only 1 of 6 time points. Data from IDENTITY and ADNI programs yielded consistent results whereby cognition predicted subsequent function, but not vice-versa. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses from three databases indicated cognitive decline precedes and predicts subsequent functional decline in mild AD dementia, consistent with previously proposed hypotheses, and corroborate recent publications using similar methodologies. Cognitive impairment may be used as a predictor of future functional impairment in mild AD dementia and can be considered a critical target for prevention strategies to limit future functional decline in the dementia process.