Clinical Trial-Ready Patient Cohorts for Multiple System Atrophy: Coupling Biospecimen and iPSC Banking to Longitudinal Deep-Phenotyping.

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of unknown etiology characterized by widespread aggregation of the protein alpha-synuclein in neurons and glia. Its orphan status, biological relationship to Parkinson's disease (PD), and rapid progression have sparked interest in drug development. One significant obstacle to therapeutics is disease heterogeneity. Here, we share our process of developing a clinical trial-ready cohort of MSA patients (69 patients in 2 years) within an outpatient clinical setting, and recruiting 20 of these patients into a longitudinal "n-of-few" clinical trial paradigm. First, we deeply phenotype our patients with clinical scales (UMSARS, BARS, MoCA, NMSS, and UPSIT) and tests designed to establish early differential diagnosis (including volumetric MRI, FDG-PET, MIBG scan, polysomnography, genetic testing, autonomic function tests, skin biopsy) or disease activity (PBR06-TSPO). Second, we longitudinally collect biospecimens (blood, CSF, stool) and clinical, biometric, and imaging data to generate antecedent disease-progression scores. Third, in our Mass General Brigham SCiN study (stem cells in neurodegeneration), we generate induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) models from our patients, matched to biospecimens, including postmortem brain. We present 38 iPSC lines derived from MSA patients and relevant disease controls (spinocerebellar ataxia and PD, including alpha-synuclein triplication cases), 22 matched to whole-genome sequenced postmortem brain. iPSC models may facilitate matching patients to appropriate therapies, particularly in heterogeneous diseases for which patient-specific biology may elude animal models. We anticipate that deeply phenotyped and genotyped patient cohorts matched to cellular models will increase the likelihood of success in clinical trials for MSA.

AAAPT Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Neuropathic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Acute neuropathic pain is a significant diagnostic challenge, and it is closely related to our understanding of both acute pain and neuropathic pain. Diagnostic criteria for acute neuropathic pain should reflect our mechanistic understanding and provide a framework for research on and treatment of these complex pain conditions. METHODS: The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the American Pain Society (APS), and the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) collaborated to develop the ACTTION-APS-AAPM Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) for acute pain. A working group of experts in research and clinical management of neuropathic pain was convened. Group members used literature review and expert opinion to develop diagnostic criteria for acute neuropathic pain, as well as three specific examples of acute neuropathic pain conditions, using the five dimensions of the AAAPT classification of acute pain. RESULTS: AAAPT diagnostic criteria for acute neuropathic pain are presented. Application of these criteria to three specific conditions (pain related to herpes zoster, chemotherapy, and limb amputation) illustrates the spectrum of acute neuropathic pain and highlights unique features of each condition. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed AAAPT diagnostic criteria for acute neuropathic pain can be applied to various acute neuropathic pain conditions. Both the general and condition-specific criteria may guide future research, assessment, and management of acute neuropathic pain.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Interpretation of chronic pain clinical trial outcomes: IMMPACT recommended considerations.

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Chronic Immune-mediated Neuropathies.

The chronic autoimmune neuropathies are a diverse group of disorders, whose diagnosis and classification is based on the clinical presentations and results of ancillary tests. In chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, controlled therapeutic trials demonstrated efficacy for intravenous gamma-globulins, corticosteroids, and plasmaphereis. In multifocal motor neuropathy, intravenous gamma-globulins have been shown to be effective. In the other immune-mediated neuropathies, there are no reported controlled therapeutic trials, but efficacy has been reported for some treatments in non-controlled trials on case studies. Choice of therapy in individual cases is based on reported efficacy, as well as severity, progression, coexisting illness, predisposition to developing complications, and potential drug interactions.