Meaningful Clinical Changes in Alzheimer Disease Measured With the iADRS and Illustrated Using the Donanemab TRAILBLAZER-ALZ Study Findings.

Purpose of Review: To provide relevant background of the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), with examples, to assist the reader with the interpretation of iADRS findings from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study. Recent Findings: The iADRS is an integrated measure of global Alzheimer disease (AD) severity for use in the clinical trial environment. It provides a single score that captures commonalities across cognitive and functional ability domains, reflecting disease-related impairment, while minimizing noise not related to disease progression that may exist within each domain. In AD, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are expected to slow the rate of clinical decline, changing the trajectory of disease progression. The overall percent slowing of disease progression with treatment is a more informative outcome of effect than absolute point differences between treatment and placebo groups at any given time point because the latter is influenced by treatment period and disease severity. The TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial was a phase 2 study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of donanemab in participants with early symptomatic AD; the primary outcome measure was the change from baseline to 76 weeks on the iADRS. In the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ study, donanemab slowed disease progression by 32% at 18 months (p = 0.04 vs placebo), demonstrating clinical efficacy. At the patient level, one can assess whether the DMT effect is clinically meaningful by estimating the threshold of change consistent with clinically meaningful worsening; based on the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ findings, treatment with donanemab would delay reaching this threshold by approximately 6 months. Summary: The iADRS is capable of accurately describing clinical changes associated with disease progression and detecting treatment effects and is an effective assessment tool for use in clinical trials of individuals with early symptomatic AD.

Demonstration of Clinical Meaningfulness of the Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS): Association Between Change in iADRS Scores and Patient and Caregiver Health Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) is a validated cognitive/functional composite that effectively captures cognitive and functional decline over a broad spectrum of disease. The clinical meaningfulness of change on iADRS can be supported by establishing an association with changes on important health outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between change on the iADRS and changes in health outcomes in individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), or mild or moderate AD dementia using placebo data from four AD clinical trials and data from one AD observational study. METHODS: Analysis of covariate (ANCOVA) models were used to estimate the relationship between 18-month change on the iADRS and changes on health outcome measures (related to cost, quality of life, and caregiver burden). The regression coefficients for the iADRS were used to compute impact of natural disease progression and disease-modifying treatment on health outcomes. Additional ANCOVAs were conducted to understand whether cognition and/or function was the underlying explanation of any association between iADRS and health outcome change. RESULTS: Across datasets and disease stages, a worsening on the iADRS was significantly associated with increased societal costs, caregiver burden (time and distress) and worsening in measures of patient quality of life. CONCLUSION: Decline on the iADRS was associated with worsening in health outcome measures. These findings suggest that the iADRS can be used in clinical trials as a proxy measure of clinically meaningful outcomes of AD progression.

Lasmiditan efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine was independent of prior response to triptans: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of triptan users exhibit an insufficient response or inadequate tolerability to a triptan, and some may develop a contraindication. Lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist, may be an option for these individuals. We assessed lasmiditan efficacy in a subgroup of patients in CENTURION (Phase 3 migraine consistency study) who exhibited an insufficient response to triptans, including a subgroup with insufficient response due to efficacy only. METHODS: Patients were randomized to lasmiditan 200 mg for four attacks, lasmiditan 100 mg for four attacks, or placebo for three and lasmiditan 50 mg for one attack. Triptan insufficient responders were pre-defined as patients with insufficient efficacy or tolerability, or who developed a contraindication. RESULTS: In triptan insufficient responders, lasmiditan was superior to placebo (p < 0.05) for pain freedom beginning at 1 h (both doses); pain relief beginning at 0.5 (200 mg) or 1 h (100 mg); migraine-related disability freedom, much/very much better on the Patient Global Impression of Change, and most bothersome symptom freedom at 2 h; sustained pain freedom; and need for rescue medication. Lasmiditan showed benefit for consistency of effect across attacks for 2-h pain freedom and pain relief. Findings were similar in triptan responders and triptan naïve patients and when the triptan insufficient response definition was based on efficacy only. CONCLUSIONS: Lasmiditan was efficacious across multiple clinically relevant endpoints in the acute treatment of migraine independent of prior response to triptans.Trial Registration: CENTURION (NCT03670810); SAMURAI (NCT02439320); SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Randomized, controlled trial of lasmiditan over four migraine attacks: Findings from the CENTURION study.

BACKGROUND: We present findings from the multicenter, double-blind Phase 3 study, CENTURION. This study was designed to assess the efficacy of and consistency of response to lasmiditan in the acute treatment of migraine across four attacks. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups - lasmiditan 200 mg; lasmiditan 100 mg; or a control group that received placebo for three attacks and lasmiditan 50 mg for either the third or fourth attack. The primary endpoints were pain freedom at 2 h (first attack) and pain freedom at 2 h in ≥2/3 attacks. Secondary endpoints included pain relief, sustained pain freedom and disability freedom. Statistical testing used a logistic regression model and graphical methodology to control for multiplicity. RESULTS: Overall, 1471 patients treated ≥1 migraine attack with the study drug. Both primary endpoints were met for lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg (p < 0.001). All gated secondary endpoints were met. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest during the first attack. The most common TEAEs with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, fatigue, and nausea; these were generally mild or moderate in severity. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the early and sustained efficacy of lasmiditan 100 mg and 200 mg and demonstrate consistency of response across multiple attacks.Trial Registration Number: NCT03670810.

Improvement in Function after Lasmiditan Treatment: Post Hoc Analysis of Data from Phase 3 Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Migraine is associated with substantial functional impairment and affects many aspects of daily life. METHODS: Using data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies) and GLADIATOR (an open-label, phase 3 study enrolling patients who had completed SAMURAI or SPARTAN), we assessed the effects of lasmiditan on migraine-related functional disability at multiple time points from 0.5 to 48 h post dose by asking patients to rate how much the migraine was interfering with normal activities. Pooled data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN (SAMURAI + SPARTAN) and data from GLADIATOR were analyzed using the intention-to-treat populations. RESULTS: For SPARTAN + SAMURAI, significantly more patients who received lasmiditan at any dose versus placebo reported freedom from migraine-related functional disability at every timepoint from 2 h post dose, and this difference persisted to 48 h (p < 0.05). Significant differences from placebo in freedom from migraine-related functional disability commenced at 1 h post dose for lasmiditan 200 mg, 1.5 h for lasmiditan 100 mg, and 2 h for lasmiditan 50 mg. Findings from GLADIATOR supported those from SAMURAI + SPARTAN. CONCLUSION: All doses of lasmiditan resulted in an improvement in migraine-related functional disability that persisted to 48 h. In SAMURAI + SPARTAN, a significant difference from placebo was observed as early as 1 h post dose. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320), SPARTAN (NCT02605174), and GLADIATOR (NCT02565186).

The Influence of Migraine on Driving: Current Understanding, Future Directions, and Potential Implications of Findings.

OBJECTIVE: To review the published findings relevant to migraine and driving performance, with an intent to encourage discussion on research which may broaden understanding in this area and help educate healthcare providers and their patients. BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle crashes result in more than 35,000 deaths and more than 2 million injuries annually in the United States. Migraine is one of the most prevalent diseases in the world, and many symptoms associated with migraine attacks have the potential to negatively influence driving ability. METHODS: We reviewed the published findings related to migraine and driving performance. Study findings relevant to symptoms of migraine and their potential effect on driving were also reviewed. This required a more expansive exploration of the literature beyond migraine, for example, review of the literature relating to the effect of pain, sleepiness, visual disturbances, or vertigo on driving. Finally, the potential effects of treatment for migraine on driving were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature on the effect of migraine on driving performance is sparse and, in general published studies on the topic have a number of limitations. Based on review of the literature pertaining to other disorders, it seems feasible that some symptoms occurring as part of the migraine attack could impact driving performance, although formal study in this area is lacking. Many of the approved treatments for migraine have the potential to impact driving, yet this has not been specifically studied, and the extent to which these risks are communicated to patients is not clear. CONCLUSION: The impact of migraine on driving performance has been largely neglected, with few studies specifically designed to address the topic, and relevant studies were generally small with limited control of confounders. This area requires more focus, given a potential for impact on road safety.

Effect of a rescue or recurrence dose of lasmiditan on efficacy and safety in the acute treatment of migraine: findings from the phase 3 trials (SAMURAI and SPARTAN).

BACKGROUND: We studied the efficacy and safety of a second dose of lasmiditan for acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies in which individuals with migraine were randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo. Study drug was to be taken within 4 h (h) of onset of a migraine attack (moderate or severe pain). A second dose of study drug was provided for rescue (patient not pain-free at 2 h and took a second dose 2-24 h post-first dose) or recurrence (patient pain-free at 2 h, but experienced recurrence of mild, moderate, or severe migraine pain and took a second dose 2-24 h after first dose). Randomization to second dose occurred at baseline; patients originally assigned lasmiditan were randomized to the same lasmiditan dose or placebo (2:1 ratio), and those originally assigned placebo received placebo. Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for efficacy and safety assessment of a second dose of lasmiditan. RESULTS: The proportion of patients taking a second dose was lower with lasmiditan versus placebo, and decreased with increasing lasmiditan dose; the majority who took a second dose did so for rescue. In patients taking lasmiditan as first dose, outcomes (pain free, most bothersome symptom [MBS] free) at 2 h after a second dose for rescue were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo (p > 0.05 in all cases). In patients taking lasmiditan for first dose, outcomes at 2 h after a second dose for recurrence were as follows: lasmiditan pooled versus placebo - pain free, 50% vs 32% (p > 0.05); MBS free, 71% vs 41% (p = 0.02); pain relief, 77% vs 52% (p = 0.03). In patients whose first dose was lasmiditan, the incidence of treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) reported after the second dose was similar whether second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. CONCLUSIONS: A second dose of lasmiditan showed some evidence of efficacy when taken for headache recurrence. There was no clear benefit of a second dose of lasmiditan for rescue treatment. The incidences of TEAEs were similar whether the second dose was lasmiditan or placebo. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SAMURAI ( NCT02439320 ) [April 2015]. SPARTAN ( NCT02605174 ) [May 2016].

Trial of Galcanezumab in Prevention of Episodic Cluster Headache.

BACKGROUND: Episodic cluster headache is a disabling neurologic disorder that is characterized by daily headache attacks that occur over periods of weeks or months. Galcanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to calcitonin gene-related peptide, may be a preventive treatment for cluster headache. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had at least one attack every other day, at least four total attacks, and no more than eight attacks per day during a baseline assessment, as well as a history of cluster headache periods lasting at least 6 weeks, and randomly assigned them to receive galcanezumab (at a dose of 300 mg) or placebo, administered subcutaneously at baseline and at 1 month. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 after receipt of the first dose. The key secondary end point was the percentage of patients who had a reduction from baseline of at least 50% in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks at week 3. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Recruitment was halted before the trial reached the planned sample size of 162 because too few volunteers met the eligibility criteria. Of 106 enrolled patients, 49 were randomly assigned to receive galcanezumab and 57 to receive placebo. The mean (±SD) number of cluster headache attacks per week in the baseline period was 17.8±10.1 in the galcanezumab group and 17.3±10.1 in the placebo group. The mean reduction in the weekly frequency of cluster headache attacks across weeks 1 through 3 was 8.7 attacks in the galcanezumab group, as compared with 5.2 in the placebo group (difference, 3.5 attacks per week; 95% confidence interval, 0.2 to 6.7; P = 0.04). The percentage of patients who had a reduction of at least 50% in headache frequency at week 3 was 71% in the galcanezumab group and 53% in the placebo group. There were no substantial between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events, except that 8% of the patients in the galcanezumab group had injection-site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Galcanezumab administered subcutaneously at a dose of 300 mg once monthly reduced the weekly frequency of attacks of episodic cluster headache across weeks 1 through 3 after the initial injection, as compared with placebo. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02397473.).

Safety findings from Phase 3 lasmiditan studies for acute treatment of migraine: Results from SAMURAI and SPARTAN.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the safety profile of lasmiditan, a selective 5-HT1F receptor agonist without vasoconstrictive activity being developed as an acute therapy for migraine. METHODS: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were Phase 3 double-blind studies of patients with migraine, randomized to oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo to be taken within 4 hours of onset of migraine pain. Safety data from the studies were integrated. Treatment-emergent adverse events (occurring within 48 hours of first dose) were considered in the analyses. RESULTS: The safety population comprised 1262 patients assigned placebo, and 654, 1265, and 1258 assigned lasmiditan 50 mg, 100 mg, and 200 mg, respectively. There were no deaths; serious adverse events were reported for seven patients (placebo, n = 2 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 1 [0.2%]; lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 3 [0.2%]). Patients reporting ≥ 1 treatment-emergent adverse events were: Placebo, n = 174 (13.5%); lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 166 (25.4%); lasmiditan 100 mg, n = 458 (36.2%); and lasmiditan 200 mg, n = 510 (40.6%). Treatment-emergent adverse events were generally mild or moderate in severity. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with lasmiditan were dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, fatigue, nausea, muscular weakness and hypoesthesia. There were no ischemic events. CONCLUSIONS: As a centrally-penetrant drug, lasmiditan use was associated with neurologic treatment-emergent adverse events; most were mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION AT CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: SAMURAI (NCT02439320) and SPARTAN (NCT02605174).

Characterization of Dizziness After Lasmiditan Usage: Findings From the SAMURAI and SPARTAN Acute Migraine Treatment Randomized Trials.

TRIAL DESIGN: SAMURAI and SPARTAN were double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 studies conducted in the United States, as well as the United Kingdom and Germany (SPARTAN only). Individuals with migraine were randomized to receive oral lasmiditan 50 mg (SPARTAN only), 100 mg, 200 mg, or placebo within 4 hours of onset of a migraine attack. The aim of this analysis was to characterize dizziness reported with lasmiditan treatment. METHODS: Data from SAMURAI and SPARTAN were pooled for the current post hoc analyses. Onset time and duration of dizziness were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Subgroup analyses based on presence/absence of dizziness were performed for the endpoints of interference with daily activity, patient global impression of change (PGIC), pain at 2 hours, and most bothersome symptom (MBS) at 2 hours based on adverse events occurring within 2 hours of taking study drug. RESULTS: Dizziness incidence was as follows: Placebo (N = 1262), 2.9% (0.1% severe); lasmiditan 50 mg (N = 654), 8.6% (0.3% severe); lasmiditan 100 mg (N = 1265), 14.9% (0.7% severe); and lasmiditan 200 mg (N = 1258), 16.8% (1.4% severe). Among participants who received lasmiditan as their first dose, risk factors for dizziness were higher lasmiditan dosage, being non-Hispanic/Latino, mild or moderate severity of migraine attack, and lower body mass index. The median time to onset of dizziness was generally 30-40 minutes, and the median duration was 1.5-2 hours. The presence of dizziness did not appear to have a negative influence on lasmiditan's effect on daily activity, PGIC, freedom from pain, or MBS. Overall, 21 participants experienced vertigo: Lasmiditan 50 mg, n = 2 (0.3%); 100 mg, n = 11 (0.9%); 200 mg, n = 7 (0.6%); and placebo, n = 1 (<0.1%). CONCLUSION: The incidence of dizziness with lasmiditan increased with dose. Dizziness was generally mild or moderate in severity and of quick onset and short duration. The presence of dizziness did not influence drug efficacy.

On the path to 2025: understanding the Alzheimer's disease continuum.

Basic research advances in recent years have furthered our understanding of the natural history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). It is now recognized that pathophysiological changes begin many years prior to clinical manifestations of disease and the spectrum of AD spans from clinically asymptomatic to severely impaired. Defining AD purely by its clinical presentation is thus artificial and efforts have been made to recognize the disease based on both clinical and biomarker findings. Advances with biomarkers have also prompted a shift in how the disease is considered as a clinico-pathophysiological entity, with an increasing appreciation that AD should not only be viewed with discrete and defined clinical stages, but as a multifaceted process moving along a seamless continuum. Acknowledging this concept is critical to understanding the development process for disease-modifying therapies, and for initiating effective diagnostic and disease management options. In this article, we discuss the concept of a disease continuum from pathophysiological, biomarker, and clinical perspectives, and highlight the importance of considering AD as a continuum rather than discrete stages. While the pathophysiology of AD has still not been elucidated completely, there is ample evidence to support researchers and clinicians embracing the view of a disease continuum in their study, diagnosis, and management of the disease.

Drug development in Alzheimer's disease: the path to 2025.

The global impact of Alzheimer's disease (AD) continues to increase, and focused efforts are needed to address this immense public health challenge. National leaders have set a goal to prevent or effectively treat AD by 2025. In this paper, we discuss the path to 2025, and what is feasible in this time frame given the realities and challenges of AD drug development, with a focus on disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). Under the current conditions, only drugs currently in late Phase 1 or later will have a chance of being approved by 2025. If pipeline attrition rates remain high, only a few compounds at best will meet this time frame. There is an opportunity to reduce the time and risk of AD drug development through an improvement in trial design; better trial infrastructure; disease registries of well-characterized participant cohorts to help with more rapid enrollment of appropriate study populations; validated biomarkers to better detect disease, determine risk and monitor disease progression as well as predict disease response; more sensitive clinical assessment tools; and faster regulatory review. To implement change requires efforts to build awareness, educate and foster engagement; increase funding for both basic and clinical research; reduce fragmented environments and systems; increase learning from successes and failures; promote data standardization and increase wider data sharing; understand AD at the basic biology level; and rapidly translate new knowledge into clinical development. Improved mechanistic understanding of disease onset and progression is central to more efficient AD drug development and will lead to improved therapeutic approaches and targets. The opportunity for more than a few new therapies by 2025 is small. Accelerating research and clinical development efforts and bringing DMTs to market sooner would have a significant impact on the future societal burden of AD. As these steps are put in place and plans come to fruition, e.g., approval of a DMT, it can be predicted that momentum will build, the process will be self-sustaining, and the path to 2025, and beyond, becomes clearer.

Effect of Testosterone Solution 2% on Testosterone Concentration, Sex Drive and Energy in Hypogonadal Men: Results of a Placebo Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: We determined the effect of testosterone solution 2% on total testosterone level and the 2 symptoms of hypogonadism, sex drive and energy level. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo controlled, 16-week study to compare the effect of testosterone and placebo on the proportion of men with a testosterone level within the normal range (300 to 1,050 ng/dl) upon treatment completion. We also assessed the impact of testosterone on sex drive and energy level measured using SAID (Sexual Arousal, Interest and Drive scale) and HED (Hypogonadism Energy Diary), respectively. A total of 715 males 18 years old or older with total testosterone less than 300 ng/dl and at least 1 symptom of testosterone deficiency (decreased energy and/or decreased sexual drive) were randomized to 60 mg topical testosterone solution 2% or placebo once daily. RESULTS: Of study completers 73% in the testosterone vs 15% in the placebo group had a testosterone level within the normal range at study end point (p <0.001). Participants assigned to testosterone showed greater baseline to end point improvement in SAID scores (low sex drive subset p <0.001 vs placebo) and HED scores (low energy subset p = 0.02 vs placebo, not significant at prespecified p <0.01). No major adverse cardiovascular or venous thrombotic events were reported in the testosterone group. The incidence of increased hematocrit was higher with testosterone vs placebo (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Once daily testosterone solution 2% for 12 weeks was efficacious in restoring normal testosterone levels and improving sexual drive in hypogonadal men. Improvement was also seen in energy levels on HED though not at the prespecified p <0.01. No new safety signals were identified.

Effects of Testosterone Level on Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are common in older men and are frequently associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The relationship between BPH and endogenous total testosterone (TT) levels has been widely studied. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to determine the association between LUTS and endogenous TT levels in a subset of men participating in the 2013 Prostate Cancer Awareness Week, a U.S. community-based prostate cancer screening program. Men completed the International Prostate Symptom Score (I-PSS) questionnaire, prostate size was estimated by a digital rectal examination, and serum TT and prostate-specific antigen levels were measured. Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with prostate size category (r = +.03, p = .69): normal, 419.2 (n = 106); enlarged, 394.7 (n = 71); abnormal, 416.4 (n = 7); and abnormal/suspicious, 515.2 (n = 19). Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with I-PSS category (r = -.06, p = .40): none, 468.5 (n = 15); mild, 414.0 (n = 138); moderate, 397.4 (n = 66); and severe, 437.9 (n = 7). Mean TT levels (ng/dl) did not significantly correlate with I-PSS quality of life rating (r = -.13, p = .055): delighted, 474.5 (n = 43); pleased, 424.6 (n = 65); mostly satisfied, 361.2 (n = 63); mixed, 448.2 (n = 29); mostly dissatisfied, 337.2 (n = 17); and unhappy, 435.8 (n = 6). Adjustment for prostate size or prostate-specific antigen levels yielded similar findings. In conclusion, endogenous TT levels did not correlate with LUTS or prostate size, and these findings support the saturation theory in which TT is not able to induce further androgen-stimulated prostate tissue growth due to receptor saturation. Any worsening of LUTS following testosterone replacement therapy in hypogonadal men may be related to stimulation of prostatic cells previously deprived of testosterone.

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.

Measurement of testosterone: how important is a morning blood draw?

OBJECTIVE: Since testosterone levels exhibit a circadian variation with peak levels in the morning, evidence-based guidelines recommend measuring morning total testosterone (TT) levels as the initial diagnostic test for androgen deficiency. However, it has been suggested that morning blood draw may not be necessary in older men due to a blunted circadian rhythm. We sought to determine whether it is possible to expand the morning sampling window for measurement of TT. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: TT levels were measured in a subset of men (mean age of 61 years) participating in the 2013 Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. RESULTS: TT levels measured in blood drawn from 8 to 11 AM (n = 229) differed significantly from those drawn outside this window (n = 442) (411.7 vs 368.3 ng/dl; p = 0.0003). Differences in TT levels were evident across five blood draw time windows (p = < 0.0001) and persisted after adjustment for age and BMI. TT levels in blood drawn from 2 to 5 PM (344.3 ng/dl) and 5 to 8 PM (334.4 ng/dl) differed significantly from that drawn from 8 to 11 AM (p < 0.05), while TT levels from 11 AM to 2 PM (396.5 ng/dl) and 8 PM to 8 AM (373.4 ng/dl) did not (p = 0.90 and 0.73, respectively). CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, it may be possible to expand the blood draw time window for measurement of serum TT. This community-based study was not prospectively design to determine the most appropriate blood draw window for TT measurement. Only a single TT measurement was made without consideration for day-to-day variability, and TT levels were not measured in the same men at different blood draw times.

Alzheimer's disease progression by geographical region in a clinical trial setting.

INTRODUCTION: To facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer's disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology. METHODS: Four similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). RESULTS: Regions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00594568 - IDENTITY. Registered 11 January 2008. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00762411 - IDENTITY2. Registered 26 September 2008 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 - EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 - EXPEDITION2. Registered 18 May 2009.

Comparing recruitment, retention, and safety reporting among geographic regions in multinational Alzheimer's disease clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Most Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials enroll participants multinationally. Yet, few data exist to guide investigators and sponsors regarding the types of patients enrolled in these studies and whether participant characteristics vary by region. METHODS: We used data derived from four multinational phase III trials in mild to moderate AD to examine whether regional differences exist with regard to participant demographics, safety reporting, and baseline scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). We assigned 31 participating nations to 7 geographic regions: North America, South America/Mexico, Western Europe/Israel, Eastern Europe/Russia, Australia/South Africa, Asia, and Japan. RESULTS: North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Australia/South Africa enrolled similar proportions of men, apolipoprotein E ε4 carriers, and participants with spouse study partners, whereas Asia, Eastern Europe/Russia, and South America/Mexico had lower proportions for these variables. North America and South America/Mexico enrolled older subjects, whereas Asia and South America/Mexico enrolled less-educated participants than the remaining regions. Approved AD therapy use differed among regions (range: 73% to 92%) and was highest in North America, Western Europe/Israel, and Japan. Dual therapy was most frequent in North America (48%). On the MMSE, North America, Western Europe/Israel, Japan, and Australia/South Africa had higher (better) scores, and Asia, South America/Mexico, and Eastern Europe/Russia had lower scores. Eastern Europe/Russia had more impaired ADAS-cog11 scores than all other regions. Eastern Europe/Russia and South America/Mexico had more impaired scores for the ADCS-ADL and the CDR-SB. Mean scores for the CDR-SB in Asia were milder than all regions except Japan. NPI scores were lower in Asia and Japan than in all other regions. Participants in North America and Western Europe/Israel reported more adverse events than those in Eastern Europe/Russia and Japan. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that trial populations differ across geographic regions on most baseline characteristics and that multinational enrollment is associated with sample heterogeneity. The data provide initial guidance with regard to the regional differences that contribute to this heterogeneity and are important to consider when planning global trials.

Safety profile of semagacestat, a gamma-secretase inhibitor: IDENTITY trial findings.

OBJECTIVE: Semagacestat, a γ-secretase inhibitor, demonstrated an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in a Phase 3 study of patients with Alzheimer's disease (IDENTITY trials), and clinical development was halted. To assist in future development of γ-secretase inhibitors, we report detailed safety findings from the IDENTITY study, with emphasis on those that might be mechanistically linked to γ-secretase inhibition. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The IDENTITY trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of semagacestat (100 mg and 140 mg), in which 1537 patients age 55 years and older with probable Alzheimer's disease were randomized. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported by body system along with pertinent laboratory, vital sign, and ECG findings. RESULTS: Semagacestat treatment was associated with increased reporting of suspected Notch-related adverse events (gastrointestinal, infection, and skin cancer related). Other relevant safety findings associated with semagacestat treatment included cognitive and functional worsening, skin-related TEAEs, renal and hepatic changes, increased QT interval, and weight loss. With few exceptions, differences between semagacestat and placebo treatment groups were no longer significant after cessation of treatment with active drug. CONCLUSIONS: Many of these safety findings can be attributed to γ-secretase inhibition, and may be valuable to researchers developing γ-secretase inhibitors.