Nilvadipine in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have disease-modifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. METHODS AND FINDINGS: NILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged >50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of ≥12 and <27. Participants were randomly assigned to 8 mg sustained-release nilvadipine or matched placebo. The a priori defined primary outcome was progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale-12 (ADAS-Cog 12) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 498), with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) as a gated co-primary outcome, eligible to be promoted to primary end point conditional on a significant effect on the ADAS-Cog 12. The analysis set had a mean age of 73 years and was 62% female. Baseline demographic and Alzheimer disease-specific characteristics were similar between treatment groups, with reported mean of 1.7 years since diagnosis and mean SMMSE of 20.4. The prespecified primary analyses failed to show any treatment benefit for nilvadipine on the co-primary outcome (p = 0.465). Decline from baseline in ADAS-Cog 12 on placebo was 0.79 (95% CI, -0.07-1.64) at 13 weeks, 6.41 (5.33-7.49) at 52 weeks, and 9.63 (8.33-10.93) at 78 weeks and on nilvadipine was 0.88 (0.02-1.74) at 13 weeks, 5.75 (4.66-6.85) at 52 weeks, and 9.41 (8.09-10.73) at 78 weeks. Exploratory analyses of the planned secondary outcomes showed no substantial effects, including on the CDR-sb or the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Nilvadipine appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Mortality was similar between groups (3 on nilvadipine, 4 on placebo); higher counts of adverse events (AEs) on nilvadipine (1,129 versus 1,030), and serious adverse events (SAEs; 146 versus 101), were observed. There were 14 withdrawals because of AEs. Major limitations of this study were that subjects had established dementia and the likelihood that non-Alzheimer subjects were included because of the lack of biomarker confirmation of the presence of brain amyloid. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not suggest benefit of nilvadipine as a treatment in a population spanning mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02017340, EudraCT number 2012-002764-27.

European multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Nilvadipine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease-the substudy protocols: NILVAD frailty; NILVAD blood and genetic biomarkers; NILVAD cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers; NILVAD cerebral blood flow.

INTRODUCTION: In conjunction with the NILVAD trial, a European Multicentre Double-Blind Placebo Controlled trial of Nilvadipine in Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), there are four NILVAD substudies in which eligible NILVAD patients are also invited to participate. The main NILVAD protocol was previously published in BMJ Open (2014). The objectives of the NILVAD substudies are to determine whether frailty, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), blood biomarker profile and Apolipoprotein E (APOE) status predict response to Nilvadipine, and to investigate the effect of Nilvadipine on cerebral blood flow and blood biomarkers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All participants who fulfil criteria for the main NILVAD study are eligible for participation in the NILVAD substudies. Participation is subject to informed consent and whether the substudy is available at a particular NILVAD study site. Each substudy entails extra measurements during the course of the main NILVAD study. For example, in the blood and genetic biomarkers substudy, extra blood (30 mL) will be collected at week 0, week 13, week 52 and week 78, while in the cerebral blood flow substudy, participants will receive an MRI and transcranial Doppler measurements at week 0, week 26 and week 78. In the CSF substudy, 10 mL CSF is collected at week 0 and week 78. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All NILVAD substudies and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country, according to national regulations. Each participant provides written consent to participate. All participants remain anonymised throughout and the results of each substudy will be published in an international peer reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRACT 2012-002764-27; Pre-results.

NILVAD protocol: a European multicentre double-blind placebo-controlled trial of nilvadipine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: This study is a European multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nilvadipine as a disease course modifying treatment for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study that will run for a period of 82 weeks with a treatment period of 78 weeks. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult patients, males and females over 50 years with mild-to-moderate AD as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria, will be included in the study. It aims to recruit a total of 500 patients with AD; 250 in the nilvadipine group and 250 in the placebo group. Participants will be randomised to receive nilvadipine, an 8 mg overencapsulated, sustained release capsule, or a matching overencapsulated placebo (sugar pill) for a period of 78 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy outcome measure in this study is the change in cognitive function as assessed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog 12) from baseline to the end of treatment duration (78 weeks). There are two key secondary outcome measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD). If a statistically significant effect is seen in the primary outcome, CDR-sb will be considered to be a coprimary end point and only the DAD will contribute to the secondary outcome analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country according to national regulations. Each participant will provide written consent to participate in the study. All participants will remain anonymised throughout and the results of the study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRACT Reference Number: 2012-002764-27.

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries.

BACKGROUND: In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. METHODS: We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. RESULTS: Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. CONCLUSION: The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.

Heterogeneity prevails: the state of clinical trial data management in Europe - results of a survey of ECRIN centres.

BACKGROUND: The use of Clinical Data Management Systems (CDMS) has become essential in clinical trials to handle the increasing amount of data that must be collected and analyzed. With a CDMS trial data are captured at investigator sites with "electronic Case Report Forms". Although more and more of these electronic data management systems are used in academic research centres an overview of CDMS products and of available data management and quality management resources for academic clinical trials in Europe is missing. METHODS: The ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) data management working group conducted a two-part standardized survey on data management, software tools, and quality management for clinical trials. The questionnaires were answered by nearly 80 centres/units (with an overall response rate of 47% and 43%) from 12 European countries and EORTC. RESULTS: Our survey shows that about 90% of centres have a CDMS in routine use. Of these CDMS nearly 50% are commercial systems; Open Source solutions don't play a major role. In general, solutions used for clinical data management are very heterogeneous: 20 different commercial CDMS products (7 Open Source solutions) in addition to 17/18 proprietary systems are in use. The most widely employed CDMS products are MACRO and Capture System, followed by solutions that are used in at least 3 centres: eResearch Network, CleanWeb, GCP Base and SAS. Although quality management systems for data management are in place in most centres/units, there exist some deficits in the area of system validation. CONCLUSIONS: Because the considerable heterogeneity of data management software solutions may be a hindrance to cooperation based on trial data exchange, standards like CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standard Consortium) should be implemented more widely. In a heterogeneous environment the use of data standards can simplify data exchange, increase the quality of data and prepare centres for new developments (e.g. the use of EHR for clinical research). Because data management and the use of electronic data capture systems in clinical trials are characterized by the impact of regulations and guidelines, ethical concerns are discussed. In this context quality management becomes an important part of compliant data management. To address these issues ECRIN will establish certified data centres to support electronic data management and associated compliance needs of clinical trial centres in Europe.

Compassionate use of interventions: results of a European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) survey of ten European countries.

BACKGROUND: 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. METHODS: The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). RESULTS: European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. CONCLUSIONS: 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN).

BACKGROUND: Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. METHODS: In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. RESULTS: The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. CONCLUSION: The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.