Joshua D. Grill

Current therapeutic targets for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease

Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disease for which no cure exists. There is a substantial need for new therapies that offer improved symptomatic benefit and disease-slowing capabilities. In recent decades there has been substantial progress in understanding the molecular and cellular changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. This has resulted in identification of a large number of new drug targets. These targets include, but are not limited to, therapies that aim to prevent production of or remove the amyloid-β protein that accumulates in neuritic plaques; to prevent the hyperphosphorylation and aggregation into paired helical filaments of the microtubule-associated protein tau; and to keep neurons alive and functioning normally in the face of these pathologic challenges. We provide a review of these targets for drug development.

Addressing the challenges to successful recruitment and retention in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials

Among the key challenges in Alzheimers disease drug development is the timely completion of clinical trials. Unfortunately, clinical trials often suffer from slow or insufficient enrollment. Successful clinical trial recruitment describes a balance between expeditiously achieving full enrollment and ensuring an appropriate study sample. Investigators face a number of challenges to the successful negotiation of this balance. The failure to address these challenges means that drug development may take more time and money and that trial results may not adequately represent drug efficacy or may not be applicable beyond the study. We review the challenges to recruitment and retention in Alzheimers disease clinical trials and present a framework to address them.

Targeting prodromal Alzheimer disease with avagacestat: A randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Early identification of Alzheimer disease (AD) is important for clinical management and affords the opportunity to assess potential disease-modifying agents in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a randomized trial to prospectively enrich a study population with prodromal AD (PDAD) defined by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker criteria and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) symptoms. OBJECTIVES To assess the safety of the γ-secretase inhibitor avagacestat in PDAD and to determine whether CSF biomarkers can identify this patient population prior to clinical diagnosis of dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial with a parallel, untreated, nonrandomized observational cohort of CSF biomarker-negative participants was conducted May 26, 2009, to July 9, 2013, in a multicenter global population. Of 1358 outpatients screened, 263 met MCI and CSF biomarker criteria for randomization into the treatment phase. One hundred two observational cohort participants who met MCI criteria but were CSF biomarker-negative were observed during the same study period to evaluate biomarker assay sensitivity. INTERVENTIONS Oral avagacestat or placebo daily. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURE Safety and tolerability of avagacestat. RESULTS Of the 263 participants in the treatment phase, 132 were randomized to avagacestat and 131 to placebo; an additional 102 participants were observed in an untreated observational cohort. Avagacestat was relatively well tolerated with low discontinuation rates (19.6%) at a dose of 50 mg/d, whereas the dose of 125 mg/d had higher discontinuation rates (43%), primarily attributable to gastrointestinal tract adverse events. Increases in nonmelanoma skin cancer and nonprogressive, reversible renal tubule effects were observed with avagacestat. Serious adverse event rates were higher with avagacestat (49 participants [37.1%]) vs placebo (31 [23.7%]), attributable to the higher incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer. At 2 years, progression to dementia was more frequent in the PDAD cohort (30.7%) vs the observational cohort (6.5%). Brain atrophy rate in PDAD participants was approximately double that of the observational cohort. Concordance between abnormal amyloid burden on positron emission tomography and pathologic CSF was approximately 87% (κ = 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.87). No significant treatment differences were observed in the avagacestat vs placebo arm in key clinical outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Avagacestat did not demonstrate efficacy and was associated with adverse dose-limiting effects. This PDAD population receiving avagacestat or placebo had higher rates of clinical progression to dementia and greater brain atrophy compared with CSF biomarker-negative participants. The CSF biomarkers and amyloid positron emission tomography imaging were correlated, suggesting that either modality could be used to confirm the presence of cerebral amyloidopathy and identify PDAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00890890.

Estimating sample sizes for predementia Alzheimer's trials based on the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

This study modeled predementia Alzheimers disease clinical trials. Longitudinal data from cognitively normal (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants in the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative were used to calculate sample size requirements for trials using outcome measures, including the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes, Mini-Mental State Examination, Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale with and without delayed recall, and the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task. We examined the impact on sample sizes of enrichment for genetic and biomarker criteria, including cerebrospinal fluid protein and neuroimaging analyses. We observed little cognitive decline in the CN population at 36 months, regardless of the enrichment strategy. Nonetheless, in CN subjects, using Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Task total as an outcome at 36 months required the fewest subjects across enrichment strategies, with apolipoprotein E genotype ε4 carrier status requiring the fewest (n = 499 per arm to demonstrate a 25% reduction in disease progression). In MCI, enrichment reduced the required sample sizes for trials, relative to estimates based on all subjects. For MCI, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale sum of boxes consistently required the smallest sample sizes. We conclude that predementia clinical trial conduct in Alzheimers disease is enhanced by the use of biomarker inclusion criteria.

Unmet Needs of Caregivers of Individuals Referred to a Dementia Care Program

To characterize caregiver strain, depressive symptoms, and self‐efficacy for managing dementia‐related problems and the relationship between these and referring provider type.

Development of a process to disclose amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal older adult research participants

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to develop a process to maximize the safety and effectiveness of disclosing Positron Emission Tomography (PET) amyloid imaging results to cognitively normal older adults participating in Alzheimer’s disease secondary prevention studies such as the Anti-Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer’s Disease (A4) Study.MethodsUsing a modified Delphi Method to develop consensus on best practices, we gathered and analyzed data over three rounds from experts in two relevant fields: informed consent for genetic testing or human amyloid imaging.ResultsExperts reached consensus on (1) text for a brochure that describes amyloid imaging to a person who is considering whether to undergo such imaging in the context of a clinical trial, and (2) a process for amyloid PET result disclosure within such trials. Recommendations included: During consent, potential participants should complete an educational session, where they receive verbal and written information covering what is known and unknown about amyloid imaging, including possible results and their meaning, implications of results for risk of future cognitive decline, and information about Alzheimer’s and risk factors. Participants should be screened for anxiety and depression to determine suitability to receive amyloid imaging information. The person conducting the sessions should check comprehension and be skilled in communication and recognizing distress. Imaging should occur on a separate day from consent, and disclosure on a separate day from imaging. Disclosure should occur in person, with time for questions. At disclosure, investigators should assess mood and willingness to receive results, and provide a written results report. Telephone follow-up within a few days should assess the impact of disclosure, and periodic scheduled assessments of depression and anxiety, with additional monitoring and follow-up for participants showing distress, should be performed.ConclusionsWe developed a document for use with potential study participants to describe the process of amyloid imaging and the implications of amyloid imaging results; and a disclosure process with attention to ongoing monitoring of both mood and safety to receive this information. This document and process will be used in the A4 Study and can be adapted for other research settings.

Multilocus genetic profiling to empower drug trials and predict brain atrophy

Designers of clinical trials for Alzheimers disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are actively considering structural and functional neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid and genetic biomarkers to reduce the sample sizes needed to detect therapeutic effects. Genetic pre-selection, however, has been limited to Apolipoprotein E (ApoE). Recently discovered polymorphisms in the CLU, CR1 and PICALM genes are also moderate risk factors for AD; each affects lifetime AD risk by ~ 10–20%. Here, we tested the hypothesis that pre-selecting subjects based on these variants along with ApoE genotype would further boost clinical trial power, relative to considering ApoE alone, using an MRI-derived 2-year atrophy rate as our outcome measure. We ranked subjects from the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) based on their cumulative risk from these four genes. We obtained sample size estimates in cohorts enriched in subjects with greater aggregate genetic risk. Enriching for additional genetic biomarkers reduced the required sample sizes by up to 50%, for MCI trials. Thus, AD drug trial enrichment with multiple genotypes may have potential implications for the timeliness, cost, and power of trials.

Effect of study partner on the conduct of Alzheimer disease clinical trials

Objective: Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia clinical trials require 2 participants: a patient and a study partner. We assessed the prevalence of study partner types and how these types associate with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: Retrospective analyses of 6 Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) randomized clinical trials were conducted. Study partners were categorized as spouse, adult child, or other. Prevalence of study partner type and associations between study partner type and trial outcomes including study completion and placebo decline on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale, the Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of the Boxes score, and the ADCS–Activities of Daily Living were examined. Results: More participants (67%) enrolled with spouses than adult children (26%) or other study partners (7%). Participants with spouse partners had a lower dropout rate (25%) than those with adult child (32%) or other study partners (34%); only the difference vs others was statistically significant. Participants with adult child and other partners randomized to placebo performed worse at baseline than those with spouse partners on the ADCS–Activities of Daily Living (p = 0.04), but were not different at 18 months. There were no differences at baseline for the Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating scale Sum of the Boxes score, or Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale. In multivariate models of the rates of change over time among placebo participants, no differences among study partner groups reached statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients with nonspouse caregivers less frequently participate in AD dementia trials. Increased enrollment of AD patients with nonspouse caregivers may require additional recruitment and retention strategies.

Risk disclosure and preclinical Alzheimer's disease clinical trial enrollment

To identify the facilitators and barriers to preclinical Alzheimers disease (AD) clinical trial recruitment, 50 cognitively normal participants were interviewed after being randomized to one of two hypothetical AD risk scenarios: (1) the general age‐related risk for AD, or (2) being at 50% increased risk for AD. Participants provided uncued barriers and facilitators to the hypothetical decision of whether they would enroll. Thirteen themes of facilitators and five themes of barriers were identified. The most common barrier was fear related to taking study drug. Those randomized to being at increased risk for AD more frequently cited lowering personal risk as a facilitator (P = .01) and less frequently cited time as a barrier to enrollment (P = .02). These results suggest potential challenges to preclinical AD clinical trial recruitment and that disclosing risk information may enhance enrollment.

Choosing Alzheimer's disease prevention clinical trial populations

To assist investigators in making design choices, we modeled Alzheimers disease prevention clinical trials. We used longitudinal Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes data, retention rates, and the proportions of trial-eligible cognitively normal participants age 65 and older in the National Alzheimers Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set to model trial sample sizes, the numbers needed to enroll to account for drop out, and the numbers needed to screen to successfully complete enrollment. We examined how enrichment strategies affected each component of the model. Relative to trials enrolling 65-year-old individuals, trials enriching for older (minimum 70 or 75) age required reduced sample sizes, numbers needed to enroll, and numbers needed to screen. Enriching for subjective memory complaints reduced sample sizes and numbers needed to enroll more than age enrichment, but increased the number needed to screen. We conclude that Alzheimers disease prevention trials can enroll elderly participants with minimal effect on trial retention and that enriching for older individuals with memory complaints might afford efficient trial designs.