Rema Raman

Phase 3 Trials of Solanezumab for Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog11; range, 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment) and the Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; range, 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater impairment), in patients with mild Alzheimers 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 Alzheimers disease (95% CI, -3.5 to 0.1; P=0.06) and -1.5 in patients with moderate Alzheimers 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.).

A Phase 3 Trial of Semagacestat for Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND Alzheimers disease is characterized by the presence of cortical amyloid-beta (Aβ) protein plaques, which result from the sequential action of β-secretase and γ-secretase on amyloid precursor protein. Semagacestat is a small-molecule γ-secretase inhibitor that was developed as a potential treatment for Alzheimers disease. METHODS We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 1537 patients with probable Alzheimers disease underwent randomization to receive 100 mg of semagacestat, 140 mg of semagacestat, or placebo daily. Changes in cognition from baseline to week 76 were assessed with the use of the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale for cognition (ADAS-cog), on which scores range from 0 to 70 and higher scores indicate greater cognitive impairment, and changes in functioning were assessed with the Alzheimers Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale, on which scores range from 0 to 78 and higher scores indicate better functioning. A mixed-model repeated-measures analysis was used. RESULTS The trial was terminated before completion on the basis of a recommendation by the data and safety monitoring board. At termination, there were 189 patients in the group receiving placebo, 153 patients in the group receiving 100 mg of semagacestat, and 121 patients in the group receiving 140 mg of semagacestat. The ADAS-cog scores worsened in all three groups (mean change, 6.4 points in the placebo group, 7.5 points in the group receiving 100 mg of the study drug, and 7.8 points in the group receiving 140 mg; P=0.15 and P=0.07, respectively, for the comparison with placebo). The ADCS-ADL scores also worsened in all groups (mean change at week 76, -9.0 points in the placebo group, -10.5 points in the 100-mg group, and -12.6 points in the 140-mg group; P=0.14 and P<0.001, respectively, for the comparison with placebo). Patients treated with semagacestat lost more weight and had more skin cancers and infections, treatment discontinuations due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (P<0.001 for all comparisons with placebo). Laboratory abnormalities included reduced levels of lymphocytes, T cells, immunoglobulins, albumin, total protein, and uric acid and elevated levels of eosinophils, monocytes, and cholesterol; the urine pH was also elevated. CONCLUSIONS As compared with placebo, semagacestat did not improve cognitive status, and patients receiving the higher dose had significant worsening of functional ability. Semagacestat was associated with more adverse events, including skin cancers and infections. (Funded by Eli Lilly; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00594568.)

Docosahexaenoic acid supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease: A randomized trial

CONTEXT Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is the most abundant long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid in the brain. Epidemiological studies suggest that consumption of DHA is associated with a reduced incidence of Alzheimer disease. Animal studies demonstrate that oral intake of DHA reduces Alzheimer-like brain pathology. OBJECTIVE To determine if supplementation with DHA slows cognitive and functional decline in individuals with Alzheimer disease. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of DHA supplementation in individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (Mini-Mental State Examination scores, 14-26) was conducted between November 2007 and May 2009 at 51 US clinical research sites of the Alzheimers Disease Cooperative Study. INTERVENTION Participants were randomly assigned to algal DHA at a dose of 2 g/d or to identical placebo (60% were assigned to DHA and 40% were assigned to placebo). Duration of treatment was 18 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Change in the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) and change in the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) sum of boxes. Rate of brain atrophy was also determined by volumetric magnetic resonance imaging in a subsample of participants (n = 102). RESULTS A total of 402 individuals were randomized and a total of 295 participants completed the trial while taking study medication (DHA: 171; placebo: 124). Supplementation with DHA had no beneficial effect on rate of change on ADAS-cog score, which increased by a mean of 7.98 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.51-9.45 points) for the DHA group during 18 months vs 8.27 points (95% CI, 6.72-9.82 points) for the placebo group (linear mixed-effects model: P = .41). The CDR sum of boxes score increased by 2.87 points (95% CI, 2.44-3.30 points) for the DHA group during 18 months compared with 2.93 points (95% CI, 2.44-3.42 points) for the placebo group (linear mixed-effects model: P = .68). In the subpopulation of participants (DHA: 53; placebo: 49), the rate of brain atrophy was not affected by treatment with DHA. Individuals in the DHA group had a mean decline in total brain volume of 24.7 cm(3) (95% CI, 21.4-28.0 cm(3)) during 18 months and a 1.32% (95% CI, 1.14%-1.50%) volume decline per year compared with 24.0 cm(3) (95% CI, 20-28 cm(3)) for the placebo group during 18 months and a 1.29% (95% CI, 1.07%-1.51%) volume decline per year (P = .79). CONCLUSION Supplementation with DHA compared with placebo did not slow the rate of cognitive and functional decline in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00440050.

Phase 2 Safety Trial Targeting Amyloid β Production With a γ-Secretase Inhibitor in Alzheimer Disease

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and amyloid beta (Abeta) response to the gamma-secretase inhibitor LY450139 in Alzheimer disease. DESIGN Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, dose-escalation, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING Community-based clinical research centers. Patients Fifty-one individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease were randomized to receive placebo (n=15) or LY450139 (100 mg [n=22] or 140 mg [n=14]), with 43 completing the treatment phase. Intervention The LY450139 groups received 60 mg/d for 2 weeks, then 100 mg/d for 6 weeks, and then either 100 or 140 mg/d for 6 additional weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome measures were adverse events, plasma and cerebrospinal fluid Abeta levels, vital signs, electrocardiographic data, and laboratory safety test results. Secondary outcome measures included the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale and the Alzheimers Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale. RESULTS Group differences were seen in skin and subcutaneous tissue concerns (P=.05), including 3 possible drug rashes and 3 reports of hair color change in the treatment groups. There were 3 adverse event-related discontinuations, including 1 transient bowel obstruction. The plasma Abeta(40) concentration was reduced by 58.2% for the 100-mg group and 64.6% for the 140-mg group (P<.001). No significant reduction was seen in cerebrospinal fluid Abeta levels. No group differences were seen in cognitive or functional measures. CONCLUSIONS LY450139 was generally well tolerated at doses of up to 140 mg/d for 14 weeks, with several findings indicating the need for close clinical monitoring in future studies. Decreases in plasma Abeta concentrations were consistent with inhibition of gamma-secretase. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00244322.

Efficacy of site-independent telemedicine in the STRokE DOC trial: a randomised, blinded, prospective study

BACKGROUND To increase the effective use of thrombolytics for acute stroke, the expertise of vascular neurologists must be disseminated more widely. We prospectively assessed whether telemedicine (real-time, two-way audio and video, and digital imaging and communications in medicine [DICOM] interpretation) or telephone was superior for decision making in acute telemedicine consultations. METHODS From January, 2004, to August, 2007, patients older than 18 years who presented with acute stroke symptoms at one of four remote spoke sites were randomly assigned, through a web-based, permuted blocks system, to telemedicine or telephone consultation to assess their suitability for treatment with thrombolytics, on the basis of standard criteria. The primary outcome measure was whether the decision to give thrombolytic treatment was correct, as determined by central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were the rate of thrombolytic use, 90-day functional outcomes (Barthel index [BI] and modified Rankin scale [mRS]), the incidence of intracerebral haemorrhages, and technical observations. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00283868. FINDINGS 234 patients were assessed prospectively. 111 patients were randomised to telemedicine, and 111 patients were randomised to telephone consultation; 207 completed the study. Mean National Institutes of Health stroke scale score at presentation was 9.5 (SD 8.1) points (11.4 [8.7] points in the telemedicine group versus 7.7 [7.0] points in the telephone group; p=0.002). One telemedicine consultation was aborted for technical reasons, although it was included in the analyses. Correct treatment decisions were made more often in the telemedicine group than in the telephone group (108 [98%] vs 91 [82%], odds ratio [OR] 10.9, 95% CI 2.7-44.6; p=0.0009). Intravenous thrombolytics were used at an overall rate of 25% (31 [28%] telemedicine vs 25 [23%] telephone, 1.3, 0.7-2.5; p=0.43). 90-day functional outcomes were not different for BI (95-100) (0.6, 0.4-1.1; p=0.13) or for mRS score (0.6, 0.3-1.1; p=0.09). There was no difference in mortality (1.6, 0.8-3.4; p=0.27) or rates of intracerebral haemorrhage after treatment with thrombolytics (2 [7%] telemedicine vs 2 [8%] telephone, 0.8, 0.1-6.3; p=1.0). However, there were more incomplete data in the telephone group than in the telemedicine group (12%vs 3%, 0.2, 0.1-0.3; p=0.0001). INTERPRETATION The authors of this trial report that stroke telemedicine consultations result in more accurate decision making compared with telephone consultations and can serve as a model for the effectiveness of telemedicine in other medical specialties. The more appropriate decisions, high rates of thrombolysis use, improved data collection, low rate of intracerebral haemorrhage, low technical complications, and favourable time requirements all support the efficacy of telemedicine for making treatment decisions, and might enable more practitioners to use this medium in daily stroke care.

Intravenous Thrombolysis Plus Hypothermia for Acute Treatment of Ischemic Stroke (ICTuS-L) Final Results

Background and Purpose— Induced hypothermia is a promising neuroprotective therapy. We studied the feasibility and safety of hypothermia and thrombolysis after acute ischemic stroke. Methods— Intravenous Thrombolysis Plus Hypothermia for Acute Treatment of Ischemic Stroke (ICTuS-L) was a randomized, multicenter trial of hypothermia and intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in patients treated within 6 hours after ischemic stroke. Enrollment was stratified to the treatment time windows 0 to 3 and 3 to 6 hours. Patients presenting within 3 hours of symptom onset received standard dose intravenous alteplase and were randomized to undergo 24 hours of endovascular cooling to 33°C followed by 12 hours of controlled rewarming or normothermia treatment. Patients presenting between 3 and 6 hours were randomized twice: to receive tissue plasminogen activator or not and to receive hypothermia or not. Results– In total, 59 patients were enrolled. One patient was enrolled but not treated when pneumonia was discovered just before treatment. All 44 patients enrolled within 3 hours and 4 of 14 patients enrolled between 3 to 6 hours received tissue plasminogen activator. Overall, 28 patients randomized to receive hypothermia (HY) and 30 to normothermia (NT). Baseline demographics and risk factors were similar between groups. Mean age was 65.5±12.1 years and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 14.0±5.0; 32 (55%) were male. Cooling was achieved in all patients except 2 in whom there were technical difficulties. The median time to target temperature after catheter placement was 67 minutes (Quartile 1 57.3 to Quartile 3 99.4). At 3 months, 18% of patients treated with hypothermia had a modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 versus 24% in the normothermia groups (nonsignificant). Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 4 patients (68); all were treated with tissue plasminogen activator <3 hours (1 received hypothermia). Six patients in the hypothermia and 5 in the normothermia groups died within 90 days (nonsignificant). Pneumonia occurred in 14 patients in the hypothermia and in 3 of the normothermia groups (P=0.001). The pneumonia rate did not significantly adversely affect 3 month modified Rankin Scale score (P=0.32). Conclusion— This study demonstrates the feasibility and preliminary safety of combining endovascular hypothermia after stroke with intravenous thrombolysis. Pneumonia was more frequent after hypothermia, but further studies are needed to determine its effect on patient outcome and whether it can be prevented. A definitive efficacy trial is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic hypothermia for acute stroke.

Clinical core of the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative: Progress and plans

The Clinical Core of the Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) has provided clinical, operational, and data management support to ADNI since its inception. This article reviews the activities and accomplishments of the core in support of ADNI aims. These include the enrollment and follow‐up of more than 800 subjects in the three original cohorts: healthy controls, amnestic mild cognitive impairment (now referred to as late MCI, or LMCI), and mild Alzheimers disease (AD) in the first phase of ADNI (ADNI 1), with baseline longitudinal, clinical, and cognitive assessments. These data, when combined with genetic, neuroimaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, have provided important insights into the neurobiology of the AD spectrum. Furthermore, these data have facilitated the development of novel clinical trial designs. ADNI has recently been extended with funding from an NIH Grand Opportunities (GO) award, and the new ADNI GO phase has been launched; this includes the enrollment of a new cohort, called early MCI, with milder episodic memory impairment than the LMCI group. An application for a further 5 years of ADNI funding (ADNI 2) was recently submitted. This funding would support ongoing follow‐up of the original ADNI 1 and ADNI GO cohorts, as well as additional recruitment into all categories. The resulting data would provide valuable data on the earliest stages of AD, and support the development of interventions in these critically important populations.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resveratrol for Alzheimer disease.

Objective: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter 52-week phase 2 trial of resveratrol in individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) examined its safety and tolerability and effects on biomarker (plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42, CSF Aβ40, Aβ42, tau, and phospho-tau 181) and volumetric MRI outcomes (primary outcomes) and clinical outcomes (secondary outcomes). Methods: Participants (n = 119) were randomized to placebo or resveratrol 500 mg orally once daily (with dose escalation by 500-mg increments every 13 weeks, ending with 1,000 mg twice daily). Brain MRI and CSF collection were performed at baseline and after completion of treatment. Detailed pharmacokinetics were performed on a subset (n = 15) at baseline and weeks 13, 26, 39, and 52. Results: Resveratrol and its major metabolites were measurable in plasma and CSF. The most common adverse events were nausea, diarrhea, and weight loss. CSF Aβ40 and plasma Aβ40 levels declined more in the placebo group than the resveratrol-treated group, resulting in a significant difference at week 52. Brain volume loss was increased by resveratrol treatment compared to placebo. Conclusions: Resveratrol was safe and well-tolerated. Resveratrol and its major metabolites penetrated the blood–brain barrier to have CNS effects. Further studies are required to interpret the biomarker changes associated with resveratrol treatment. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with AD resveratrol is safe, well-tolerated, and alters some AD biomarker trajectories. The study is rated Class II because more than 2 primary outcomes were designated.

Objective changes in motor function during placebo treatment in PD.

Objective: To examine the frequency, temporal development, and stability of objectively derived motor changes during placebo treatment in PD and to define the clinical domains and demographic groups most affected. Background: Placebo effects are documented in neurology, but the timing and specific disabilities most susceptible to changes during placebo treatment in PD have not been examined. Methods: The authors examined the placebo-treated group from a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial of monotherapy ropinerole in PD patients without motor fluctuations. In 105 patients, they evaluated placebo-associated effects on the motor section of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), dividing the motor examination into four categories: tremor, bradykinesia, rigidity, and gait/balance/midline functions. The motor UPDRS and its subscales were compared over time (at baseline and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks) using Wilcoxon’s signed rank test. They applied a rigorous definition of placebo-associated improvement as an improvement over baseline score in motor UPDRS of at least 50% or a change in at least two motor items at any one visit by ≥2 points. Results: During the 6-month study, 16% of subjects improved on placebo treatment. The prevalence of response was steady (8 to 9%) at any one visit without a predominance of an early effect. No patient showed a placebo-associated improvement on all visits. All domains of parkinsonian disability were subject to placebo-associated improvement, with a trend toward more response in bradykinesia and rigidity than in tremor or gait/balance/midline function. Gender, age, disease duration, and baseline disability score did not influence the likelihood of improvement in association with placebo treatment. Conclusion: Based on a rigorous definition of placebo-associated improvement, prominent improvements in objective measures of PD disability occur during clinical trials. Because placebo-associated improvements occur throughout a 6-month trial, placebo-controlled studies in PD should be at least 6 months to capture early as well as late improvements.

Quetiapine for agitation or psychosis in patients with dementia and parkinsonism

Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine for agitation or psychosis in patients with dementia and parkinsonism. Methods: Multicenter randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel groups clinical trial involving 40 patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (n = 23), Parkinson disease (PD) with dementia (n = 9), or Alzheimer disease with parkinsonian features (n = 8). The main outcome measure for efficacy was change in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) from baseline to 10 weeks of therapy. For tolerability it was change in the Unified PD Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor section over the same time period. The trial was confounded by the need for a design change and incomplete recruitment. Results: No significant differences in the primary or secondary outcome measures of efficacy were observed. An unexpectedly large placebo effect, inadequate dosage (mean 120 mg/day), and inadequate power may have contributed to lack of demonstrable benefit. Quetiapine was generally well-tolerated and did not worsen parkinsonism, but was associated with a trend toward a decline on a measure of daily functioning. Conclusions: Quetiapine was well-tolerated and did not worsen parkinsonism. Although conclusions about efficacy may be limited, the drug in the dosages used did not show demonstrable benefit for treating agitation or psychosis in patients with dementia and parkinsonism. These findings are in keeping with prior studies reporting limited efficacy of various medications for reducing behavioral problems in demented patients.