Book contents
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Advancing Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies in a Collaborative Science Ecosystem
- Section 2 Non-clinical Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Candidate Drugs
- Section 3 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 11 Phase 1 Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 12 The Importance of Phase 2 in Drug Development for Alzheimer’s Disease
- 13 Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development in Pharmaceutical Companies
- 14 Trial Site Infrastructure and Management: Importance to Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 15 ATRI and ACTC: Academic Programs to Accelerate Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 16 The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease Program: A Public–Private Partnership to Facilitate the Secondary Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia
- 17 The Global Alzheimer’s Platform Foundation®: Delivering New Medicines Faster by Accelerating Clinical Trials
- 18 Clinical Trial Development in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration
- 19 Statistical Considerations in the Design and Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 20 Alzheimer’s Disease Trial Recruitment and Diversifying Trial Populations
- 21 The Role of Online Registries in Accelerating Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 22 Data Safety Monitoring Boards in Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 23 Globalization of Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 24 The Use and Development of Clinical Measures of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 25 Tele-Trials, Remote Monitoring, and Trial Technology for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 26 Expanded Access and Compassionate Use in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 27 The Role of the Contract Research Organization in Alzheimer’s Disease: The Vital Link in the Clinical Drug-Development Program
- 28 The Role of Regulatory Agencies in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 29 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Study Partners
- 30 From Trials to Practice: Are We Ready for a Disease-Modifying Treatment?
- 31 Best Practices for Clinical Trials during COVID-19
- Section 4 Imaging and Biomarker Development in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Discovery
- Section 5 Academic Drug-Development Programs
- Section 6 Public–Private Partnerships in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Section 7 Funding and Financing Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Index
- References
12 - The Importance of Phase 2 in Drug Development for Alzheimer’s Disease
from Section 3 - Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2022
Book contents
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Advancing Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies in a Collaborative Science Ecosystem
- Section 2 Non-clinical Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Candidate Drugs
- Section 3 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 11 Phase 1 Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 12 The Importance of Phase 2 in Drug Development for Alzheimer’s Disease
- 13 Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development in Pharmaceutical Companies
- 14 Trial Site Infrastructure and Management: Importance to Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 15 ATRI and ACTC: Academic Programs to Accelerate Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 16 The European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease Program: A Public–Private Partnership to Facilitate the Secondary Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia
- 17 The Global Alzheimer’s Platform Foundation®: Delivering New Medicines Faster by Accelerating Clinical Trials
- 18 Clinical Trial Development in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration
- 19 Statistical Considerations in the Design and Analysis of Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 20 Alzheimer’s Disease Trial Recruitment and Diversifying Trial Populations
- 21 The Role of Online Registries in Accelerating Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 22 Data Safety Monitoring Boards in Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 23 Globalization of Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 24 The Use and Development of Clinical Measures of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 25 Tele-Trials, Remote Monitoring, and Trial Technology for Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- 26 Expanded Access and Compassionate Use in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 27 The Role of the Contract Research Organization in Alzheimer’s Disease: The Vital Link in the Clinical Drug-Development Program
- 28 The Role of Regulatory Agencies in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- 29 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Study Partners
- 30 From Trials to Practice: Are We Ready for a Disease-Modifying Treatment?
- 31 Best Practices for Clinical Trials during COVID-19
- Section 4 Imaging and Biomarker Development in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Discovery
- Section 5 Academic Drug-Development Programs
- Section 6 Public–Private Partnerships in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Section 7 Funding and Financing Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Index
- References
Summary
Phase 2 in drug development is a crucial phase that can make or break success. The goals in Phase 2 are to determine safety, dosage and efficacy. In this chapter elements of planning, design, biomarker use and clinical outcomes are highlighted and some good and bad examples are given, emphasizing the importance of conducting a proper Phase 2.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Alzheimer's Disease Drug DevelopmentResearch and Development Ecosystem, pp. 150 - 161Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Blass, BE. Basic Principles of Drug Discovery and Development. Boston, MA: Academic Press; 2015.Google Scholar
Yuan, J, Pang, H, Tong, T, et al. Seamless Phase IIa/IIb and enhanced dose-finding adaptive design. J Biopharm Stat 2016; 26: 912–23.Google Scholar
Cummings, J, Ritter, A, Zhong, K. Clinical trials for disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer’s disease: a primer, lessons learned, and a blueprint for the future. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 64: S3–22.Google Scholar
Jack, CR Jr., Bennett, DA, Blennow, K, et al. NIA–AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 535–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J, Feldman, HH, Scheltens, P. The “rights” of precision drug development for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, P, Kieser, M. Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1833–48.Google Scholar
Scheltens, P, De Strooper, B, Kivipelto, M, et al. Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 2021; 397: 1577–90.Google Scholar
Molinuevo, JL, Ayton, S, Batrla, R, et al. Current state of Alzheimer’s fluid biomarkers. Acta Neuropathol 2018; 136: 821–53.Google Scholar
National Institute on Aging, Alzheimer’s Association. International Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research Portfolio: Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Research Ontology (CADRO). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2020.Google Scholar
Cummings, J, Lee, G, Ritter, A, Sabbagh, M, Zhong, K. Alzheimer’s disease drug development pipeline: 2020. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12050.Google Scholar
de Wilde, A, Reimand, J, Teunissen, CE, et al. Discordant amyloid-β PET and CSF biomarkers and its clinical consequences. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 78–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reimand, J, Boon, BDC, Collij, LE, et al. Amyloid-β PET and CSF in an autopsy-confirmed cohort. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2020; 7: 2150–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevigny, J, Chiao, P, Bussière, T, et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Aβ plaques in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 2016; 537: 50–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golla, SS, Wolters, EE, Timmers, T, et al. Parametric methods for 18[F]flortaucipir PET. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40: 365–73.Google Scholar
Wolters, EE, Ossenkoppele, R, Verfaillie, SCJ, et al. Regional 18[F]flortaucipir PET is more closely associated with disease severity than CSF p-tau in Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2020; 47: 2866–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Scheltens, NME, Briels, CT, Yaqub, M, et al. Exploring effects of souvenaid on cerebral glucose metabolism in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 492–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soininen, H, Solomon, A, Visser, PJ, et al. 36-month LipiDiDiet multinutrient clinical trial in prodromal Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2021; 17: 29–40.Google Scholar
Bennet, CF, Krainer, AR, Cleveland, DW. Antisense oligonucleotide therapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Annu Rev Neurosci 2019; 42: 385–406.Google Scholar
Babiloni, C, Blinowska, K, Bonanni, L, et al. What electrophysiology tells us about Alzheimer’s disease: a window into the synchronization and connectivity of brain neurons. Neurobiol Aging 2020; 85: 58–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busche, MA, Chen, X, Henning, AH, et al. Critical role of soluble amyloid-β for early hippocampal hyperactivity in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2012; 109: 8740–5.Google Scholar
Palop, JJ, Mucke, L. Network abnormalities and interneuron dysfunction in Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016; 17: 777–92.Google Scholar
Engels, M, Hillebrand, A, van der Flier, WM, et al. Slowing of hippocampal activity correlates with cognitive decline in early onset Alzheimer’s disease. An MEG study with virtual electrodes. Front Hum Neurosci 2016; 10: 238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Straaten, EC, Scheltens, P, Gouw, AA, Stam, CJ. Eyes-closed task-free electroencephalography in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s disease: an emerging method based upon brain dynamics. Alzheimers Res Ther 2014; 6: 86–92.Google Scholar
Gouw, AA, Alsema, AM, Tijms, BM, et al. EEG spectral analysis as a putative early prognostic biomarker in nondemented, amyloid positive subjects. Neurobiol Aging 2017; 57: 133–42.Google Scholar
Rossini, PM, Di Iorio, R, Vecchio, F, et al. Early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: the role of biomarkers including advanced EEG signal analysis. Report from the IFCN-sponsored panel of experts. Clin Neurophysiol 2020; 131: 1287–310.Google Scholar
Scheltens, P, Hallikainen, M, Grimmer, T, et al. Safety, tolerability and efficacy of the glutaminyl cyclase inhibitor PQ912 in Alzheimer’s disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 107–12.Google Scholar
Briels, CT, Stam, CJ, Scheltens, P, et al. In pursuit of a sensitive EEG functional connectivity outcome measure for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Neurophysiol 2020; 131: 88–95.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. Early Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for Treatment. Guidance for Industry. US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); 2018.Google Scholar
Prinsen, CA, Vohra, S, Rose, MR, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set”: a practical guideline. Trials 2016; 17: 449.Google Scholar
Jutten, RJ, Sikkes, SAM, Amariglio, RE, et al. Identifying sensitive measures of cognitive decline at different clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2020; 27: 1–13.Google Scholar
Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google Scholar
Galasko, D, Bennett, D, Sano, M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: S33–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guy, W. Clinical Global Impressions. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology – Revised. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of Mental Health, Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs; 1976: 218–22.Google Scholar
Williams, MM, Storandt, M, Roe, CM, Morris, JC. Progression of Alzheimer’s disease as measured by Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9: S39–44.Google Scholar
Evans, S, McRae-McKee, K, Wong, MM, et al. The importance of endpoint selection: How effective does a drug need to be for success in a clinical trial of a possible Alzheimer’s disease treatment? Eur J Epidemiol 2018; 33: 635–44.Google Scholar
Donohue, MC, Sperling, RA, Salmon, DP, et al. The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol 2014; 71: 961–70.Google Scholar
Langbaum, JB, Hendrix, SB, Ayutyanont, N, et al. An empirically derived composite cognitive test score with improved power to track and evaluate treatments for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2014; 10: 666–74.Google Scholar
Wang, J, Logovinsky, V, Hendrix, SB, et al. ADCOMS: a composite clinical outcome for prodromal Alzheimer’s disease trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016; 87: 993–9.Google Scholar
Jutten, RJ, Harrison, JE, Brunner, AJ, et al. The cognitive-functional composite is sensitive to clinical progression in early dementia: longitudinal findings from the Catch-Cog study cohort. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: e12020.Google Scholar
Reimers, S, Stewart, N. Presentation and response timing accuracy in Adobe Flash and HTML5/JavaScript web experiments. Behav Res Methods 2015; 47: 309–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilder, RM, Reise, SP. Neuropsychological tests of the future: how do we get there from here? Clin Neuropsychologist 2019; 33: 220–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sikkes, SA, Knol, DL, Pijnenburg, YA, et al. Validation of the Amsterdam IADL Questionnaire©, a new tool to measure instrumental activities of daily living in dementia. Neuroepidemiology 2013; 41: 35–41.Google Scholar
Gold, M, Amatniek, J, Carrillo, MC, et al. Digital technologies as biomarkers, clinical outcomes assessment, and recruitment tools in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2018; 4: 234–42.Google Scholar
Buckley, RF, Sparks, KP, Papp, KV, et al. Computerized cognitive testing for use in clinical trials: a comparison of the NIH toolbox and Cogstate C3 batteries. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2017; 4: 3–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Rentz, DM, Dekhtyar, M, Sherman, J, et al. The feasibility of at-home iPad cognitive testing for use in clinical trials. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2016; 3: 8–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Koo, BM, Vizer, LM. Mobile technology for cognitive assessment of older adults: a scoping review. Innov Aging 2019; 3: igy038.Google Scholar
Sliwinski, MJ, Mogle, JA, Hyun, J, et al. Reliability and validity of ambulatory cognitive assessments. Assessment 2018; 25: 14–30.Google Scholar
Gray, JA, Fleet, D, Winblad, B. The need for thorough Phase II studies in medicines development for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2015; 7: 67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cummings, J, Morstorf, T, Lee, G. Alzheimer’s drug-development pipeline: 2016. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2016; 2: 222–32.Google Scholar
Cole, MA, Seabrook, GR. On the horizon: the value and promise of the global pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2020; 6: 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Sabbagh, M, Hendrix, S, Harrison, JE. FDA position statement “early Alzheimer disease: developing drugs for treatment, guidance for industry”. Alzheimers Dement (N Y) 2019; 5: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed