User login
and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.
The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.
The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.
“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.
Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.
While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.
“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.
The report was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
A proactive measure
The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.
“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.
The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.
They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.
In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.
“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
‘Quality of mind’
Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.
“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.
“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”
Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.
“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
More evidence needed
The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.
“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”
However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.
As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.
“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”
The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.
The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.
The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.
“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.
Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.
While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.
“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.
The report was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
A proactive measure
The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.
“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.
The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.
They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.
In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.
“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
‘Quality of mind’
Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.
“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.
“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”
Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.
“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
More evidence needed
The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.
“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”
However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.
As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.
“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”
The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
and may be a more realistic goal for clinical AD drug trials, a new report suggests.
The report is a yearlong undertaking by an expert work group convened by the Alzheimer’s Association and was prompted, in part, by the fallout from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s controversial decision to grant aducanumab (Aduhelm) accelerated approval, which came over the objection of an advisory panel that found the drug was ineffective.
The report’s authors call for a “reframing” of how researchers define “clinically meaningful” in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), noting that it’s time to adjust expectations of outcomes from relatively short clinical trials.
“Without lowering the bar, are we expecting too much from a clinical trial by expecting that unless the disease is halted in its tracks and there’s no progression, we failed at treatment?” the report’s lead author and group leader Ronald C. Petersen, MD, PhD, lead author, chair of the work group, and professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., told this news organization.
Interpretations of clinical meaningfulness are used in the drug approval process and in decisions about whether an insurer will cover the cost of treatment, the authors note.
While the report doesn’t provide a consensus definition of clinically meaningful benefit, it does offer a starting point for a conversation about how the phrase should be defined in the context of RCTs for disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) in AD, Dr. Petersen said.
“What we tried to do was to put it into some kind of perspective and at least have people reflect on this: If you’re going to design the perfect drug trial in Alzheimer’s disease, what would it be? We wanted to get people to think about it without digging in their heels for or against,” he added.
The report was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer’s Association.
A proactive measure
The expert group began its work in January 2022, less than a year after the FDA approved aducanumab. Since the panel began its work, the FDA has approved a second AD drug, lecanemab (Leqembi), and denied accelerated approval of a third medication, donanemab.
“At the time we started this group, we had one approved treatment, and we just knew that there were others on the way, and we needed to be prepared to have this conversation and be more proactive than reactive,” Christopher Weber, PhD, director of global science initiatives for the Alzheimer’s Association and co-author of the report, said in an interview.
The work group suggests that simply slowing disease progression might be a desired goal for drug trials, especially early on, before cognition and memory are affected.
They also note that a benefit identified during an 18-month clinical trial may ultimately lead to even more meaningful changes over coming years, well beyond the trial’s end.
In addition, the report authors call for the development of better research tools to more accurately assess meaningful change. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale is currently the key instrument used as a primary outcome measure in RCTs. However, the report’s authors note that it may not be adequate to measure meaningful change in early-stage disease.
“Developing better tools certainly should be on the radar screen for all of us, because I think we can do better,” Dr. Petersen said. “The CDR, as good as it is and as long as it’s been used in the field, is a pretty blunt instrument, and it’s the result of subjective ratings.”
‘Quality of mind’
Jason Karlawish, MD, professor of medicine, medical ethics, health policy, and neurology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said measuring the actual impact of a drug on a patient’s disease and quality of life has been a hot topic in the AD field for some time, but settling on a definition of “clinically meaningful” that everyone agrees upon will be a challenge.
“I think the idea of ‘clinically meaningful’ is truly a socially constructed idea,” said Dr. Karlawish, co-director of Penn’s Memory Center, who did not work on the report.
“You can come up with objective measures of cognition, but a measure to call something ‘clinically meaningful’ ultimately requires some sort of negotiated social order among clinicians and patients and others who have immediate interest in the health and well-being of the patient.”
Dr. Karlawish added that he’s interested in the conversations the report might prompt and the challenges it could highlight, especially when it comes to how meaningful clinical benefit can be measured, regardless of how it’s defined.
“Hidden in this conversation about clinically meaningful treatments in Alzheimer’s disease is, frankly, not quality of life, but quality of mind,” said Dr. Karlawish. “No measure captures acceptably the very thing that everyone actually cares a lot about and why we view this disease as so dreadful, which is damage to our mind.”
More evidence needed
The development of such tools will take time. What does that mean for drugs already in the pipeline? Members of the work group argue that those trials must move forward at the same time new tools are being created.
“We need to continue to refine, develop better instruments, [and] develop tools that are going to assess the disease in its more subtle features early on, even in the so-called ‘pre-symptomatic’ stage of the disease,” said lead author Dr. Petersen. “We shouldn’t wait for the development of that before intervening if we have a drug that seems to work.”
However, not everyone who agrees with the premise of the report agrees with this position, including Joel S. Perlmutter, MD, professor of neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who also commented on the report.
As reported by this news organization, Dr. Perlmutter was one of three physicians who resigned from the FDA advisory panel that voted against approving aducanumab after the agency moved forward anyway.
“We have to be careful not to recommend DMTs that we hope will help without strong evidence, especially when potential side effects are not trivial,” Dr. Perlmutter said. “We have to have evidence before making these recommendations so we don’t end up harming people more than helping them.”
The report received no specific funding. Dr. Petersen received consulting fees from Roche, Nestle, Merck, Biogen, Eisai, and Genentech. Full disclosures are included in the original article. Dr. Perlmutter and Dr. Karlawish report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ALZHEIMER’S AND DEMENTIA