Value-Generating Exploratory Trials in Neurodegenerative Dementias

Abstract

Drug development for Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative dementias, including frontotemporal dementia, has experienced a long history of phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials that failed to show efficacy of investigational drugs. Despite differences in clinical and behavioral characteristics, these disorders have shared pathologies and common challenges in designing early-phase trials that are predictive of late-stage success. Here, we discuss exploratory clinical trials in neurodegenerative dementias. These are generally phase 1b or phase 2a trials that are designed to assess pharmacologic effects and rely on biomarker outcomes, with shorter treatment durations and fewer patients than traditional phase 2 studies. Exploratory trials can establish go/no-go decision points, support proof-of-concept and dose selection, and terminate drugs that fail to show target engagement with suitable exposure and acceptable safety profiles. Early failure saves valuable resources including opportunity costs. This is especially important for programs in academia and small biotechnology companies but may be applied to high-risk projects in large pharmaceutical companies to achieve proof-of-concept more rapidly at lower costs than traditional approaches. Exploratory studies in a staged clinical development program may provide promising data to warrant the substantial resources needed to advance compounds through late-stage development. To optimize the design and application of exploratory trials, the Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation and the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration convened an advisory panel to provide recommendations on outcome measures and statistical considerations for these types of studies and study designs that can improve efficiency in clinical development.

Effect of Concurrent Use of Memantine on the Efficacy of Masupirdine (SUVN-502): A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 2 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

“…The effect sizes of 0.52 (50 mg) and 0.35 (100 mg) suggest a clinically meaningful impact of therapy. Effect sizes may be more appropriate for analyses of this type involving small patient populations than p values [ 22 ].…”

Effect of Age, Cognitive Impairment Severity, and Duration of Disease on Efficacy of Masupirdine in Moderate Alzheimer's Disease Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase-2 Randomized Placebo Controlled Study Results

“…Effect sizes can often be informative in small population analyses. 26 The effect size of 0.2 is considered as a minimal efficacy signal. 14 Therefore, we considered effect size of ~0.2 as a positive signal/trend for these post hoc observations.…”

On the design of early-phase Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials with cerebrospinal fluid tau outcomes

“…To do this, trials must be designed carefully and ensure that proper outcomes are used, for example, as recommended by the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation and the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration. 36 This in itself is a difficult task because complete understanding of disease pathophysiology and determination of the correct therapeutic targets remain areas of active investigation. Numerous lines of evidence point to neurofibrillary tangles as ideal therapeutic targets.…”