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
24 - The Use and Development of Clinical Measures of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
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
The assessment of cognition is a key feature of study participant selection, evaluation, and characterisation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical drug trials. Measurement science requires using reliable, valid, and sensitive instruments for these purposes and typical trial measures, such as the ADAS-cog and MMSE, show adequate levels of reliability. Due to the absence of adequate indices of working memory, attention, and executive function, they cannot be considered valid tests. Further, scoring conventions and range restrictions limit their sensitivity. Hence a number of innovative solutions have been proposed and tested, with varying degrees of success. In this chapter we review critically cognitive measures such as the Neuropsychological Test Battery, the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status, and digital cognitive tests, such as those drawn from the CogState, CANTAB, and CDR systems. These measures are all considered with specific regard to issue of validity, assay sensitivity, and clinical relevance. We propose a methodology for establishing proof of concept for new chemical entities to rescue or preserve cognition in individuals living with AD.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Alzheimer's Disease Drug DevelopmentResearch and Development Ecosystem, pp. 281 - 291Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wesnes, KA, Harrison, JE. The evaluation of cognitive function in the dementias: methodological and regulatory considerations. Dialog Clin Neurosci 2003; 5: 77–88.Google Scholar
Hobart, J, Cano, S, Posner, H, et al. Putting the Alzheimer’s cognitive test to the test I: traditional psychometric methods. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9: S4–9.Google Scholar
Mohs, RC, Knopman, D, Petersen, RC, et al. Development of cognitive instruments for use in clinical trials of antidementia drugs: additions to the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale that broaden its scope. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 13–21.Google Scholar
Vellas, B, Andrieu, S, Sampaio, C, et al. Endpoints for trials in Alzheimer’s disease: a European task force consensus. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 436–50.Google Scholar
Ritchie, K, Ropacki, M, Albala, B, et al. Recommended cognitive outcomes in pre-clinical Alzheimer’s disease: consensus statement from the European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Dementia (EPAD) project. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: 186–95.Google Scholar
Podhorna, J, Krahnke, T, Shear, T, et al. Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – cognitive subscale variants in mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s disease: change over time and the effects of enrichment strategies. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8: 1–13.Google Scholar
Hendrix, S, Ellison, N. Are Alzheimer’s treatment failures due to inactive compounds or are we doing something wrong? Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13: P617.Google Scholar
Sevigny, JJ, Peng, Y, Liu, L, et al. Item analysis of ADAS-cog: effect of baseline cognitive impairment in a clinical AD trial. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen 2010; 25: 119–24.Google Scholar
Winblad, B, Gauthier, S, Scinto, L, et al. Safety and efficacy of galantamine in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 2008; 70: 2024–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hort, J, Andel, R, Mokrisova, I, et al. Effect of donepezil in Alzheimer disease can be measured by a computerized human analog of the Morris water maze. Neurodegener Dis 2014; 13: 192–6.Google Scholar
Hendrix, SB, Wells, BM, and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI).Time course of cognitive decline in subjects with mild Alzheimer’s disease based on ADAS-cog subscales and neuropsychological tests measured in ADNI. Alzheimers Dement 2010; 6: e50.Google Scholar
Gilman, S, Koller, M, Black, RS, et al. Clinical effects of Abeta immunisation (AN1792) in patients with AD in an interrupted trial. Neurology 2005; 64: 1553–62.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A, Ngandu, T, Rusanen, M, et al. Multidomain lifestyle intervention benefits a large elderly population at risk for cognitive decline and dementia regardless of baseline characteristics: the FINGER trial. Alzheimers Dement 2018; 14: 263–70.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Rentz, D, Brashear, HR, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the Neuropsychological Test Battery in individuals with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, or mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results from a longitudinal study. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2018; 5: 236–44.Google Scholar
European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the clinical investigation of medicines for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. CPMP/EWP/553/95 Rev.2 2018. Avaialable at: www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-clinical-investigation-medicines-treatment-alzheimers-disease-revision-2_en.pdf (accessed December 31, 2020).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
Leber, P. What is the evidence that a dementia treatment works? Criteria used by drug regulatory authorities. In Evidence-Based Dementia Practice, Qizilbash, N, Schneider, LS, Chui, H, et al. (eds.). Oxford: Blackwells; 2003: 376–87.Google Scholar
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry Alzheimer’s Disease: Developing Drugs for the Treatment of Early Stage Disease (FDA-2013-D-0077) Draft; 2013.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE. Cognition comes of age: comments on the new FDA draft guidance for early Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther 2018; 10: 61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szlyk, JP, Myers, L, Zhang, YX, et al. Development and assessment of a neuropsychological battery to aid in predicting driving performance. J Rehabil Res Dev 2002; 39: 483–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu-Seifert, H, Siemers, E, Selzler, K, et al. Correlation between cognition and function across the spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease. J Prev Alzheimers Dis 2016; 3: 138–44.Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, R. Presentation to the Alzheimer’s Association Research Roundtable Scales for Alzheimer’s Disease Meeting. April 2008, Washington, reported in R. Black, B. Greenberg, J.M. Ryan et al. Perspectives scales as outcome measures for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2009; 5: 324–39.Google Scholar
Harrison, J, Minassian, S, Jenkins, L, et al. A neuropsychological test battery for use in Alzheimer disease clinical trials. Arch Neurol 2007; 64: 1323–9.Google Scholar
Wessels, AM, Edgar, CJ, Nathan, PJ, et al. Cognitive go/no-go decision-making criteria in Alzheimer’s disease drug development. Drug Discov Today 2021; 26: 1330–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrison, JE, Bradford, E, Edgar, C, et al. Testing compounds which facilitate learning: a new proof of principle paradigm from CDR. XXV CINP Congress, Chicago, July 9–13, 2006.Google Scholar
McIntyre, RS, Harrison, JE, Loft, H, et al. The effects of vortioxetine on cognitive function in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD): a meta-analysis of three randomized controlled trials. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2016; 19: pyw055.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Lophaven, S, Olsen, CK. Which cognitive domains are improved by treatment with vortioxetine? Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2016; 9: pyw054.Google Scholar
Schneider, L, Goldberg, TE. Composite cognitive and functional measures for early stage Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement 2020; 12: e12017.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE. Commentary: composite cognitive and functional measures for early-stage Alzheimer’s disease trials. Alzheimers Dement: Cogn Behav Assess 2020; 12: 1–3.Google Scholar
Harrison, JE, Hendrix, SB. The assessment of cognition in translational medicine: A contrast between the approaches used in Alzheimer’s disease and major depressive disorder. In Translational Medicine in CNS Drug Development. Handbook of Behavioral Neuroscience, Volume 25, Nomikos G (ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019: 297–308.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jutten, RS, Harrison, JE, Lee Meeuw Kjoeet, PR, et al. Assessing cognition and daily function in early dementia using the Cognitive–Functional Composite: findings from the Catch–Cog study cohort. Alzheimers Res Ther 2019; 11: 45.Google Scholar
Ferris, SH, Lucca, U, Mohs, R, et al. Objective psychometric tests in clinical trials of dementia drugs. Position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alzheimers Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11: 34–8.Google Scholar
Lannfelt, L, Blennow, K, Zetterberg, H, et al. Targeting Aβ as a modifying therapy of Alzheimer’s disease: safety, efficacy and biomarker findings of a Phase IIa randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of PBT2. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7: 779–86.Google Scholar
Hilt, D, Gawryl, M, Koenig, G, et al. EVP-6124: safety, tolerability and cognitive effects of a novel A7 nicotinic receptor agonist in Alzheimer’s disease patients on stable donepezil or rivastigmine therapy. Alzheimers Dement 2009; 5: P4-348.Google Scholar
Scheltens, P, Twisk, JWR, Blesa, R, et al. Efficacy of souvenaid in mild Alzheimer’s disease: results from a randomized, controlled trial. J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 31: 225–36.Google Scholar
Nathan, PJ, Boardley, R, Scott, N, et al. The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of GSK239512, a selective histamine H₃ receptor antagonist in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a preliminary investigation. Curr Alzheimer Res 2013; 10: 240–51.Google Scholar
Grove, RA, Harrington, CM, Mahler, A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week study of the H3 receptor antagonist, GSK239512 as a monotherapy in subjects with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 2014; 11: 47–58.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.Google Scholar
Rockwood, K. Size of the treatment on cognition of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 677–85.Google Scholar
Cummings, J, Scheltens, P, McKeith, I, et al. Effect size analyses of souvenaid in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis 2016; 55: 1131–9.Google Scholar
Rockwood, K, Black, SE, Robillard, A, et al. Potential treatment effects of donepezil not detected in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: a physician survey. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 854–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, JE, Lam, R, Baune, BT, et al. Selection of cognitive tests for trials of therapeutic agents. Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 8: 1–13.Google Scholar