Explore the vast range of titles available.

Study Objectives: To identify dose(s) of lemborexant that maximize insomnia treatment efficacy while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness and evaluate lemborexant effects on polysomnography (PSG) measures (sleep efficiency [SE], latency to persistent sleep [LPS], and wake after sleep onset [WASO]) at the beginning and end of treatment. Methods: Adults and elderly subjects with insomnia disorder per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition were enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Bayesian, adaptive, parallel-group study, receiving lemborexant (1, 2.5, 5, 10, 15, 25 mg) or placebo for 15 nights. Efficacy assessments included a utility function that combined efficacy (SE) and safety (residual morning sleepiness as measured by Karolinska Sleepiness Scale [KSS]), PSG measures, and sleep diary. Safety assessments included KSS, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, computerized reaction time tests, and adverse events (AEs). Results: A total of 616 subjects were screened; 291 were randomized. Baseline characteristics were similar between lemborexant groups and placebo (∼63% female, median age: 49.0 years). The study was stopped for early success after the fifth interim analysis when the 15-mg dose met utility index/KSS criteria for success; 3 other doses also met the criteria. Compared with placebo, subjects showed significant improvements in SE, subjective SE, LPS, and subjective sleep onset latency at the beginning and end of treatment for lemborexant doses ≥ 5 mg ( P < .05). WASO and subjective WASO showed numerically greater improvements for doses > 1 mg. AEs, mostly mild to moderate, included dose-related somnolence. Conclusions: Lemborexant doses ranging from 2.5–10 mg provided efficacy for the treatment of insomnia while minimizing next-morning residual sleepiness. Clinical Trial Registration: Title: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Parallel-group, Bayesian Adaptive Randomization Design, Dose Response Study of the Efficacy of E2006 in Adults and Elderly Subjects With Chronic Insomnia; URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01995838 ; Identifier: NCT01995838 Citation: Murphy P, Moline M, Mayleben D, Rosenberg R, Zammit G, Pinner K, Dhadda S, Hong Q, Giorgi L, Satlin A. Lemborexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist (DORA) for the treatment of insomnia disorder: results from a Bayesian, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(11):1289–1299.

The aim of this study was to assess dual renin system intervention with the maximum recommended doses of aliskiren and valsartan, compared with each drug alone in patients with hypertension. In this double-blind study, 1797 patients with hypertension (mean sitting diastolic blood pressure 95–109 mm Hg and 8-h daytime ambulatory diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg) were randomly assigned to receive once-daily aliskiren 150 mg (n=437), valsartan 160 mg (455), a combination of aliskiren 150 mg and valsartan 160 mg (446), or placebo (459) for 4 weeks, followed by forced titration to double the dose to the maximum recommended dose for another 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline to week 8 endpoint. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the number NCT00219180. 196 (11%) patients discontinued study treatment before the end of the trial (63 in the placebo group, 53 in the aliskiren group, 43 in the valsartan group, and 37 in the aliskiren/valsartan group), mainly due to lack of therapeutic effect. At week 8 endpoint, the combination of aliskiren 300 mg and valsartan 320 mg lowered mean sitting diastolic blood pressure from baseline by 12·2 mm Hg, significantly more than either monotherapy (aliskiren 300 mg 9·0 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001; valsartan 320 mg, 9·7 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001), or with placebo (4·1 mm Hg decrease, p<0·0001). Rates of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar in all groups. The combination of aliskiren and valsartan at maximum recommended doses provides significantly greater reductions in blood pressure than does monotherapy with either agent in patients with hypertension, with a tolerability profile similar to that with aliskiren and valsartan alone.

Background: Currently approved Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments have been reported to provide symptomatic benefit, without proven impact on clinical progression. We hypothesized that the loss of initial therapeutic benefit over time may be mitigated by higher doses of a cholinesterase inhibitor. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness and tolerability of increasing donepezil from 10 to 23 mg/d in patients with moderate to severe AD. Methods: This randomized, double-blind study was conducted at 219 sites in Asia, Europe, Australia, North America, South Africa, and South America from June 6, 2007, to March 27, 2009. Patients aged 45 to 90 years with probable AD, Mini-Mental State Examination score 0 to 20 (moderate to severe impairment), and who were receiving donepezil 10 mg once daily for ≥12 weeks before the start of the study were eligible. Patients (n = 1467) were randomly assigned to receive high-dose donepezil (23 mg once daily) or standard-dose donepezil (10 mg once daily) for 24 weeks. Coprimary effectiveness measures were changes in cognition and global functioning, as assessed using least squares mean changes from baseline (LSM [SE] A) scores (last observation carried forward) on the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB; cognition) and the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input scale (CIBIC+; global function rating) overall change score (mean [SD]) at week 24. Treatmentemergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed using spontaneous patient/caregiver reporting and open-ended questioning; clinical laboratory testing (hematology, biochemistry, and urinalysis panels analyzed by a central laboratory); 12-lead ECG; and physical and neurologic examinations, including vital sign measurements. Results: The effectiveness analyses included 1371 patients (mean age, 73.8 years; 62.8% female; 73.5% white; weight range, 34.0–138.7 kg). A total of 296 of 981 patients (30.2%) withdrew from the donepezil 23-mg/d group; 87 of 486 patients (17.9%) withdrew from the donepezil 10-mg/d group. At study end (week 24), the LSM (SE) Δ in SIB score was significantly greater with donepezil 23 mg/d than with donepezil 10 mg/d (+2.6 [0.58] vs +0.4 [0.66], respectively; difference, 2.2; P < 0.001). The between-treatment difference in CIBIC+ score was nonsignificant (4.23 [1.07] vs 4.29 [1.07]). In post hoc analysis, LSM Δ in SIB score and CIBIC+ treatment effect at end point were greater with donepezil 23 mg/d than 10 mg/d in patients with more advanced AD compared with less impaired patients (SIB, +1.6 [0.78] vs −1.5 [0.88], respectively [ P < 0.001]; CIBIC+, 4.31 [1.09] vs 4.42 [1.10] [ P = 0.028]). TEAEs were reported in 710 of 963 patients (73.7%) who received donepezil 23 mg/d and in 300 of 471 patients (63.7%) who received donepezil 10 mg/d. With donepezil 23 mg/d, mild, moderate, and severe TEAEs were reported in 297 (30.8%), 332 (34.5%), and 81 (8.4%) patients, respectively; with donepezil 10 mg/d, these proportions were 147 (31.2%), 119 (25.3%), and 34 (7.2%). The 3 most common severe AEs reported with the 23-mg/d dose were nausea (9 patients [0.9%] vs 1 [0.2%] with the 10-mg/d dose), dizziness (7 [0.7%] vs 1 [0.2%]), and vomiting (6 [0.6%] vs 0). The most commonly reported TEAEs considered probably related to treatment with the 23-mg/d dose were nausea (59 patients [6.1%] vs 9 [1.9%] with the 10-mg/d dose), vomiting (48 [5.0%] vs 4 [0.8%]), and diarrhea (31 [3.2%] vs 7 [1.5%]).Thirteen deaths were reported during the study or within 30 days of study discontinuation (23 mg/d, 8 patients [0.8%]; 10 mg/d, 5 patients [1.1%]); all were considered unrelated to the study medication. Conclusions: In this study in patients with moderate to severe AD, donepezil 23 mg/d was associated with greater benefits in cognition compared with donepezil 10 mg/d. The between-treatment difference in global functioning was not significant in the overall population. Patients with more advanced AD appeared to benefit from donepezil 23 mg/d on the assessment of global functioning, but this observation requires additional studies for confirmation. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00478205.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease (AD), causing substantial distress for both people with dementia and their caregivers, and contributing to early institutionalization. They are among the earliest signs and symptoms of neurocognitive disorders and incipient cognitive decline, yet are under-recognized and often challenging to treat. With this in mind, the Alzheimer's Association convened a Research Roundtable in May 2016, bringing together experts from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies to discuss the latest understanding of NPSs and review the development of therapeutics and biomarkers of NPSs in AD. This review will explore the neurobiology of NPSs in AD and specific symptoms common in AD such as psychosis, agitation, apathy, depression, and sleep disturbances. In addition, clinical trial designs for NPSs in AD and regulatory considerations will be discussed.

Abstract Introduction Recent failures in phase 3 clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) suggest that novel approaches to drug development are urgently needed. Phase 3 risk can be mitigated by ensuring that clinical efficacy is established before initiating confirmatory trials, but traditional phase 2 trials in AD can be lengthy and costly. Methods We designed a Bayesian adaptive phase 2, proof-of-concept trial with a clinical endpoint to evaluate BAN2401, a monoclonal antibody targeting amyloid protofibrils. The study design used dose response and longitudinal modeling. Simulations were used to refine study design features to achieve optimal operating characteristics. Results The study design includes five active treatment arms plus placebo, a clinical outcome, 12-month primary endpoint, and a maximum sample size of 800. The average overall probability of success is ≥80% when at least one dose shows a treatment effect that would be considered clinically meaningful. Using frequent interim analyses, the randomization ratios are adapted based on the clinical endpoint, and the trial can be stopped for success or futility before full enrollment. Discussion Bayesian statistics can enhance the efficiency of analyzing the study data. The adaptive randomization generates more data on doses that appear to be more efficacious, which can improve dose selection for phase 3. The interim analyses permit stopping as soon as a predefined signal is detected, which can accelerate decision making. Both features can reduce the size and duration of the trial. This study design can mitigate some of the risks associated with advancing to phase 3 in the absence of data-demonstrating clinical efficacy. Limitations to the approach are discussed.

Background Donepezil 23 mg/d, recently approved in the United States for treatment of moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), was developed to address the need for an additional treatment option for patients with advanced AD. This report, based on a pivotal phase 3 study, presents a detailed analysis of the safety and tolerability of increasing donepezil to 23 mg/d compared with continuing 10 mg/d. Method Safety analyses comprised examination of the incidence, severity, and timing of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and their relationship to treatment initiation; changes in weight, electrocardiogram, vital signs, and laboratory parameters; and the incidence of premature study discontinuation. The analysis population (n = 1434) included all randomized patients who took at least 1 dose of study drug and had a postbaseline safety assessment. To further examine the effect of transition from a lower to a higher donepezil dose, a pooled analysis of safety data from 2 phase 3 trials of donepezil 5 mg/d and 10 mg/d was also performed. Results The safety population comprised 1434 patients: donepezil 23 mg/d (n = 963); donepezil 10 mg/d (n = 471); completion rates were 71.1% and 84.7%, respectively. The most common AEs were nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (donepezil 23 mg/d: 11.8%, 9.2%, 8.3%; donepezil 10 mg/d: 3.4%, 2.5%, 5.3%, respectively). AEs that contributed most to early discontinuations were vomiting (2.9% of patients in the 23 mg/d group and 0.4% in the 10 mg/d group), nausea (1.9% and 0.4%), diarrhea (1.7% and 0.4%), and dizziness (1.1% and 0.0%). The percentages of patients with AEs in the 23 mg/d group, as well as the timing, type, and severity of these AEs, were similar to those seen in previous donepezil trials with titration from 5 to 10 mg/d. Serious AEs were uncommon (23 mg/d, 8.3%; 10 mg/d, 9.6%). Discussion The 23 mg/d dose of donepezil was associated with typical cholinergic AEs, particularly gastrointestinal-related AEs, similar to those observed in studies with a dose increase from 5 to 10 mg/d. Conclusion The good safety and predictable tolerability profile for donepezil 23 mg/d supports its favorable risk/benefit ratio in patients with moderate to severe AD. Trial Registration NCT00478205

Normal sleep–wake regulation is dependent upon an oscillatory circadian rhythm promoting alertness and sleep at appropriate times of day. Circadian rhythms have been noted to be disturbed as a consequence of both normal aging and age-associated pathologies like Alzheimer disease (AD). However, the relationship between the consequences of normal versus pathological aging upon circadian regulation remains unclear. The authors evaluated the similarities and differences between the consequences of aging and AD on endogenous circadian rhythm. Authors measured locomotor activity and, with a constant routine protocol, core body temperature, examining differences and similarities in circadian disturbances in groups of normal elderly and patients with probable AD (pAD), as compared with a comparison group of young, normal volunteers, measuring endogenous circadian amplitude (ECA) and endogenous circadian phase (ECP) of core body temperature, and made parametric and nonparametric assessments of locomotor activity rhythms. The ECP of core body temperature was delayed in patients with pAD versus both normal young and normal elderly subjects, whereas the ECA was reduced both in normal elderly and pAD subjects compared with a comparison group of young subjects. There was also disassociation of the activity and core body temperature rhythms in both age groups versus the young subjects. Authors observed changes in endogenous circadian rhythm in pAD that were consonant with those seen in normal aging (amplitude reduction; loss of phase coordination) and also observed changes that were apparently discrete from those seen in normal aging (phase delay).

Sleep disruption and other circadian rhythm disturbances are frequently seen in dementia patients. In this study, we examined the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the putative site of the hypothalamic circadian pacemaker, to determine the nature and degree of pathologic changes caused by severe dementia. Neuropathologic examination indicated that among 30 patients with a clinical history of severe dementia, 22 had Braak and Braak stage V-VI Alzheimer disease, 3 had combined Alzheimer and Parkinson disease, 3 had Pick disease and 2 had severe hippocampal sclerosis. Comparisons were made with a control group composed of 13 age-matched patients with no clinical or pathological evidence of dementia or other CNS disorders. To determine the pathologic involvement within the SCN, human hypothalami were stained withNissl, Bielchowsky silver, thioflavin S and specific antibodies directed against vasopressin (VP), neurotensin (NT), neuropeptide Y (NPY), vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP), beta-amyloid (B/A4) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP). Pathologic damage was primarily limited to neuronal loss and neurofibrillary tangle formation. Only rare diffuse plaques were noted. The pathologic changes within the SCN were less severe than in the other brain regions. Morphometric analysis was accomplished using a stereological approach to sample the average total number of positively stained neurons and astrocytes in 10 different 0.1mm2 microscopic fields in the dorsal subdivision of the SCN. Patients with Alzheimer disease exhibited a significant decrease in vasopressin (9.75 vs 16.7, p<0.001) and neurotensin (6.82 vs 9.63, p<0.002) neurons, as well as a corresponding increase in the GFAP-stained astrocyte/Nissl-stained neuron ratio (0.54 vs 0.10, p<0.009). These studies provide evidence that both vasopressin and neurotensin neurons are lost in Alzheimer disease, and that the astrocyte/neuron ratio is a reliable indicator of disease-related pathology within the SCN. Taken collectively, our data support the hypothesis that damage to the SCN may be an underlying anatomical substrate for the clinically observed changes in circadian rhythmicity that have been observed in Alzheimer patients.

Background Several monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have been in development over the last decade. BAN2401 is a monoclonal antibody that selectively binds soluble amyloid β (Aβ) protofibrils. Methods Here we describe the first clinical study with BAN2401. Safety and tolerability were investigated in mild to moderate AD. A study design was used with staggered parallel single and multiple ascending doses, from 0.1 mg/kg as a single dose to 10 mg/kg biweekly for four months. The presence of amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA, E for edema, H for hemorrhage) was assessed with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma samples were analyzed to investigate pharmacokinetics (PK) and effects on biomarkers. Results The incidence of ARIA-E/H on MRI was comparable to that of placebo. BAN2401 exposure was approximately dose proportional, with a serum terminal elimination half-life of ~7 days. Only a slight increase of plasma Aβ (1-40) was observed but there were no measurable effects of BAN2401 on CSF biomarkers. On the basis of these findings Phase 2b efficacy study has been initiated in early AD. Conclusions BAN2401 was well-tolerated across all doses. The PK profile has guided us for selecting dose and dose regimens in the ongoing phase 2b study. There was no clear guidance for an effective dose based on biomarkers. Trial registration number NCT01230853 ClinicalTrials.gov Registered October 27, 2010.

BackgroundDevelopment of new therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly focused on more mildly affected populations, and requires new assessment and outcome strategies. Patients in early stages of AD have mild cognitive decline and no, or limited, functional impairment. To respond to these assessment challenges, we developed a measurement approach based on established scale items that exhibited change in previous amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment (aMCI) trials.MethodsPartial least squares regression with a longitudinal clinical decline model identified items from commonly used clinical scales with the highest combined sensitivity to change over time in aMCI and weighted these items according to their relative contribution to detecting clinical progression in patients’ early stages of AD. The resultant AD Composite Score (ADCOMS) was assessed for its ability to detect treatment effect in aMCI/prodromal AD (pAD) clinical trial populations.ResultsADCOMS consists of 4 Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale items, 2 Mini-Mental State Examination items, and all 6 Clinical Dementia Rating—Sum of Boxes items. ADCOMS demonstrated improved sensitivity to clinical decline over individual scales in pAD, aMCI and in mild AD dementia. ADCOMS also detected treatment effects associated with the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in these populations. Improved sensitivity predicts smaller sample size requirements when ADCOMS is used in early AD trials.ConclusionsADCOMS is proposed as new standard outcome for pAD and mild AD dementia trials, and is progressing in a CAMD-sponsored qualification process for use in registration trials of pAD.