Gold, Michael

AbstractStudies supporting a strong association between tau deposition and neuronal loss, neurodegeneration, and cognitive decline have heightened the allure of tau and tau‐related mechanisms as therapeutic targets. In February 2020, leading tau experts from around the world convened for the first‐ever Tau2020 Global Conference in Washington, DC, co‐organized and cosponsored by the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, the Alzheimer's Association, and CurePSP. Representing academia, industry, government, and the philanthropic sector, presenters and attendees discussed recent advances and current directions in tau research. The meeting provided a unique opportunity to move tau research forward by fostering global partnerships among academia, industry, and other stakeholders and by providing support for new drug discovery programs, groundbreaking research, and emerging tau researchers. The meeting also provided an opportunity for experts to present critical research‐advancing tools and insights that are now rapidly accelerating the pace of tau research.

Abstract Demonstrating that treatments are clinically meaningful across the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum is critical for meeting our goals of accelerating a cure by 2025. While this topic has been a focus of several Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meetings, there remains no consensus as to what constitutes a “clinically meaningful outcome” in the eyes of patients, clinicians, care partners, policymakers, payers, and regulatory bodies. Furthermore, the field has not come to agreement as to what constitutes a clinically meaningful treatment effect at each stage of disease severity. The AARR meeting on November 19–20, 2019, reviewed current approaches to defining clinical meaningfulness from various perspectives including those of patients and care partners, clinicians, regulators, health economists, and public policymakers. Participants discussed approaches that may confer clinical relevance at each stage of the disease continuum and fostered discussion about what should guide us in the future.

Frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) encompasses a spectrum of related neurodegenerative disorders with behavioral, language, and motor phenotypes for which there are currently no effective therapies. This is the second of two articles that summarize the presentations and discussions that occurred at two symposia in 2011 sponsored by the Frontotemporal Degeneration Treatment Study Group, a collaborative group of academic and industry researchers that is devoted to developing treatments for FTD. This article discusses the current status of FTD clinical research that is relevant to the conduct of clinical trials, and why FTD research may be an attractive pathway for developing therapies for neurodegenerative disorders. The clinical and molecular features of FTD, including rapid disease progression and relatively pure molecular pathology, suggest that there are advantages to developing drugs for FTD as compared with other dementias. FTD qualifies as orphan indication, providing additional advantages for drug development. Two recent sets of consensus diagnostic criteria will facilitate the identification of patients with FTD, and a variety of neuropsychological, functional, and behavioral scales have been shown to be sensitive to disease progression. Moreover, quantitative neuroimaging measurements demonstrate progressive brain atrophy in FTD at rates that may surpass Alzheimer's disease. Finally, the similarities between FTD and other neurodegenerative diseases with drug development efforts already underway suggest that FTD researchers will be able to draw on this experience to create a road map for FTD drug development. We conclude that FTD research has reached sufficient maturity to pursue clinical development of specific FTD therapies.

Frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) is a common cause of dementia for which there are currently no approved therapies. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion of knowledge about the biology and clinical features of FTD that has identified a number of promising therapeutic targets as well as animal models in which to develop drugs. The close association of some forms of FTD with neuropathological accumulation of tau protein or increased neuroinflammation due to progranulin protein deficiency suggests that a drug's success in treating FTD may predict efficacy in more common diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. A variety of regulatory incentives, clinical features of FTD such as rapid disease progression, and relatively pure molecular pathology suggest that there are advantages to developing drugs for FTD as compared with other more common neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. In March 2011, the Frontotemporal Degeneration Treatment Study Group sponsored a conference entitled “FTD, the Next Therapeutic Frontier,” which focused on preclinical aspects of FTD drug development. The goal of the meeting was to promote collaborations between academic researchers and biotechnology and pharmaceutical researchers to accelerate the development of new treatments for FTD. Here we report the key findings from the conference, including the rationale for FTD drug development; epidemiological, genetic, and neuropathological features of FTD; FTD animal models and how best to use them; and examples of successful drug development collaborations in other neurodegenerative diseases.

The current criteria for classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have deficiencies that limit drug development, research, and practice. The current standard for the clinical diagnosis of AD, the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (now known as the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) criteria, are nearly 25 years old and have not been revised to incorporate advances in the epidemiology and genetics of AD, studies of clinicopathologic correlations and recent studies of potential diagnostic biomarkers. In a very real sense our ability to diagnose AD with a very high level of certainty has outpaced our current diagnostic criteria. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting in April 2009 to discuss new data and technologies that could, with further development, enable improvements in the clinical diagnosis of AD, especially in its earliest and mildest stages. This meeting reviewed the current standards for detecting and defining the clinical presentation of AD and discussed areas that could contribute to earlier and more accurate definitive clinical diagnosis. These included clinical, neuropsychological, and other performance‐based assessments, genetic contributions, and biochemical and neuroimaging biomarkers that could reflect AD pathology and lead to better ascertainment of AD, mild cognitive impairment, and presymptomatic AD.