Liu, Enchi

Abstract Introduction: Systemic amyloidoses are a group of rare disorders characterized by the accumulation of misfolded proteins in tissue, resulting in the dysfunction of vital organs (eg, heart and kidneys). In amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis, the most common form of systemic amyloidosis, the amyloidogenic protein is a misfolded light chain (LC) or a fragment of an LC produced by clonal plasma cells. Current therapies used to treat AL amyloidosis limit LC production but do not directly target deposits underlying multiorgan failure. NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody, targets misfolded LC and is thought to neutralize circulating LC aggregates and to clear insoluble deposits. In an interim analysis of a phase 1/2 dose-escalation study in 27 patients with AL amyloidosis and persistent organ dysfunction (NCT01707264; EudraCT2012-002683-27), monthly infusions of NEOD001 were safe, well tolerated, and associated with renal and cardiac responses.1 Here we report updated results from the escalation phase and new results from the expansion phase of this study. Patients and Methods: Inclusion criteria for this trial were that patients complete ≥1 PCD treatment before enrollment, attain partial hematologic response (HR) or better to any previous therapy, and have persistent organ dysfunction. NEOD001 was administered intravenously every 28 days. During the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients received NEOD001 at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 mg/kg in a 3+3 study design. An additional 42 patients with renal, cardiac, or peripheral nerve involvement were enrolled and treated (24 mg/kg) in the expansion phase. We assessed safety/tolerability, pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, cardiac and renal responses based on consensus criteria, and neuropathy responses using the Neuropathy Impairment Score-Lower Limb (NIS-LL). Results: The 42 additional patients enrolled in the expansion study included cohorts with renal (16 patients), cardiac (15 patients), and peripheral nerve (11 patients) involvement. In the overall population (n = 69), the median age was 60 years, and 61% of patients were men. Median (range) time since diagnosis was 2.8 (0.4-12.8) years, and 45% of patients underwent ≥3 previous plasma cell-directed regimens. The total number of infusions administered was 913 over a mean of 13.2 (range, 3-35) months. NEOD001 treatment was not associated with dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations; patients did not develop antidrug antibodies or treatment-related serious adverse events. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of relationship to study drug, were fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, nausea, and diarrhea. In a best response analysis, 53% of cardiac-evaluable patients (N = 36) and 63% of renal-evaluable patients (N = 35) met respective criteria for organ response; no patients experienced disease progression. The median time to initial response was 2 months (cardiac) and 4 months (renal). After 9 months of treatment, 82% of patients with measurable peripheral neuropathy at baseline (N = 11) achieved a peripheral neuropathy response based on the NIS-LL score. Conclusions: Our interim results demonstrated that monthly NEOD001 infusions were safe and well tolerated and that organ response rates compared favorably with traditional chemotherapy. These updated results from the escalation phase and these new results from the expansion phase, including results from patients with peripheral nerve involvement, support the design of ongoing late-stage clinical studies. Antibody therapy may allow for effective treatment of patients with AL amyloidosis. Reference: 1. Gertz MA, Landau H, Comenzo RL, et al. First-in-human phase 1/2 study of NEOD001 in patients with light chain amyloidosis and persistent organ dysfunction. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1097-1103. Disclosures Gertz: Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Ionis: Research Funding; Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding. Comenzo:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding. Landau:Janssen: Consultancy; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Research Funding. Sanchorawala:Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding. Weiss:Prothena: Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy. Walling:Stealth: Consultancy; BioMarin: Equity Ownership; Apex: Consultancy; Pharm-Olam: Consultancy; NuMedii: Consultancy; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties; Crown Bioscience: Consultancy; KaloBios: Consultancy; Exelixis: Consultancy; Newgen: Consultancy; Mateon (was Oxigene): Consultancy; Corcept: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; Codexis: Consultancy; Upsher Smith: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties. Kinney:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Koller:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, accommodations. Schenk:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Guthrie:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Liu:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership; Weston Brain Institute: Honoraria. Liedtke:Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction:In amyloid light chain (AL) amyloidosis, the most common form of systemic amyloidosis, misfolded light chain (LC) or a fragment of an LC produced by clonal plasma cells accumulates in tissue, resulting in the dysfunction of vital organs and systems (eg, heart, kidneys, nervous system). Current therapies used to treat AL amyloidosis limit LC production but do not directly target deposits underlying multiorgan failure. Approximately 75% of patients do not achieve organ responses and have persistent organ dysfunction. Amyloid-directed therapies may stabilize and potentially reverse organ damage by specifically targeting existing LC aggregates. NEOD001, a monoclonal antibody, targets misfolded LC and is thought to neutralize circulating LC aggregates and to clear insoluble deposits. We have previously reported that monthly infusions of NEOD001 were safe and well tolerated. In addition, NEOD001 was associated with renal and cardiac responses. Here we analyzed the association between organ response and depth and time since last plasma cell-directed (PCD) treatment in the entire cohort of 69 patients enrolled in both the dose-escalation and the expansion phases of the phase 1/2 study. Methods: Inclusion criteria for this trial were that patients complete ≥1 PCD treatment before enrollment, attain partial hematologic response (HR) or better to any previous therapy, and have persistent organ dysfunction. NEOD001 was administered intravenously every 28 days. During the dose-escalation phase, 27 patients received NEOD001 at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 24 mg/kg in a 3+3 study design. An additional 42 patients with renal, cardiac, or nerve involvement were enrolled and treated (24 mg/kg) in the expansion phase. We assessed cardiac and renal responses based on consensus criteria and neuropathy responses using the Neuropathy Impairment Score-Lower Limb (NIS-LL). For this analysis, we focused on the relationship between organ response after treatment with NEOD001 to the time since last or best HR and the depth of best and last HR. Results: A total of 69 patients were enrolled, 27 in the dose-escalation and 42 in the expansion cohorts. The entire population included 36 cardiac-evaluable patients, 35 renal-evaluable patients, and 11 patients evaluated for peripheral neuropathy; 39% were women, and the median age was 60 years. Time since diagnosis was 2.8 (0.4-12.8; median, range) years, and 45% of patients had undergone ≥3 previous PCD regimens. Of the patients evaluable for organ response, best response rates indicating organ response were observed in 53% of cardiac-evaluable patients (n = 19/36) and 63% of renal-evaluable patients (n = 22/35). NIS-LL scores indicated that 82% (n = 9/11) of patients met criteria for a peripheral neuropathy response to NEOD001. Cardiac and renal response rates for NEOD001-treated patients could not be attributed to previous PCD treatment regimens. For example, 37% of the NEOD001 cardiac responders and 35% of nonresponders received cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone. Similarly, for NEOD001 renal responders vs nonresponders, 27% vs 25% were treated with autologous stem cell transplantation and 27% vs 31% were treated with bortezomib-dexamethasone. There was no relationship between NEOD001 cardiac, renal, or peripheral nerve organ response and time since last chemotherapy, time since last or best HR, or depth of last or best HR. Finally, an equivalent percentage of evaluable patients experienced renal or cardiac response regardless of whether they had received their most recent PCD treatment ≤6 months or >6 months before NEOD001 initiation. The median time since last PCD treatment to the start of NEOD001 intervention for all patients was 6.5 (range, 0.6-85.8) months and the median time to first cardiac response after NEOD001 treatment for all cardiac responders was 2 months. NEOD001 treatment was safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: Patients treated with monthly NEOD001 infusions had high organ response rates that were independent of time since previous chemotherapy, depth of hematologic response, or predominant type of PCD treatment. Ongoing studies of NEOD001 include VITAL (phase 3 in patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis) and PRONTO (phase 2b in previously treated AL amyloidosis patients with persistent cardiac dysfunction). Disclosures Liedtke: Gilead: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Comenzo:Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy, Research Funding. Landau:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Prothena: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onyx/Amgen: Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Sanchorawala:Prothena: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Weiss:Prothena: Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Millennium: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Zonder:Prothena: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy. Walling:Corcept: Consultancy; Stealth: Consultancy; Codexis: Consultancy; Exelixis: Consultancy; Newgen: Consultancy; Mateon (was Oxigene): Consultancy; Apex: Consultancy; Aduro: Consultancy; Prothena: Consultancy; Upsher Smith: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties; KaloBios: Consultancy; NuMedii: Consultancy; Pharm-Olam: Consultancy; Crown Bioscience: Consultancy; BioMarin: Equity Ownership; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Kinney:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Koller:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Travel, accommodations. Schenk:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Guthrie:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Leadership. Liu:Prothena: Employment, Equity Ownership; Weston Brain Institute: Honoraria. Gertz:Annexon Biosciences: Research Funding; Ionis: Research Funding; Prothena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Alnylam Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Research to Practice: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Med Learning Group: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria; NCI Frederick: Honoraria; Sandoz Inc: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria.

Abstract In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six‐stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker‐based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker‐based research should not be considered a template for all research into age‐related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β‐amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The study aimed to enroll 400 subjects with early mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 200 subjects with early AD, and 200 normal control subjects; $67 million funding was provided by both the public and private sectors, including the National Institute on Aging, 13 pharmaceutical companies, and 2 foundations that provided support through the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. This article reviews all papers published since the inception of the initiative and summarizes the results as of February 2011. The major accomplishments of ADNI have been as follows: (1) the development of standardized methods for clinical tests, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in a multicenter setting; (2) elucidation of the patterns and rates of change of imaging and CSF biomarker measurements in control subjects, MCI patients, and AD patients. CSF biomarkers are consistent with disease trajectories predicted by β‐amyloid cascade (Hardy, J Alzheimers Dis 2006;9(Suppl 3):151–3) and tau‐mediated neurodegeneration hypotheses for AD, whereas brain atrophy and hypometabolism levels show predicted patterns but exhibit differing rates of change depending on region and disease severity; (3) the assessment of alternative methods of diagnostic categorization. Currently, the best classifiers combine optimum features from multiple modalities, including MRI, [18F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose‐PET, CSF biomarkers, and clinical tests; (4) the development of methods for the early detection of AD. CSF biomarkers, β‐amyloid 42 and tau, as well as amyloid PET may reflect the earliest steps in AD pathology in mildly symptomatic or even nonsymptomatic subjects, and are leading candidates for the detection of AD in its preclinical stages; (5) the improvement of clinical trial efficiency through the identification of subjects most likely to undergo imminent future clinical decline and the use of more sensitive outcome measures to reduce sample sizes. Baseline cognitive and/or MRI measures generally predicted future decline better than other modalities, whereas MRI measures of change were shown to be the most efficient outcome measures; (6) the confirmation of the AD risk loci CLU, CR1, and PICALM and the identification of novel candidate risk loci; (7) worldwide impact through the establishment of ADNI‐like programs in Europe, Asia, and Australia; (8) understanding the biology and pathobiology of normal aging, MCI, and AD through integration of ADNI biomarker data with clinical data from ADNI to stimulate research that will resolve controversies about competing hypotheses on the etiopathogenesis of AD, thereby advancing efforts to find disease‐modifying drugs for AD; and (9) the establishment of infrastructure to allow sharing of all raw and processed data without embargo to interested scientific investigators throughout the world. The ADNI study was extended by a 2‐year Grand Opportunities grant in 2009 and a renewal of ADNI (ADNI‐2) in October 2010 through to 2016, with enrollment of an additional 550 participants.

Aberrant connectivity is implicated in many neurological and psychiatric disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. However, other than a few disease-associated candidate genes, we know little about the degree to which genetics play a role in the brain networks; we know even less about specific genes that influence brain connections. Twin and family-based studies can generate estimates of overall genetic influences on a trait, but genome-wide association scans (GWASs) can screen the genome for specific variants influencing the brain or risk for disease. To identify the heritability of various brain connections, we scanned healthy young adult twins with high-field, high-angular resolution diffusion MRI. We adapted GWASs to screen the brain’s connectivity pattern, allowing us to discover genetic variants that affect the human brain’s wiring. The association of connectivity with the SPON1 variant at rs2618516 on chromosome 11 (11p15.2) reached connectome-wide, genome-wide significance after stringent statistical corrections were enforced, and it was replicated in an independent subsample. rs2618516 was shown to affect brain structure in an elderly population with varying degrees of dementia. Older people who carried the connectivity variant had significantly milder clinical dementia scores and lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease. As a posthoc analysis, we conducted GWASs on several organizational and topological network measures derived from the matrices to discover variants in and around genes associated with autism ( MACROD2 ), development ( NEDD4 ), and mental retardation ( UBE2A ) significantly associated with connectivity. Connectome-wide, genome-wide screening offers substantial promise to discover genes affecting brain connectivity and risk for brain diseases.