Ryan, J. Michael

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.

AbstractSeveral lines of evidence from Alzheimer's disease (AD) research continue to support the notion that the biological changes associated with AD are occurring possibly several decades before an individual will experience the cognitive and functional changes associated with the disease. The National Institute on Aging—Alzheimer's Association revised criteria for AD provided a framework for this new thinking. As a result of this growing understanding, several research efforts have launched or will be launching large secondary prevention trials in AD. These and other efforts have clearly demonstrated a need for better measures of cognitive and functional change in people with the earliest changes associated with AD. Recent draft guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration further elevated the importance of cognitive and functional assessments in early stage clinical trials by proposing that even in the pre‐symptomatic stages of the disease, approval will be contingent on demonstrating clinical meaningfulness. The Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable addressed these issues at its fall meeting October 28–29, 2013, in Washington, D.C. The focus of the discussion included the need for improved cognitive and functional outcome measures for clinical of participants with preclinical AD and those diagnosed with Mild Cognitive Impairment due to AD.

Current research including the basic biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a foundation to explore whether our current state of knowledge is sufficient to initiate prevention studies and allow us to believe prevention of AD is possible. Current research and recently revised criteria for the diagnosis of AD by the National Institutes on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association suggest a continuum of disease from preclinical asymptomatic to symptomatic Alzheimer's dementia. In light of these revised criteria, the possibility of secondary prevention and even primary prevention is under discussion. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting to discuss the rationale and feasibility of conducting secondary prevention trials in AD.

Purpose A pressing need exists for agents active against anthracycline- or taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC), or both. Previous clinical trials suggested that irinotecan might have such activity. We conducted this multicenter phase II study to assess efficacy and tolerability of two irinotecan schedules. Patients and Methods MBC patients who experienced disease progression after one to three chemotherapy regimens, including at least one anthracycline- or taxane-based regimen, were randomly assigned to irinotecan in 6-week cycles comprising 100 mg/m2 weekly for 4 weeks, then a 2-week rest (weekly) or 240 mg/m2 every 3 weeks. Results The weekly arm had 52 assessable patients; the every-3-weeks arm had 51 assessable patients. In the weekly arm, the objective response (complete regression [CR] + partial regression [PR]) rate was 23% (one CR, 11 PR; 95% CI, 13% to 37%). Median response duration was 4.9 months (range, 1.9 to 15.9 months), and median overall survival was 9.7 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 14.2 months). In the every-3-weeks arm, the objective response rate was 14% (nine PR; 95% CI, 6% to 26%), median response duration was 4.2 months (range, 3.1 to 13.9 months), and median overall survival was 8.6 months (95% CI, 7.0 to 12.3 months). Treatment generally was well tolerated, especially in the weekly arm. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events with ≥ 10% incidence included neutropenia (29%) and diarrhea (17%) in the weekly arm and neutropenia (36%), vomiting (20%), dyspnea (18%), nausea (16%), and diarrhea (12%) in the every-3-weeks arm. Conclusion Irinotecan is active with good tolerability in refractory MBC. Irinotecan (especially weekly) warrants additional study as monotherapy and in combination regimens in this setting.