Drug Development, Clinical Trials, Cultural Heterogeneity in Alzheimer Disease

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 279-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lon S Schneider
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 888-900
Author(s):  
Anna Hung ◽  
Monika Schneider ◽  
Marianne Hamilton Lopez ◽  
Mark McClellan

Author(s):  
Konstantina G. Yiannopoulou ◽  
Aikaterini I. Anastasiou ◽  
Venetia Zachariou ◽  
SH Pelidou

Despite all scientific efforts and many protracted and expensive clinical trials, no new drug has been approved by FDA for treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) since 2003. Indeed, more than 200 investigational programs have failed or have been abandoned in the last decade. The most probable explanations for failures of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for AD may include late initiation of treatments during the course of AD development, inappropriate drug dosages, erroneous selection of treatment targets, and mainly an inadequate understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AD, which may necessitate combination treatments rather than monotherapy. Clinical trials’ methodological issues have also been criticized. Current drug-development research for AD is aimed to overcome these drawbacks. Preclinical and prodromal AD populations, as well as traditionally investigated populations representing all the clinical stages of AD, are included in recent trials. Systematic use of biomarkers in staging preclinical and prodromal AD and of a single primary outcome in trials of prodromal AD are regularly integrated. The application of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration biomarkers, including new biomarkers—such as Tau positron emission tomography, neurofilament light chain (blood and CSF biomarker of axonal degeneration) and neurogranin (CSF biomarker of synaptic functioning)—to clinical trials allows more precise staging of AD. Additionally, use of the Bayesian statistics, modifiable clinical trial designs, and clinical trial simulators enrich the trial methodology. Besides, combination therapy regimens are currently assessed in clinical trials. The abovementioned diagnostic and statistical advances, which have been recently integrated in clinical trials, are consequential to the recent failures of studies of disease-modifying treatments. Their experiential rather than theoretical origins may better equip potentially successful drug-development strategies.


Biomedicines ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 97 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantina G. Yiannopoulou ◽  
Aikaterini I. Anastasiou ◽  
Venetia Zachariou ◽  
Sygkliti-Henrietta Pelidou

Despite all scientific efforts and many protracted and expensive clinical trials, no new drug has been approved by FDA for treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) since 2003. Indeed, more than 200 investigational programs have failed or have been abandoned in the last decade. The most probable explanations for failures of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) for AD may include late initiation of treatments during the course of AD development, inappropriate drug dosages, erroneous selection of treatment targets, and mainly an inadequate understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AD, which may necessitate combination treatments rather than monotherapy. Clinical trials’ methodological issues have also been criticized. Drug-development research for AD is aimed to overcome these drawbacks. Preclinical and prodromal AD populations, as well as traditionally investigated populations representing all the clinical stages of AD, are included in recent trials. Systematic use of biomarkers in staging preclinical and prodromal AD and of a single primary outcome in trials of prodromal AD are regularly integrated. The application of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration biomarkers, including new biomarkers—such as Tau positron emission tomography, neurofilament light chain (blood and Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker of axonal degeneration) and neurogranin (CSF biomarker of synaptic functioning)—to clinical trials allows more precise staging of AD. Additionally, use of Bayesian statistics, modifiable clinical trial designs, and clinical trial simulators enrich the trial methodology. Besides, combination therapy regimens are assessed in clinical trials. The above-mentioned diagnostic and statistical advances, which have been recently integrated in clinical trials, are relevant to the recent failures of studies of disease-modifying treatments. Their experiential rather than theoretical origins may better equip potentially successful drug-development strategies.


2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 214-219
Author(s):  
Robyn J. Barst

Drug development is the entire process of introducing a new drug to the market. It involves drug discovery, screening, preclinical testing, an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in the US or a Clinical Trial Application (CTA) in the EU, phase 1–3 clinical trials, a New Drug Application (NDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and approval, and postapproval studies required for continuing safety evaluation. Preclinical testing assesses safety and biologic activity, phase 1 determines safety and dosage, phase 2 evaluates efficacy and side effects, and phase 3 confirms efficacy and monitors adverse effects in a larger number of patients. Postapproval studies provide additional postmarketing data. On average, it takes 15 years from preclinical studies to regulatory approval by the FDA: about 3.5–6.5 years for preclinical, 1–1.5 years for phase 1, 2 years for phase 2, 3–3.5 years for phase 3, and 1.5–2.5 years for filing the NDA and completing the FDA review process. Of approximately 5000 compounds evaluated in preclinical studies, about 5 compounds enter clinical trials, and 1 compound is approved (Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, 2011). Most drug development programs include approximately 35–40 phase 1 studies, 15 phase 2 studies, and 3–5 pivotal trials with more than 5000 patients enrolled. Thus, to produce safe and effective drugs in a regulated environment is a highly complex process. Against this backdrop, what is the best way to develop drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), an orphan disease often rapidly fatal within several years of diagnosis and in which spontaneous regression does not occur?


Author(s):  
Michael Tansey

Clinical research is heavily regulated and involves coordination of numerous pharmaceutical-related disciplines. Each individual trial involves contractual, regulatory, and ethics approval at each site and in each country. Clinical trials have become so complex and government requirements so stringent that researchers often approach trials too cautiously, convinced that the process is bound to be insurmountably complicated and riddled with roadblocks. A step back is needed, an objective examination of the drug development process as a whole, and recommendations made for streamlining the process at all stages. With Intelligent Drug Development, Michael Tansey systematically addresses the key elements that affect the quality, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness of the drug-development process, and identifies steps that can be adjusted and made more efficient. Tansey uses his own experiences conducting clinical trials to create a guide that provides flexible, adaptable ways of implementing the necessary processes of development. Moreover, the processes described in the book are not dependent either on a particular company structure or on any specific technology; thus, Tansey's approach can be implemented at any company, regardless of size. The book includes specific examples that illustrate some of the ways in which the principles can be applied, as well as suggestions for providing a better context in which the changes can be implemented. The protocols for drug development and clinical research have grown increasingly complex in recent years, making Intelligent Drug Development a needed examination of the pharmaceutical process.


Author(s):  
Demissie Alemayehu ◽  
Robert Hemmings ◽  
Kannan Natarajan ◽  
Satrajit Roychoudhury

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 280
Author(s):  
Rita Rebelo ◽  
Bárbara Polónia ◽  
Lúcio Lara Santos ◽  
M. Helena Vasconcelos ◽  
Cristina P. R. Xavier

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is considered one of the deadliest tumors worldwide. The diagnosis is often possible only in the latter stages of the disease, with patients already presenting an advanced or metastatic tumor. It is also one of the cancers with poorest prognosis, presenting a five-year survival rate of around 5%. Treatment of PDAC is still a major challenge, with cytotoxic chemotherapy remaining the basis of systemic therapy. However, no major advances have been made recently, and therapeutic options are limited and highly toxic. Thus, novel therapeutic options are urgently needed. Drug repurposing is a strategy for the development of novel treatments using approved or investigational drugs outside the scope of the original clinical indication. Since repurposed drugs have already completed several stages of the drug development process, a broad range of data is already available. Thus, when compared with de novo drug development, drug repurposing is time-efficient, inexpensive and has less risk of failure in future clinical trials. Several repurposing candidates have been investigated in the past years for the treatment of PDAC, as single agents or in combination with conventional chemotherapy. This review gives an overview of the main drugs that have been investigated as repurposing candidates, for the potential treatment of PDAC, in preclinical studies and clinical trials.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Brinda Balasubramanian ◽  
Simran Venkatraman ◽  
Kyaw Zwar Myint ◽  
Tavan Janvilisri ◽  
Kanokpan Wongprasert ◽  
...  

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a group of malignancies that originate from the biliary tract, is associated with a high mortality rate and a concerning increase in worldwide incidence. In Thailand, where the incidence of CCA is the highest, the socioeconomic burden is severe. Yet, treatment options are limited, with surgical resection being the only form of treatment with curative intent. The current standard-of-care remains adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy which is ineffective in most patients. The overall survival rate is dismal, even after surgical resection and the tumor heterogeneity further complicates treatment. Together, this makes CCA a significant burden in Southeast Asia. For effective management of CCA, treatment must be tailored to each patient, individually, for which an assortment of targeted therapies must be available. Despite the increasing numbers of clinical studies in CCA, targeted therapy drugs rarely get approved for clinical use. In this review, we discuss the shortcomings of the conventional clinical trial process and propose the implementation of a novel concept, co-clinical trials to expedite drug development for CCA patients. In co-clinical trials, the preclinical studies and clinical trials are conducted simultaneously, thus enabling real-time data integration to accurately stratify and customize treatment for patients, individually. Hence, co-clinical trials are expected to improve the outcomes of clinical trials and consequently, encourage the approval of targeted therapy drugs. The increased availability of targeted therapy drugs for treatment is expected to facilitate the application of precision medicine in CCA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document