Pooling Alzheimer's disease clinical trial data to develop personalized medicine approaches is easier said than done: A proof-of-principle study and call to action

Mark A. Dubbelman, Eleonora M. Vromen, Betty M. Tijms, Johannes Berkhof, Lois Ottenhoff, Everard G. B. Vijverberg, Niels D. Prins, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Sietske A. M. Sikkes
{"title":"Pooling Alzheimer's disease clinical trial data to develop personalized medicine approaches is easier said than done: A proof-of-principle study and call to action","authors":"Mark A. Dubbelman,&nbsp;Eleonora M. Vromen,&nbsp;Betty M. Tijms,&nbsp;Johannes Berkhof,&nbsp;Lois Ottenhoff,&nbsp;Everard G. B. Vijverberg,&nbsp;Niels D. Prins,&nbsp;Wiesje M. van der Flier,&nbsp;Sietske A. M. Sikkes","doi":"10.1002/trc2.12485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>With the advent of the first generation of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease, it is clearer now more than ever that the field needs to move toward personalized medicine. Pooling data from past trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and thus inform future trial design. In this perspective, we report on our effort to pool data from past Alzheimer's disease trials to identify patients most likely to respond to different treatments. We delineate challenges and hurdles, from our proof-of-principle study, for which we requested access to trial datasets from various pharmaceutical companies and encountered obstacles in the process of arranging data-sharing agreements through legal departments. Six phase I–III trials from three sponsors provided access to their data (total <i>n</i> = 3170), which included demographic information, vital signs, primary and secondary endpoints, and in a small subset, cerebrospinal fluid amyloid (<i>n</i> = 165, 5.2%) and tau (<i>n</i> = 212, 6.7%). Data could be analyzed only within specific data access platforms, limiting potential harmonization with data provided through other platforms. Limited overlap in terms of outcome measures, clinical and biological information hindered analyses. Thus, while it is a commendable advancement that (some) trials now allow researchers to study their data, we conclude that gaining access to past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals. We provide a plea to promote harmonization and open access to data, by urging trial sponsors and the academic research community alike to remove barriers to data access and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures, to allow investigators to learn all there is to learn from past failures and successes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> HIGHLIGHTS</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Pooling data from past Alzheimer's disease clinical trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and may help inform future trial design.</li>\n \n <li>Accessing past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals.</li>\n \n <li>We urge trial sponsors and the academic research community to remove data access barriers and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":53225,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer''s and Dementia: Translational Research and Clinical Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.12485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the advent of the first generation of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease, it is clearer now more than ever that the field needs to move toward personalized medicine. Pooling data from past trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and thus inform future trial design. In this perspective, we report on our effort to pool data from past Alzheimer's disease trials to identify patients most likely to respond to different treatments. We delineate challenges and hurdles, from our proof-of-principle study, for which we requested access to trial datasets from various pharmaceutical companies and encountered obstacles in the process of arranging data-sharing agreements through legal departments. Six phase I–III trials from three sponsors provided access to their data (total n = 3170), which included demographic information, vital signs, primary and secondary endpoints, and in a small subset, cerebrospinal fluid amyloid (n = 165, 5.2%) and tau (n = 212, 6.7%). Data could be analyzed only within specific data access platforms, limiting potential harmonization with data provided through other platforms. Limited overlap in terms of outcome measures, clinical and biological information hindered analyses. Thus, while it is a commendable advancement that (some) trials now allow researchers to study their data, we conclude that gaining access to past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals. We provide a plea to promote harmonization and open access to data, by urging trial sponsors and the academic research community alike to remove barriers to data access and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures, to allow investigators to learn all there is to learn from past failures and successes.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Pooling data from past Alzheimer's disease clinical trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and may help inform future trial design.
  • Accessing past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals.
  • We urge trial sponsors and the academic research community to remove data access barriers and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
汇集阿尔茨海默病临床试验数据以开发个性化药物方法,说起来容易做起来难:原理验证研究和行动呼吁。
随着治疗阿尔茨海默病的第一代疾病改变疗法的问世,现在比以往任何时候都更清楚地表明,该领域需要向个性化医疗方向发展。汇集以往试验的数据有助于确定最有可能从特定治疗中获益的亚组,从而为未来的试验设计提供依据。在本视角中,我们报告了我们从过去的阿尔茨海默病试验中汇集数据以确定最有可能对不同治疗方法产生反应的患者的努力。在我们的原理验证研究中,我们要求多家制药公司提供试验数据集,并在通过法律部门安排数据共享协议的过程中遇到了障碍。三家赞助商的六项 I-III 期试验提供了数据访问权限(总人数 = 3170),其中包括人口统计学信息、生命体征、主要和次要终点,以及一小部分脑脊液淀粉样蛋白(人数 = 165,5.2%)和 tau(人数 = 212,6.7%)。数据只能在特定的数据访问平台上进行分析,这限制了与其他平台提供的数据进行协调的可能性。在结果测量、临床和生物信息方面的有限重叠阻碍了分析。因此,虽然(部分)试验允许研究人员研究其数据是一个值得称赞的进步,但我们得出的结论是,获取过去的试验数据集非常复杂,阻碍了该领域为合适的个体找到最佳治疗方法的共同努力。我们呼吁试验赞助商和学术研究界消除数据访问障碍,通过实践开放科学和统一结果衡量标准来改善合作,让研究人员能够从过去的失败和成功中学到一切可以学到的东西,从而促进数据的统一和开放访问:我们敦促试验赞助商和学术研究界消除数据访问障碍,并通过实践开放科学和统一结果衡量标准来改善合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
2.10%
发文量
134
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer''s & Dementia: Translational Research & Clinical Interventions (TRCI) is a peer-reviewed, open access,journal from the Alzheimer''s Association®. The journal seeks to bridge the full scope of explorations between basic research on drug discovery and clinical studies, validating putative therapies for aging-related chronic brain conditions that affect cognition, motor functions, and other behavioral or clinical symptoms associated with all forms dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish findings from diverse domains of research and disciplines to accelerate the conversion of abstract facts into practical knowledge: specifically, to translate what is learned at the bench into bedside applications. The journal seeks to publish articles that go beyond a singular emphasis on either basic drug discovery research or clinical research. Rather, an important theme of articles will be the linkages between and among the various discrete steps in the complex continuum of therapy development. For rapid communication among a multidisciplinary research audience involving the range of therapeutic interventions, TRCI will consider only original contributions that include feature length research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, brief reports, narrative reviews, commentaries, letters, perspectives, and research news that would advance wide range of interventions to ameliorate symptoms or alter the progression of chronic neurocognitive disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer''s disease. The journal will publish on topics related to medicine, geriatrics, neuroscience, neurophysiology, neurology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, bioinformatics, pharmaco-genetics, regulatory issues, health economics, pharmacoeconomics, and public health policy as these apply to preclinical and clinical research on therapeutics.
期刊最新文献
Anticholinergic drugs and dementia risk: Using stem cell–based studies to complement pharmacoepidemiology Data-driven discovery of associations between prescribed drugs and dementia risk: A systematic review Perspective: Minimally clinically important “symptomatic” benefit associated with disease modification resulting from anti-amyloid immunotherapy Dynamic neurocognitive adaptation in aging: Development and validation of a new scale Unraveling the impact of blood RANKL and OPG levels on Alzheimer's disease: Independent of bone mineral density and inflammation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1