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, 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","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.
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.