在改变阿尔茨海默氏症类型的痴呆症疗法时代,癌症研究为推进痴呆症临床试验提供了一种模式。

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Alzheimer's Research & Therapy Pub Date : 2024-08-21 DOI:10.1186/s13195-024-01532-6
Gregory A Jicha, Thomas C Tucker, Susanne M Arnold, Peter T Nelson
{"title":"在改变阿尔茨海默氏症类型的痴呆症疗法时代,癌症研究为推进痴呆症临床试验提供了一种模式。","authors":"Gregory A Jicha, Thomas C Tucker, Susanne M Arnold, Peter T Nelson","doi":"10.1186/s13195-024-01532-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dementia and cancer are multifactorial, widely-feared, age-associated clinical syndromes that are increasing in prevalence. There have been major breakthroughs in clinical cancer research leading to some effective treatments, whereas the field of dementia has achieved comparatively limited success in clinical research. The lessons of cancer research may help those in the dementia research field in confronting some of the dilemmas faced when the clinical care regimen is not entirely safe or efficacious. Cancer clinical trials have assumed that untreated individuals with cancer are at high risk for morbidity and mortality after primary diagnoses. Thus, patients deserve a choice of clinical interventions, either standard of care or experimental, even if the benefits are not certain and the therapy's side effects are potentially severe. The prognosis for many individuals at risk for dementia carries a correspondingly high level of risk for both mortality and severe morbidity, particularly if one focuses on \"health-span\" rather than lifespan. Caregivers and patients can be strongly impacted by dementia and the many troubling associated symptoms that often go well beyond amnesia. Polls, surveys, and a literature on \"dementia worry\" strongly underscore that the public fears dementia. While there are institutional and industry hurdles that complicate enrollment in randomized trials, the gravity of the future morbidity and mortality inherent in a dementia diagnosis may require reconsideration of the current protective stance that limits the freedom of at-risk individuals (either symptomatic or asymptomatic) to participate and potentially benefit from ongoing clinical research. There is also evidence from both cancer and dementia research that individuals enrolled in the placebo arms of clinical trials have unexpectedly good outcomes, indicating that participation in clinical trial can have medical benefits to enrollees. To highlight aspects of cancer clinical research that may inform present and future dementia clinical research, this review highlights three main themes: the risk of side effects should be weighed against the often dire consequences of non-treatment; the desirability of long-term incremental (rather than \"magic bullet\") clinical advances; and, the eventual importance of combination therapies, reflecting that the dementia clinical syndrome has many underlying biological pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":7516,"journal":{"name":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","volume":"16 1","pages":"184"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11337902/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cancer research provides a model for advancing clinical trials in dementia in the era of disease-modifying Alzheimer's-type dementia therapies.\",\"authors\":\"Gregory A Jicha, Thomas C Tucker, Susanne M Arnold, Peter T Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13195-024-01532-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Dementia and cancer are multifactorial, widely-feared, age-associated clinical syndromes that are increasing in prevalence. There have been major breakthroughs in clinical cancer research leading to some effective treatments, whereas the field of dementia has achieved comparatively limited success in clinical research. The lessons of cancer research may help those in the dementia research field in confronting some of the dilemmas faced when the clinical care regimen is not entirely safe or efficacious. Cancer clinical trials have assumed that untreated individuals with cancer are at high risk for morbidity and mortality after primary diagnoses. Thus, patients deserve a choice of clinical interventions, either standard of care or experimental, even if the benefits are not certain and the therapy's side effects are potentially severe. The prognosis for many individuals at risk for dementia carries a correspondingly high level of risk for both mortality and severe morbidity, particularly if one focuses on \\\"health-span\\\" rather than lifespan. Caregivers and patients can be strongly impacted by dementia and the many troubling associated symptoms that often go well beyond amnesia. Polls, surveys, and a literature on \\\"dementia worry\\\" strongly underscore that the public fears dementia. While there are institutional and industry hurdles that complicate enrollment in randomized trials, the gravity of the future morbidity and mortality inherent in a dementia diagnosis may require reconsideration of the current protective stance that limits the freedom of at-risk individuals (either symptomatic or asymptomatic) to participate and potentially benefit from ongoing clinical research. There is also evidence from both cancer and dementia research that individuals enrolled in the placebo arms of clinical trials have unexpectedly good outcomes, indicating that participation in clinical trial can have medical benefits to enrollees. To highlight aspects of cancer clinical research that may inform present and future dementia clinical research, this review highlights three main themes: the risk of side effects should be weighed against the often dire consequences of non-treatment; the desirability of long-term incremental (rather than \\\"magic bullet\\\") clinical advances; and, the eventual importance of combination therapies, reflecting that the dementia clinical syndrome has many underlying biological pathways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"184\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11337902/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01532-6\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alzheimer's Research & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01532-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

痴呆症和癌症都是多因素、广受关注、与年龄相关的临床综合征,而且发病率越来越高。癌症的临床研究已经取得了重大突破,并产生了一些有效的治疗方法,而痴呆症领域的临床研究成果却相对有限。癌症研究的经验教训可能有助于痴呆症研究领域的人员应对临床治疗方案不完全安全或有效时所面临的一些困境。癌症临床试验假定,未经治疗的癌症患者在初诊后发病和死亡的风险很高。因此,即使疗效不确定,治疗的副作用可能很严重,患者也应该选择标准治疗或试验性临床干预措施。许多有痴呆风险的人的预后都具有相应的高死亡率和严重发病率风险,特别是如果我们关注的是 "健康寿命 "而不是寿命的话。痴呆症和许多令人不安的相关症状会对照顾者和患者造成严重影响,而这些症状往往远不止失忆这么简单。民调、调查和有关 "痴呆症担忧 "的文献都强烈强调了公众对痴呆症的恐惧。虽然机构和行业方面的障碍会使随机试验的入组复杂化,但痴呆症诊断所固有的未来发病率和死亡率的严重性可能需要重新考虑当前的保护立场,这种立场限制了高危人群(无论是有症状还是无症状)参与正在进行的临床研究并从中获益的自由。癌症和痴呆症研究中也有证据表明,参加临床试验安慰剂组的患者会获得意想不到的良好结果,这表明参加临床试验会给参加者带来医疗益处。为了突出癌症临床研究中可以为现在和未来的痴呆症临床研究提供借鉴的方面,本综述强调了三大主题:应权衡副作用的风险和不治疗的可怕后果;长期渐进(而非 "灵丹妙药")临床进展的可取性;以及综合疗法的最终重要性,这反映出痴呆症临床综合征有许多潜在的生物学途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Cancer research provides a model for advancing clinical trials in dementia in the era of disease-modifying Alzheimer's-type dementia therapies.

Dementia and cancer are multifactorial, widely-feared, age-associated clinical syndromes that are increasing in prevalence. There have been major breakthroughs in clinical cancer research leading to some effective treatments, whereas the field of dementia has achieved comparatively limited success in clinical research. The lessons of cancer research may help those in the dementia research field in confronting some of the dilemmas faced when the clinical care regimen is not entirely safe or efficacious. Cancer clinical trials have assumed that untreated individuals with cancer are at high risk for morbidity and mortality after primary diagnoses. Thus, patients deserve a choice of clinical interventions, either standard of care or experimental, even if the benefits are not certain and the therapy's side effects are potentially severe. The prognosis for many individuals at risk for dementia carries a correspondingly high level of risk for both mortality and severe morbidity, particularly if one focuses on "health-span" rather than lifespan. Caregivers and patients can be strongly impacted by dementia and the many troubling associated symptoms that often go well beyond amnesia. Polls, surveys, and a literature on "dementia worry" strongly underscore that the public fears dementia. While there are institutional and industry hurdles that complicate enrollment in randomized trials, the gravity of the future morbidity and mortality inherent in a dementia diagnosis may require reconsideration of the current protective stance that limits the freedom of at-risk individuals (either symptomatic or asymptomatic) to participate and potentially benefit from ongoing clinical research. There is also evidence from both cancer and dementia research that individuals enrolled in the placebo arms of clinical trials have unexpectedly good outcomes, indicating that participation in clinical trial can have medical benefits to enrollees. To highlight aspects of cancer clinical research that may inform present and future dementia clinical research, this review highlights three main themes: the risk of side effects should be weighed against the often dire consequences of non-treatment; the desirability of long-term incremental (rather than "magic bullet") clinical advances; and, the eventual importance of combination therapies, reflecting that the dementia clinical syndrome has many underlying biological pathways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy 医学-神经病学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
172
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy is an international peer-reviewed journal that focuses on translational research into Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases. It publishes open-access basic research, clinical trials, drug discovery and development studies, and epidemiologic studies. The journal also includes reviews, viewpoints, commentaries, debates, and reports. All articles published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy are included in several reputable databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, MEDLINE, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) and Scopus.
期刊最新文献
Post hoc analysis of ADAMANT, a phase 2 clinical trial of active tau immunotherapy with AADvac1 in patients with Alzheimer's disease, positive for plasma p-tau217. Frontotemporal structure preservation underlies the protective effect of lifetime intellectual cognitive reserve on cognition in the elderly. Elevated plasma p-tau231 is associated with reduced generalization and medial temporal lobe dynamic network flexibility among healthy older African Americans. Can the clinical sign "head-turning sign" and simple questions in "Neucop-Q" predict amyloid β pathology? A digitally supported multimodal lifestyle program to promote brain health among older adults (the LETHE randomized controlled feasibility trial): study design, progress, and first results.
×
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