Becker Robert E, Greig Nigel H
Drug Design & Development Section, Laboratory of Neurosciences, Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Curr Alzheimer Res. 2008 Aug;5(4):346-57. doi: 10.2174/156720508785132299.
Recently, a number of Alzheimer's disease (AD) multi-center clinical trials (CT) have failed to provide statistically significant evidence of drug efficacy. To test for possible design or execution flaws we analyzed in detail CTs for two failed drugs that were strongly supported by preclinical evidence and by proven CT AD efficacy for other drugs in their class. Studies of the failed commercial trials suggest that methodological flaws may contribute to the failures and that these flaws lurk within current drug development practices ready to impact other AD drug development [1]. To identify and counter risks we considered the relevance to AD drug development of the following factors: (1) effective dosing of the drug product, (2) reliable evaluations of research subjects, (3) effective implementation of quality controls over data at research sites, (4) resources for practitioners to effectively use CT results in patient care, (5) effective disease modeling, (6) effective research designs. New drugs currently under development for AD address a variety of specific mechanistic targets. Mechanistic targets provide AD drug development opportunities to escape from many of the factors that currently undermine AD clinical pharmacology, especially the problems of inaccuracy and imprecision associated with using rated outcomes. In this paper we conclude that many of the current problems encountered in AD drug development can be avoided by changing practices. Current problems with human errors in clinical trials make it difficult to differentiate drugs that fail to evidence efficacy from apparent failures due to Type II errors. This uncertainty and the lack of publication of negative data impede researchers' abilities to improve methodologies in clinical pharmacology and to develop a sound body of knowledge about drug actions. We consider the identification of molecular targets as offering further opportunities for overcoming current failures in drug development.
最近,多项阿尔茨海默病(AD)多中心临床试验(CT)未能提供具有统计学意义的药物疗效证据。为了检验可能存在的设计或执行缺陷,我们详细分析了两项失败药物的临床试验,这两种药物在临床前证据以及同类其他药物已证实的CT AD疗效方面都得到了有力支持。对失败的商业试验的研究表明,方法学缺陷可能导致试验失败,并且这些缺陷潜藏在当前的药物开发实践中,随时可能影响其他AD药物的开发[1]。为了识别和应对风险,我们考虑了以下因素与AD药物开发的相关性:(1)药品的有效剂量,(2)对研究对象的可靠评估,(3)在研究地点对数据进行有效质量控制的实施,(4)从业者在患者护理中有效利用CT结果的资源,(5)有效的疾病建模,(6)有效的研究设计。目前正在研发的AD新药针对多种特定的机制靶点。机制靶点为AD药物开发提供了机会,使其能够摆脱目前破坏AD临床药理学的许多因素,尤其是与使用评分结果相关的不准确和不精确问题。在本文中,我们得出结论,通过改变实践可以避免AD药物开发中目前遇到的许多问题。目前临床试验中人为错误导致的问题使得难以区分未能证明疗效的药物与因II型错误导致的明显失败。这种不确定性以及阴性数据缺乏发表阻碍了研究人员改进临床药理学方法和建立关于药物作用的可靠知识体系的能力。我们认为,分子靶点的识别为克服当前药物开发失败提供了进一步的机会。