PURPOSE: To date, γ-secretase inhibition is the most frequently studied mechanism of reducing Aβ in clinical trials with as yet no therapeutic success for AD patients, as measured by the slowing down of cognitive decline or an improvement in cognitive function. The aims of this investigation were to evaluate whether the amyloid hypothesis has been tested clinically, and to explore whether preclinical data are predictive of clinical Aβ effects. METHODS: A model-based-meta analysis on Aβ levels and drug exposure over time was performed on published and in-house (pre-)clinical data with γ-secretase inhibitors (GSIs; semagacestat, avagacestat, begacestat, PF-3074014, and MK0752). RESULTS: The clinical data available did not show any significant or robust reduction of CNS Aβ over time at dose levels intended for AD patients. In contrast, these doses resulted in an average increase in plasma Aβ levels over a 24-h interval. A general agreement between preclinical and clinical data was found and allowed for interspecies extrapolations. CONCLUSIONS: More substantially, CNS Aβ-lowering drugs are needed to test whether inhibition of Aβ production is efficacious in mild AD. Predictions based on preclinical data could assist in the selection of drug candidates and trial design.
PURPOSE: To date, γ-secretase inhibition is the most frequently studied mechanism of reducing Aβ in clinical trials with as yet no therapeutic success for ADpatients, as measured by the slowing down of cognitive decline or an improvement in cognitive function. The aims of this investigation were to evaluate whether the amyloid hypothesis has been tested clinically, and to explore whether preclinical data are predictive of clinical Aβ effects. METHODS: A model-based-meta analysis on Aβ levels and drug exposure over time was performed on published and in-house (pre-)clinical data with γ-secretase inhibitors (GSIs; semagacestat, avagacestat, begacestat, PF-3074014, and MK0752). RESULTS: The clinical data available did not show any significant or robust reduction of CNS Aβ over time at dose levels intended for ADpatients. In contrast, these doses resulted in an average increase in plasma Aβ levels over a 24-h interval. A general agreement between preclinical and clinical data was found and allowed for interspecies extrapolations. CONCLUSIONS: More substantially, CNS Aβ-lowering drugs are needed to test whether inhibition of Aβ production is efficacious in mild AD. Predictions based on preclinical data could assist in the selection of drug candidates and trial design.
Authors: Paul Morgan; Piet H Van Der Graaf; John Arrowsmith; Doug E Feltner; Kira S Drummond; Craig D Wegner; Steve D A Street Journal: Drug Discov Today Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 7.851
Authors: Leon M Tai; Helmut Jacobsen; Laurence Ozmen; Alexander Flohr; Roland Jakob-Roetne; Antonello Caruso; Hans-Peter Grimm Journal: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 2.745
Authors: Jinhe Li; Daniel A Llano; Teresa Ellis; David LeBlond; Anahita Bhathena; Stanford S Jhee; Larry Ereshefsky; Robert Lenz; Jeffrey F Waring Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Erik Portelius; Bianca Van Broeck; Ulf Andreasson; Mikael K Gustavsson; Marc Mercken; Henrik Zetterberg; Herman Borghys; Kaj Blennow Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Catherine R Burton; Jere E Meredith; Donna M Barten; Margi E Goldstein; Carol M Krause; Cathy J Kieras; Lisa Sisk; Lawrence G Iben; Craig Polson; Mark W Thompson; Xu-Alan Lin; Jason Corsa; Tracey Fiedler; Maria Pierdomenico; Yang Cao; Arthur H Roach; Joseph L Cantone; Michael J Ford; Dieter M Drexler; Richard E Olson; Michael G Yang; Carl P Bergstrom; Kate E McElhone; Joanne J Bronson; John E Macor; Yuval Blat; Robert H Grafstrom; Andrew M Stern; Dietmar A Seiffert; Robert Zaczek; Charles F Albright; Jeremy H Toyn Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Robert L Martone; Hua Zhou; Kevin Atchison; Thomas Comery; Jane Z Xu; Xinyi Huang; Xioahai Gong; Mei Jin; Anthony Kreft; Boyd Harrison; Scott C Mayer; Suzan Aschmies; Cathleen Gonzales; Margaret M Zaleska; David R Riddell; Erik Wagner; Peimin Lu; Shaiu-Ching Sun; June Sonnenberg-Reines; Aram Oganesian; Karissa Adkins; Michael W Leach; David W Clarke; Donna Huryn; Magid Abou-Gharbia; Ronald Magolda; Jonathan Bard; Glen Frick; Sangeeta Raje; S Bradley Forlow; Carrie Balliet; Michael E Burczynski; Peter H Reinhart; Hong I Wan; Menelas N Pangalos; J Steven Jacobsen Journal: J Pharmacol Exp Ther Date: 2009-08-11 Impact factor: 4.030
Authors: Carla D'Avanzo; Christopher Sliwinski; Steven L Wagner; Rudolph E Tanzi; Doo Yeon Kim; Dora M Kovacs Journal: FASEB J Date: 2015-04-22 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Juliette Janson; Susanna Eketjäll; Karin Tunblad; Fredrik Jeppsson; Stefan Von Berg; Camilla Niva; Ann-Cathrin Radesäter; Johanna Fälting; Sandra A G Visser Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Eliza Barnwell; Vasudevaraju Padmaraju; Robert Baranello; Javier Pacheco-Quinto; Craig Crosson; Zsolt Ablonczy; Elizabeth Eckman; Christopher B Eckman; Viswanathan Ramakrishnan; Nigel H Greig; Miguel A Pappolla; Kumar Sambamurti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joanna Parkinson; Bart Ploeger; Paulina Appelkvist; Anna Bogstedt; Karin Dillner Bergstedt; Susanna Eketjäll; Sandra A G Visser Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2013-12-05