| Literature DB >> 34988458 |
Lucy Vivash1,2,3,4, Charles B Malpas1,3,4,5, Christopher M Hovens6, Amy Brodtmann3,7,8, Steven Collins2, Stephen Macfarlane9, Dennis Velakoulis10,11, Terence J O'Brien1,2,3,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sodium selenate is a potential disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) which reduces hyperphosphorylated tau through activation of the protein phosphatase 2A enzyme. We have shown sodium selenate to be safe and well tolerated in a 24-week, phase 2a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial (RCT), also reporting sodium selenate reduced neurodegeneration on diffusion-weighted MRI. This study assessed the safety and tolerability of chronic sodium selenate treatment (up to 23 months) in patients with AD who had been enrolled in the RCT. Cognitive measures served as secondary outcomes of potential disease-modification.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; cognition
Year: 2021 PMID: 34988458 PMCID: PMC8679123 DOI: 10.1136/bmjno-2021-000223
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Neurol Open ISSN: 2632-6140
Figure 1Participant flow diagram showing initial recruitment numbers and those included in the intention to treat and modified per protocol populations. OLE, open-label extension; RCT, randomised controlled trial.
Treatment emergent adverse events that occurred in two or more participants
| Sodium selenate OLE | Sodium selenate RCT* (treatment arm) | Sodium selenate phase 1 open label† | |
| Total TEAEs | 24 (86%) 87 | 19 (95%) | Not reported |
| Solicited AEs | 19 (68%) 29 | 14 (70%) 53 | |
| Nail changes | 9 (32%) 10 | 2 (10%) 3 | 5 (26%) |
| Hair loss | 6 (21%) 6 | Nil | 8 (42%) |
| Fatigue | 4 (14%) 4 | 7 (35%) 7 | 9 (47%) |
| Lethargy | 3 (11%) 3 | 6 (30%) 6 | 5 (26%) |
| Vomiting | 2 (7%) 2 | Nil | 4 (21%) |
| Headache | 2 (7%) 2 | 7 (35%) 7 | 3 (16%) |
| Dizziness | 2 (7%) 2 | 4 (20%) 4 | 4 (21%) |
| Unsolicited AEs | 24 (86%) 58 | 7 (35%) 12 | |
| Arthralgia | 4 (14%) 4 | 2 (10%) 2 | 2 (10%) |
| Cold | 4 (14%) 4 | Nil | Not reported |
| Fall | 2 (7%) 4 | Nil | Not reported |
| UTI | 2 (7%) 3 | Nil | Not reported |
| Hypertension | 2 (7%) 2 | Nil | Not reported |
| Back pain | 2 (7%) 2 | Nil | Not reported |
| Influenza | 2 (7%) 2 | Nil | Not reported |
| Constipation | 2 (7%) 2 | Nil | 4 (21%) |
Data are presented as number of participants (percentage of total cohort) total number of events. For comparison, the frequency of adverse events in the treatment group in the randomised controlled trial is also reported,13 and the phase 1 open-label study in prostate cancer.15 Adverse events that occurred in fewer than two participants are not listed.
*Treatment period 24 weeks, n=20.13
†Treatment period 12 weeks, n=19, doses ranged from 5 mg daily to 30 mg three times a day, n=12 on a treatment dose >30 mg/day. Only adverse events at least possibly related to treatment reported.15
AE, adverse event; OLE, open-label extension; RCT, randomised controlled trial; TEAE, treatment emergent adverse event; UTI, urinary tract infection.
Cognitive measures at each visit
| Baseline(n=28) | Week 6 (n=28) | Month 3 (n=27) | Month 6 (n=23) | Month 9 (n=18) | Month 12 (n=16) | Month 18 (n=10) | |
| ADAS-Cog11 | 21.7 (8–42.7)* | ND | ND | 21.7 (5.33–43)† | ND | 23.5 (8–51.7)‡ | 26 (18.3–37.3)§ |
| CFT | 9 (1–24)¶ | ND | ND | ND | ND | 7 (0–20) | ND |
| COWAT | 24 (2–57)** | ND | ND | ND | ND | 22 (3–38)†† | ND |
| DET | 2.64 (2.36–3.09) | 2.68 (2.38–3.17) | 2.70 (2.40–3.04) | 2.64 (2.39–2.98) | 2.67 (2.39–2.95) | 2.68 (2.39–2.99) | 2.79 (2.40–2.95 |
| IDN | 2.81 (2.53–3.13) | 2.79 (2.69–3.08)* | 2.80 (2.63–3.09) | 2.81 (2.66–3.08) | 2.82 (2.66–2.98) | 2.85 (2.66–3.08) | 2.84 (2.73–3.08) |
| OCL | 0.766 (0.639–0.947) | 0.785 (0.563–0.935)* | 0.775 (0.358–0.924) | 0.805 (0.552–0.924) | 0.805 (0.515–0.947) | 0.78 (0.487–0.947)‡ | 0.783 (0.717–0.9) |
Data are presented as median (range).
*n=23.
†n=21.
‡n=14.
§n=4.
¶n=26.
**n=27.
††n=15.
n=9.
ADAS-Cog11, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale—Cognitive Subscale; CFT, category fluency test; COWAT, controlled oral word association test; DET, detection reaction time task; IDN, identification reaction time task; OCL, one card learning memory task.
Figure 2The computerised cognitive battery scores over the course of the study. (A) Detection (DET) score, (B) one card learning (OCL) score, (C) identification (IDN) score. No evidence for change was seen in the detection of one card learning tests, with the identification test showing a significant worsening over the course of the study (p<0.001). Individual patient scores are displayed as data points. The thick blue line and grey shaded area represent the mean score and 95% CI.
Figure 3Pen and paper cognitive test scores over the course of the study. (A) ADAS-Cog11 score, (B) CFT score, (C) COWAT score. Worsening performance over time was seen for all tests, demonstrated by a significant increase in the ADAS-Cog score (p=0.002) and significant decrease in the CFT (p=0.019) and COWAT (p=0.035). Individual patient scores are displayed as data points. The thick blue line and grey shaded area represent the mean score and 95% CI. ADAS-Cog11, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale—Cognitive Subscale; CFT, category fluency test; COWAT, controlled oral word association test.