Dataset Information

Minocycline at 2 Different Dosages vs Placebo for Patients With Mild Alzheimer Disease: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

There are no disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer disease (AD), the most common cause of dementia. Minocycline is anti-inflammatory, protects against the toxic effects of β-amyloid in vitro and in animal models of AD, and is a credible repurposed treatment candidate.

Objective

To determine whether 24 months of minocycline treatment can modify cognitive and functional decline in patients with mild AD.

Design, setting, and participants

Participants were recruited into a double-blind randomized clinical trial from May 23, 2014, to April 14, 2016, with 24 months of treatment and follow-up. This multicenter study in England and Scotland involved 32 National Health Service memory clinics within secondary specialist services for people with dementia. From 886 screened patients, 554 patients with a diagnosis of mild AD (Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE] score ≥24) were randomized.

Interventions

Participants were randomly allocated 1:1:1 in a semifactorial design to receive minocycline (400 mg/d or 200 mg/d) or placebo for 24 months.

Main outcomes and measures

Primary outcome measures were decrease in sMMSE score and Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS), analyzed by intention-to-treat repeated-measures regression.

Results

Of 544 eligible participants (241 women and 303 men), the mean (SD) age was 74.3 (8.2) years, and the mean (SD) sMMSE score was 26.4 (1.9). Fewer participants completed 400-mg minocycline hydrochloride treatment (28.8% [53 of 184]) than 200-mg minocycline treatment (61.9% [112 of 181]) or placebo (63.7% [114 of 179]; P < .001), mainly because of gastrointestinal symptoms (42 in the 400-mg group, 15 in the 200-mg group, and 10 in the placebo group; P < .001), dermatologic adverse effects (10 in the 400-mg group, 5 in the 200-mg group, and 1 in the placebo group; P = .02), and dizziness (14 in the 400-mg group, 3 in the 200-mg group, and 1 in the placebo group; P = .01). Assessment rates were lower in the 400-mg group: 68.4% (119 of 174 expected) for sMMSE at 24 months compared with 81.8% (144 of 176) for the 200-mg group and 83.8% (140 of 167) for the placebo group. Decrease in sMMSE scores over 24 months in the combined minocycline group was similar to that in the placebo group (4.1 vs 4.3 points). The combined minocycline group had mean sMMSE scores 0.1 points higher than the placebo group (95% CI, -1.1 to 1.2; P = .90). The decrease in mean sMMSE scores was less in the 400-mg group than in the 200-mg group (3.3 vs 4.7 points; treatment effect = 1.2; 95% CI, -0.1 to 2.5; P = .08). Worsening of BADLS scores over 24 months was similar in all groups: 5.7 in the 400-mg group, 6.6 in the 200-mg group, and 6.2 in the placebo groups (treatment effect for minocycline vs placebo = -0.53; 95% CI, -2.4 to 1.3; P = .57; treatment effect for 400 mg vs 200 mg of minocycline = -0.31; 95% CI, -0.2 to 1.8; P = .77). Results were similar in different patient subgroups and in sensitivity analyses adjusting for missing data.

Conclusions and relevance

Minocycline did not delay the progress of cognitive or functional impairment in people with mild AD during a 2-year period. This study also found that 400 mg of minocycline is poorly tolerated in this population.

Trial registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16105064.

SUBMITTER: Howard R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6865324 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImpairment of dopaminergic transmission may contribute to cognitive dysfunction in Alzheimer disease (AD).ObjectiveTo investigate whether therapy with dopaminergic agonists may affect cognitive functions in patients with AD.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2, monocentric, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in Italy. Patients with mild to moderate AD were enrolled between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from July 1 to September 1, 2019.InterventionsA rotigotine 2 mg transdermal patch for 1 week followed by a 4 mg patch for 23 weeks (n = 47) or a placebo transdermal patch for 24 weeks (n = 47).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was change from baseline on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale. Secondary end points were changes in Frontal Assessment Battery, Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores. Prefrontal cortex activity was evaluated by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electroencephalography.ResultsAmong 94 patients randomized (mean [SD] age, 73.9 [5.6] years; 58 [62%] women), 78 (83%) completed the study. Rotigotine, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point: estimated mean change in Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale score was 2.92 (95% CI, 2.51-3.33) for the rotigotine group and 2.66 (95% CI, 2.31-3.01) for the placebo group. For the secondary outcomes, there were significant estimated mean changes between groups for Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living score (-3.32 [95% CI, -4.02 to -2.62] for rotigotine and -7.24 [95% CI, -7.84 to -6.64] for placebo) and Frontal Assessment Battery score (0.48 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.65] for rotigotine and -0.66 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.52] for placebo). There was no longitudinal change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores (1.64 [95% CI, 1.06-2.22] for rotigotine and 1.26 [95% CI, 0.77-1.75] for placebo group). Neurophysiological analysis of electroencephalography results indicated that prefrontal cortical activity increased in rotigotine but not in the placebo group. Adverse events were more common in the rotigotine group, with 11 patients dropping out compared with 5 in the placebo group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, rotigotine treatment did not significantly affect global cognition in patients with mild to moderate AD; however, improvement was observed in cognitive functions highly associated with the frontal lobe and in activities of daily living. These findings suggest that treatment with the dopaminergic agonist rotigotine may reduce symptoms associated with frontal lobe cognitive dysfunction and thus may delay the impairment of activities of daily living.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03250741.

Project description:ImportanceGalcanezumab (LY2951742), a monoclonal antibody against calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is one of a novel class of new medicines for migraine prevention.ObjectiveTo assess whether at least 1 dose of galcanezumab was superior to placebo for episodic migraine prevention.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial was conducted in the United States (July 7, 2014, to August 19, 2015) in clinics of 37 licensed physicians with a specialty including, but not limited to, psychiatry, neurology, internal medicine, and primary care. Subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, 5, 50, 120, or 300 mg, or placebo were given monthly during the 3-month treatment period. A total of 936 patients were assessed; 526 did not meet study entry or baseline criteria and 410 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo or galcanezumab. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat population, which included all patients who were randomized and received at least 1 dose of study drug.InterventionsShort-term migraine treatments were allowed as needed except for opioids or barbiturates.Main outcomes and measuresTo determine if at least 1 of the 4 doses of galcanezumab tested was superior to placebo for migraine prevention measured by the mean change from baseline in the number of migraine headache days 9 weeks to 12 weeks after randomization.ResultsOf the 936 patients assessed, 410 met entry criteria (aged 18-65 years with 4-14 migraine headache days per month and migraine onset prior to age 50 years) and were randomized to receive placebo or galcanezumab. For the primary end point, galcanezumab, 120 mg, significantly reduced migraine headache days compared with placebo (99.6% posterior probability -4.8 days; 90% BCI, -5.4 to -4.2 days vs 95% superiority threshold [Bayesian analysis] -3.7 days; 90% BCI, -4.1 to -3.2 days). Adverse events reported by 5% or more of patients in at least 1 galcanezumab dose group and more frequently than placebo included injection-site pain, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, dysmenorrhea, and nausea.Conclusions and relevanceMonthly subcutaneous injections of galcanezumab, both 120 mg and 300 mg, demonstrated efficacy (repeated-measures analysis) for the preventive treatment of migraine and support further development in larger phase 3 studies. All dosages were safe and well tolerated for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02163993.

Project description:ImportancePostpartum depression (PPD) is one of the most common medical complications during and after pregnancy, negatively affecting both mother and child.ObjectiveTo demonstrate the efficacy and safety of zuranolone, a neuroactive steroid γ-aminobutyric acid receptor-positive allosteric modulator, in PPD.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 3, double-blind, randomized, outpatient, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted between January 2017 and December 2018 in 27 enrolling US sites. Participant were women aged 18 to 45 years, 6 months or fewer post partum, with PPD (major depressive episode beginning third trimester or ≤4 weeks postdelivery), and baseline 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17) score of 26 or higher. Analysis was intention to treat and began December 2018 and ended March 2019.InterventionsRandomization 1:1 to placebo:zuranolone, 30 mg, administered orally each evening for 2 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end point was change from baseline in HAMD-17 score for zuranolone vs placebo at day 15. Secondary end points included changes from baseline in HAMD-17 total score at other time points, HAMD-17 response (≥50% score reduction) and remission (score ≤7) rates, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score. Safety was assessed by adverse events and clinical assessments.ResultsOf 153 randomized patients, the efficacy set comprised 150 patients (mean [SD] age, 28.3 [5.4] years), and 148 (98.7%) completed treatment. A total of 76 patients were randomized to placebo, and 77 were randomized to zuranolone, 30 mg. Zuranolone demonstrated significant day 15 HAMD-17 score improvements from baseline vs placebo (-17.8 vs -13.6; difference, -4.2; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.5; P = .003). Sustained differences in HAMD-17 scores favoring zuranolone were observed from day 3 (difference, -2.7; 95% CI, -5.1 to -0.3; P = .03) through day 45 (difference, -4.1; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.4; P = .003). Sustained differences at day 15 favoring zuranolone were observed in HAMD-17 response (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.34-5.16; P = .005), HAMD-17 score remission (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.24-5.17; P = .01), change from baseline for Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score (difference, -4.6; 95% CI, -8.3 to -0.8; P = .02), and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety score (difference, -3.9; 95% CI, -6.7 to -1.1; P = .006). One patient per group experienced a serious adverse event (confusional state in the zuranolone group and pancreatitis in the placebo group). One patient in the zuranolone group discontinued because of an adverse event vs none for placebo.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, zuranolone improved the core symptoms of depression as measured by HAMD-17 scores in women with PPD and was generally well tolerated, supporting further development of zuranolone in the treatment of PPD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02978326.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess progesterone treatment of intractable seizures in women with partial epilepsy.MethodsThis randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III, multicenter, clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjunctive cyclic natural progesterone therapy vs placebo treatment of intractable seizures in 294 subjects randomized 2:1 to progesterone or placebo, stratified by catamenial and noncatamenial status. It compared treatments on proportions of ≥50% responders and changes in seizure frequency from 3 baseline to 3 treated menstrual cycles.ResultsThere was no significant difference in proportions of responders between progesterone and placebo in the catamenial and noncatamenial strata. Prespecified secondary analysis showed that the level of perimenstrual seizure exacerbation (C1 level) was a significant predictor of responders for progesterone but not placebo. With increasing C1 levels, responders increased from 21% to 57% with progesterone vs 19% to 20% with placebo. Reductions in seizure frequency correlated with increasing C1 levels for progesterone but not placebo, progressing from 26% to 71% for progesterone vs 25% to 26% for placebo. A prespecified clinically important separation between progesterone and placebo responders (37.8% vs 11.1%; p = 0.037) was realized among 21.4% of women who had C1 level ≥3.ConclusionThere was no difference in the primary outcome of ≥50% responder rates between progesterone vs placebo for catamenial or noncatamenial groups. Post hoc findings suggest that the level of perimenstrual seizure exacerbation is a significant predictor of responder rate with progesterone and that progesterone may provide clinically important benefit for a subset of women with perimenstrually exacerbated seizures.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that cyclic progesterone is ineffective in women with intractable partial epilepsy. Post hoc analysis identified a subset of women with higher levels of perimenstrual seizure exacerbation that were responsive to treatment.

Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of fluvoxamine to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of low-dose fluvoxamine (50 mg twice daily) for 10 days compared with placebo for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in the US.Design, setting, and participantsThe ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to test repurposed medications in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1288 participants aged 30 years or older with test-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute COVID-19 for 7 days or less were enrolled between August 6, 2021, and May 27, 2022, at 91 sites in the US.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days or placebo.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as the third day of 3 consecutive days without symptoms). There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite outcome of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death through day 28.ResultsAmong 1331 participants who were randomized (median age, 47 years [IQR, 38-57 years]; 57% were women; and 67% reported receiving ≥2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1288 completed the trial (674 in the fluvoxamine group and 614 in the placebo group). The median time to sustained recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-14 days) in the fluvoxamine group and 13 days (IQR, 12-13 days) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% credible interval, 0.86-1.06], posterior P = .21 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR >1]). For the composite outcome, 26 participants (3.9%) in the fluvoxamine group were hospitalized, had an urgent care visit, had an emergency department visit, or died compared with 23 participants (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.1 [95% credible interval, 0.5-1.8], posterior P = .35 for the probability of benefit [determined by an HR <1]). One participant in the fluvoxamine group and 2 participants in the placebo group were hospitalized; no deaths occurred in either group. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups.Conclusions and relevanceAmong outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with 50 mg of fluvoxamine twice daily for 10 days, compared with placebo, did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of fluvoxamine at this dose and duration in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Project description:ImportanceThe effectiveness of ivermectin to shorten symptom duration or prevent hospitalization among outpatients in the US with mild to moderate symptomatic COVID-19 is unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of ivermectin, 400 μg/kg, daily for 3 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19.Design, setting, and participantsACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1591 participants aged 30 years and older with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing 2 or more symptoms of acute infection for 7 days or less, were enrolled from June 23, 2021, through February 4, 2022, with follow-up data through May 31, 2022, at 93 sites in the US.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive ivermectin, 400 μg/kg (n = 817), daily for 3 days or placebo (n = 774).Main outcomes and measuresTime to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. There were 7 secondary outcomes, including a composite of hospitalization or death by day 28.ResultsAmong 1800 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 48 [12] years; 932 women [58.6%]; 753 [47.3%] reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine), 1591 completed the trial. The hazard ratio (HR) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.07 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.96-1.17; posterior P value [HR >1] = .91). The median time to recovery was 12 days (IQR, 11-13) in the ivermectin group and 13 days (IQR, 12-14) in the placebo group. There were 10 hospitalizations or deaths in the ivermectin group and 9 in the placebo group (1.2% vs 1.2%; HR, 1.1 [95% CrI, 0.4-2.6]). The most common serious adverse events were COVID-19 pneumonia (ivermectin [n = 5]; placebo [n = 7]) and venous thromboembolism (ivermectin [n = 1]; placebo [n = 5]).Conclusions and relevanceAmong outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Project description:ImportanceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may lead to serious illness as a result of an excessive immune response. Fluvoxamine may prevent clinical deterioration by stimulating the σ-1 receptor, which regulates cytokine production.ObjectiveTo determine whether fluvoxamine, given during mild COVID-19 illness, prevents clinical deterioration and decreases the severity of disease.Design, setting, and participantsDouble-blind, randomized, fully remote (contactless) clinical trial of fluvoxamine vs placebo. Participants were community-living, nonhospitalized adults with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, with COVID-19 symptom onset within 7 days and oxygen saturation of 92% or greater. One hundred fifty-two participants were enrolled from the St Louis metropolitan area (Missouri and Illinois) from April 10, 2020, to August 5, 2020. The final date of follow-up was September 19, 2020.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg of fluvoxamine (n = 80) or placebo (n = 72) 3 times daily for 15 days.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was clinical deterioration within 15 days of randomization defined by meeting both criteria of (1) shortness of breath or hospitalization for shortness of breath or pneumonia and (2) oxygen saturation less than 92% on room air or need for supplemental oxygen to achieve oxygen saturation of 92% or greater.ResultsOf 152 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years; 109 [72%] women), 115 (76%) completed the trial. Clinical deterioration occurred in 0 of 80 patients in the fluvoxamine group and in 6 of 72 patients in the placebo group (absolute difference, 8.7% [95% CI, 1.8%-16.4%] from survival analysis; log-rank P = .009). The fluvoxamine group had 1 serious adverse event and 11 other adverse events, whereas the placebo group had 6 serious adverse events and 12 other adverse events.Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary study of adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19, patients treated with fluvoxamine, compared with placebo, had a lower likelihood of clinical deterioration over 15 days. However, the study is limited by a small sample size and short follow-up duration, and determination of clinical efficacy would require larger randomized trials with more definitive outcome measures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04342663.

Project description:ImportanceNeurofibrillary tangles composed of aggregated tau protein are one of the neuropathological hallmarks of Alzheimer disease (AD) and correlate with clinical disease severity. Monoclonal antibodies targeting tau may have the potential to ameliorate AD progression by slowing or stopping the spread and/or accumulation of pathological tau.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of the monoclonal anti-tau antibody semorinemab in prodromal to mild AD.Design, setting, and participantsThis phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was conducted between October 18, 2017, and July 16, 2020, at 97 sites in North America, Europe, and Australia. Individuals aged 50 to 80 years (inclusive) with prodromal to mild AD, Mini-Mental State Examination scores between 20 and 30 (inclusive), and confirmed β-amyloid pathology (by positron emission tomography or cerebrospinal fluid) were included.InterventionsDuring the 73-week blinded study period, participants received intravenous infusions of placebo or semorinemab (1500 mg, 4500 mg, or 8100 mg) every 2 weeks for the first 3 infusions and every 4 weeks thereafter.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were change from baseline on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes score from baseline to week 73 and assessments of the safety and tolerability for semorinemab compared with placebo.ResultsIn the modified intent-to-treat cohort (n = 422; mean [SD] age, 69.6 [7.0] years; 235 women [55.7%]), similar increases were seen on the Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes score in the placebo (n = 126; Δ = 2.19 [95% CI, 1.74-2.63]) and semorinemab (1500 mg: n = 86; Δ = 2.36 [95% CI, 1.83-2.89]; 4500 mg: n = 126; Δ = 2.36 [95% CI, 1.92-2.79]; 8100 mg: n = 84; Δ = 2.41 [95% CI, 1.88-2.94]) arms. In the safety-evaluable cohort (n = 441), similar proportions of participants experienced adverse events in the placebo (130 [93.1%]) and semorinemab (1500 mg: 89 [88.8%]; 4500 mg: 132 [94.7%]; 8100 mg: 90 [92.2%]) arms.Conclusions and relevanceIn participants with prodromal to mild AD in this randomized clinical trial, semorinemab did not slow clinical AD progression compared with placebo throughout the 73-week study period but did demonstrate an acceptable and well-tolerated safety profile. Additional studies of anti-tau antibodies may be needed to determine the clinical utility of this therapeutic approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03289143.

Project description:Campylobacter concisus has been associated with prolonged mild diarrhoea, but investigations regarding the efficacy of antimicrobial treatment have not been reported previously. We initiated a phase 3, single-centre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study comparing the efficacy of 500 mg once-daily dose of azithromycin with a 500 mg once-daily dose of placebo for three days, for the treatment of C. concisus diarrhoea in adult patients with a follow-up period of ten days. If symptoms persisted at day ten, the patient was offered cross-over study treatment of three days and another ten-day follow-up period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the clinical response, defined as time to cessation of diarrhoea (<3 stools/day or reversal of accompanying symptoms). Our estimated sample size was 100 patients. We investigated a total of 10,036 diarrheic stool samples from 7,089 adult patients. Five-hundred and eighty-eight C. concisus positive patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 559 were excluded prior to randomization. The three main reasons for exclusion were duration of diarrhoea longer than 21 days (n = 124), previous antibiotic treatment (n = 113), and co-pathogens in stools (n = 87). Therefore, 24 patients completed the trial with either azithromycin (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12). Both groups presented symptoms of mild, prolonged diarrhoea with a mean duration of 18 days (95% CI: 16-19). One person in the azithromycin group and four from the placebo group chose to continue with crossover medication after the initial ten-day period. In the azithromycin group, there was a mean of seven days (95% CI: 5-9) to clinical cure and for the placebo group it was ten days (95% CI: 6-14) (OR-3 (95% CI: -7-1). We observed no differences in all examined outcomes between azithromycin treatment and placebo. However, due to unforeseen recruitment difficulties we did not reach our estimated sample size of 100 patients and statistical power to conclude on an effect of azithromycin treatment was not obtained.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01531218.