Drug repositioning for Alzheimer's disease

Existing drugs for Alzheimer's disease provide symptomatic benefit for up to 12 months, but there are no approved disease-modifying therapies. Given the recent failures of various novel disease-modifying therapies in clinical trials, a complementary strategy based on repositioning drugs that are approved for other indications could be attractive. Indeed, a substantial body of preclinical work indicates that several classes of such drugs have potentially beneficial effects on Alzheimer's-like brain pathology, and for some drugs the evidence is also supported by epidemiological data or preliminary clinical trials. Here, we present a formal consensus evaluation of these opportunities, based on a systematic review of published literature. We highlight several compounds for which sufficient evidence is available to encourage further investigation to clarify an optimal dose and consider progression to clinical trials in patients with Alzheimer's disease.

Donepezil and memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease

Background: Clinical trials have shown the benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is not known whether treatment benefits continue after the progression to moderate-to-severe disease. Methods: We assigned 295 community-dwelling patients who had been treated with donepezil for at least 3 months and who had moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease (a score of 5 to 13 on the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [SMMSE, on which scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function]) to continue donepezil, discontinue donepezil, discontinue donepezil and start memantine, or continue donepezil and start memantine. Patients received the study treatment for 52 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were scores on the SMMSE and on the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS, on which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). The minimum clinically important differences were 1.4 points on the SMMSE and 3.5 points on the BADLS.
Results: Patients assigned to continue donepezil, as compared with those assigned to discontinue donepezil, had a score on the SMMSE that was higher by an average of 1.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.5) and a score on the BADLS that was lower (indicating less impairment) by 3.0 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.3) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients assigned to receive memantine, as compared with those assigned to receive memantine placebo, had a score on the SMMSE that was an average of 1.2 points higher (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8; P<0.001) and a score on the BADLS that was 1.5 points lower (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.8; P = 0.02). The efficacy of donepezil and of memantine did not differ significantly in the presence or absence of the other. There were no significant benefits of the combination of donepezil and memantine over donepezil alone.
Conclusions: In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. (Funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council and the U.K. Alzheimer's Society; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49545035).

Defining target volumes for stereotactic ablative radiotherapy of early-stage lung tumours: a comparison of three-dimensional 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and four-dimensional computed tomography.:PETCT versus 4DCT for SABR in Early Stage NSCLC

AIMS: High local control rates are achieved in stage I lung cancer using
stereotactic ablative radiotherapy. Target delineation is commonly based on
four-dimensional computed tomography (CT) scans. Target volumes defined by
positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) are compared with those defined by four-dimensional CT and conventional ('three-dimensional')
(18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) PET/CT.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: For 16 stage I non-small cell lung cancer tumours, six
approaches for deriving PET target volumes were evaluated: manual contouring,
standardised uptake value (SUV) absolute threshold of 2.5, 35% of maximum SUV
(35%SUV(MAX)), 41% of SUV(MAX) (41%SUV(MAX)) and two different source to
background ratio techniques (SBR-1 and SBR-2). PET-derived target volumes were compared with the internal target volume (ITV) from the modified maximum
intensity projection (MIP(MOD) ITV). Volumetric and positional correlation was
assessed using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC).

RESULTS: PET-based target volumes did not correspond to four-dimensional CT-based target volumes. The mean DSC relative to MIP(MOD) ITV were: PET manual = 0.64, SUV2.5 = 0.64, 35%SUV(MAX) = 0.63, 41%SUV(MAX) = 0.57. SBR-1 = 0.52, SBR-2 =0.49. PET-based target volumes were smaller than corresponding MIP ITVs.

CONCLUSIONS: Conventional three-dimensional (18)F-FDG PET-derived target volumes for lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy did not correspond well with those derived from four-dimensional CT, including those in routine clinical use
(MIP(MOD) ITV). Caution is required in using three-dimensional PET for motion
encompassing target volume delineation.