Developing medicines for the pre-symptomatic stage of degenerative neurological conditions: Challenges and opportunities.

Neurodegenerative disorders have a devastating disease course and an increasing prevalence due to prolonged life expectancy. In the last decades, it has become increasingly clear that these diseases often start much earlier, before the onset of symptoms, creating a potential window for pre-symptomatic treatment, a strategy that is desirable from both the biologic and the ethical point of view. However, studying treatments for a pre-symptomatic population presents objective difficulties. This article intends to give a perspective about opportunities and challenges of pre-symptomatic prevention of neurodegenerative diseases. Besides the requirement for biomarkers that would facilitate both the selection of study population and demonstrating a treatment effect, further considerations about balancing benefits, risks and uncertainties pertaining a pre-symptomatic population will be examined.

Preferences about Future Alzheimer's Disease Treatments Elicited through an Online Survey Using the Threshold Technique.

BACKGROUND: Treatments aiming at slowing down the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) may soon become available. However, information about the risks that people are willing to accept in order to delay the progression of the disease is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the trade-offs that individuals are willing to make between the benefits and risks of hypothetical treatments for AD, and the extent to which these trade-offs depend on individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines. DESIGN: Online, cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Population in the UK. Public link to the survey available at the websites of Alzheimer's Research UK and Join Dementia Research. PARTICIPANTS: Everyone self-reported ≥18 years old was eligible to participate. A total of 4384 people entered the survey and 3658 completed it. MEASUREMENTS: The maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of participants for moderate and severe adverse events in exchange for a 2-year delay in disease progression. The risks were expressed on ordinal scales, from <10% to ≥50%, above a pre-existing risk of 30% for moderate adverse events and 10% for severe adverse events. We obtained the population median MARs using log-normal survival models and quantified the effects of individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines in terms of acceleration factors. RESULTS: For the moderate adverse events, 26% of the participants had a MAR ≥50%, followed by 25% of the participants with a MAR of 10 to <20%, giving an estimated median MAR of 25.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.5 to 26.3). For the severe adverse events, 43% of the participants had a MAR <10%, followed by 25% of the participants with a MAR of 10 to <20%, resulting in an estimated median MAR of 12.1% (95%CI 11.6 to 12.5). Factors that were associated with the individuals' MARs for one or both adverse events were age, gender, educational level, living alone, and beliefs about medicines. Whether or not individuals were living with memory problems or had experience as a caregiver had no effect on the MARs for any of the adverse events. CONCLUSION: Trade-offs between benefits and risks of AD treatments are heterogeneous and influenced by individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines. This heterogeneity should be acknowledged during the medicinal product decision-making in order to fulfil the needs of the various subpopulations.

The association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes in cancer patients: secondary analysis of 16 academic prospective clinical trials conducted in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Cancer may cause financial difficulties, but its impact in countries with public health systems is unknown. We evaluated the association of financial difficulties with clinical outcomes of cancer patients enrolled in academic clinical trials performed within the Italian public health system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were pooled from 16 prospective multicentre trials in lung, breast or ovarian cancer, using the EORTC quality of life (QOL) C30 questionnaire. Question 28 scores financial difficulties related to disease or treatment in four categories from 'not at all' to 'very much'. We defined financial burden (FB) as any financial difficulty reported at baseline questionnaire, and financial toxicity (FT) as score worsening in a subsequent questionnaire. We investigated (i) the association of FB with clinical outcomes (survival, global QOL response [questions 29/30] and severe toxicity), and (ii) the association of FT with survival. Multivariable analyses were performed using logistic regression models or the Cox model adjusting for trial, gender, age, region and period of enrolment, baseline global QOL and, where appropriate, FB and global QOL response. Results are reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: At baseline 26% of the 3670 study patients reported FB, significantly correlated with worse baseline global QOL. FB was not associated with risks of death (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85-1.04, P = 0.23) and severe toxicity (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76-1.06, P = 0.19) but was predictive of a higher chance of worse global QOL response (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.70, P = 0.009). During treatment, 2735 (74.5%) patients filled in subsequent questionnaires and 616 (22.5%) developed FT that was significantly associated with an increased risk of death (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05-1.37, P = 0.007). Several sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. CONCLUSION: Even in a public health system, financial difficulties are associated with relevant cancer patients outcomes like QOL and survival. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: Any registered clinical trial number should be indicated after the abstract.