Pooling Alzheimer's disease clinical trial data to develop personalized medicine approaches is easier said than done: A proof‐of‐principle study and call to action

• Published in: Alzheimer's & dementia : translational research & clinical interventions 2024-07, Vol.10 (3), p.e12485-n/a
• Main Authors: Dubbelman, Mark A., Vromen, Eleonora M., Tijms, Betty M., Berkhof, Johannes, Ottenhoff, Lois, Vijverberg, Everard G. B., Prins, Niels D., Flier, Wiesje M., Sikkes, Sietske A. M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Age; Agreements; Alcohol use; Alzheimer's disease; amyloid; Biomarkers; Blood pressure; clinical trials; Corporate sponsorship; Datasets; Dementia; drug development; Education; Ethnicity; FDA approval; Medical research; pharmaceutical companies; tau
• ISSN: 2352-8737; 2352-8737
• DOI: 10.1002/trc2.12485

With the advent of the first generation of disease‐modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease, it is clearer now more than ever that the field needs to move toward personalized medicine. Pooling data from past trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and thus inform future trial design. In this perspective, we report on our effort to pool data from past Alzheimer's disease trials to identify patients most likely to respond to different treatments. We delineate challenges and hurdles, from our proof‐of‐principle study, for which we requested access to trial datasets from various pharmaceutical companies and encountered obstacles in the process of arranging data‐sharing agreements through legal departments. Six phase I–III trials from three sponsors provided access to their data (total n = 3170), which included demographic information, vital signs, primary and secondary endpoints, and in a small subset, cerebrospinal fluid amyloid (n = 165, 5.2%) and tau (n = 212, 6.7%). Data could be analyzed only within specific data access platforms, limiting potential harmonization with data provided through other platforms. Limited overlap in terms of outcome measures, clinical and biological information hindered analyses. Thus, while it is a commendable advancement that (some) trials now allow researchers to study their data, we conclude that gaining access to past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals. We provide a plea to promote harmonization and open access to data, by urging trial sponsors and the academic research community alike to remove barriers to data access and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures, to allow investigators to learn all there is to learn from past failures and successes. HIGHLIGHTS Pooling data from past Alzheimer's disease clinical trials may help identify subgroups most likely to benefit from specific treatments and may help inform future trial design. Accessing past trial datasets is complicated, frustrating the field's communal effort to find the best treatments for the right individuals. We urge trial sponsors and the academic research community to remove data access barriers and improve collaboration through practicing open science and harmonizing outcome measures.