Summary Background Leuco-methylthioninium bis(hydromethanesulfonate; LMTM), a stable reduced form of the methylthioninium moiety, acts as a selective inhibitor of tau protein aggregation both in vitro and in transgenic mouse models. Methylthioninium chloride has previously shown potential efficacy as monotherapy in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. We aimed to determine whether LMTM was safe and effective in modifying disease progression in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Methods We did a 15-month, randomised, controlled double-blind, parallel-group trial at 115 academic centres and private research clinics in 16 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and Russia with patients younger than 90 years with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Patients concomitantly using other medicines for Alzheimer’s disease were permitted to be included because we considered it infeasible not to allow their inclusion; however, patients using medicines carrying warnings of methaemoglobinaemia were excluded because the oxidised form of methylthioninium in high doses has been shown to induce this condition. We randomly assigned participants (3:3:4) to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, 125 mg LMTM twice a day, or control (4 mg LMTM twice a day to maintain blinding with respect to urine or faecal discolouration) administered as oral tablets. We did the randomisation with an interactive web response system using 600 blocks of length ten, and stratified patients by severity of disease, global region, whether they were concomitantly using Alzheimer’s disease-labelled medications, and site PET capability. Participants, their study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout the study. The coprimary outcomes were progression on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Co-operative Study–Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) scales from baseline assessed at week 65 in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689246) and the European Union Clinical Trials Registry (2012-002866-11). Findings Between Jan 29, 2013, and June 26, 2014, we recruited and randomly assigned 891 participants to treatment (357 to control, 268 to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, and 266 to 125 mg LMTM twice a day). The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31–7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] –0·02, –1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] –0·43, –2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [–8·22, 95% CI –9·63 to –6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day –0·93, –3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day –0·34, –2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). Gastrointestinal and urinary effects were the most common adverse events with both high doses of LMTM, and the most common causes for discontinuation. Non-clin...

The new diagnostic criteria for apathy provide a clinical and scientific framework to increase the validity of apathy as a clinical construct. This should also help to pave the path for apathy in brain disorders to be an interventional target.

Background:LMTM is being developed as a treatment for AD based on inhibition of tau aggregation.Objectives:To examine the efficacy of LMTM as monotherapy in non-randomized cohort analyses as modified primary outcomes in an 18-month Phase III trial in mild AD.Methods:Mild AD patients (n = 800) were randomly assigned to 100 mg twice a day or 4 mg twice a day. Prior to unblinding, the Statistical Analysis Plan was revised to compare the 100 mg twice a day as monotherapy subgroup (n = 79) versus 4 mg twice a day as randomized (n = 396), and 4 mg twice a day as monotherapy (n = 76) versus 4 mg twice a day as add-on therapy (n = 297), with strong control of family-wise type I error.Results:The revised analyses were statistically significant at the required threshold of p < 0.025 in both comparisons for change in ADAS-cog, ADCS-ADL, MRI atrophy, and glucose uptake. The brain atrophy rate was initially typical of mild AD in both add-on and monotherapy groups, but after 9 months of treatment, the rate in monotherapy patients declined significantly to that reported for normal elderly controls. Differences in severity or diagnosis at baseline between monotherapy and add-on patients did not account for significant differences in favor of monotherapy.Conclusions:The results are consistent with earlier studies in supporting the hypothesis that LMTM might be effective as monotherapy and that 4 mg twice a day may serve as well as higher doses. A further suitably randomized trial is required to test this hypothesis.

Encenicline is a novel, selective α7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonist in development for treating cognitive impairment in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease. A phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-design, multinational study was conducted. Patients with schizophrenia on chronic stable atypical antipsychotics were randomized to encenicline 0.27 or 0.9 mg once daily or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the Overall Cognition Index (OCI) score from the CogState computerized battery. Secondary end points include MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) (in US patients), the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale (SCoRS) total score, SCoRS global rating, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total and subscale and cognition factor scores. Of 319 randomized patients, 317 were included in the safety population, and 307 were included in the intent-to-treat population. Notable trends in improvement were demonstrated across all cognition scales. For the OCI score, the LS mean difference for encenicline 0.27 mg vs placebo was significant (Cohen's d=0.257; P=0.034). Mean SCoRS total scores decreased showing improvement in function over time, and the difference was significant for encenicline 0.9 mg vs placebo (P=0.011). Furthermore, the difference between encenicline 0.9 mg and placebo was significant for the PANSS Cognition Impairment Domain (P=0.0098, Cohen's d=0.40) and for the PANSS Negative scale (P=0.028, Cohen's d=0.33). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported at similar frequencies across all treatment groups (39.0% with placebo, 23.4% with encenicline 0.27 mg, and 33.3% with encenicline 0.9 mg). Overall, encenicline was generally well tolerated and demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in cognition and function in patients with schizophrenia.

Introduction:Apathy is common in neurocognitive disorders (NCD) but NCD-specific diagnostic criteria are needed. Methods: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials Methodology Apathy WorkGroup convened an expert group and sought input from academia, health-care, industry, and regulatory bodies. A modified Delphi methodology was followed, and included an extensive literature review, two surveys, and two meetings at international conferences, culminating in a consensus meeting in 2019. Results:The final criteria reached consensus with more than 80% agreement on all parts and included: limited to people with NCD; symptoms persistent or frequently recurrent over at least 4 weeks, a change from the patient's usual behavior, and including one of the following: diminished initiative, diminished interest, or diminished emotional expression/responsiveness; causing significant functional impairment and not exclusively explained by other etiologies.Discussion: These criteria provide a framework for defining apathy as a unique clinical construct in NCD for diagnosis and further research.