Rethinking phase 2 trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Michael Benatar*, Christopher McDermott, Martin R Turner, Ruben P A van Eijk

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

There is a long history in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) of promoting therapies based on phase 2 data, which then fail in phase 3 trials. Experience suggests that studies of 6 months in duration are too short, especially with function-based outcome measures. Multiplicity poses a serious threat to data interpretation, and strategies to impute missing data may not be appropriate for ALS where progression is always expected. Emerging surrogate markers of clinical benefit such as reduction of neurofilament light chain levels may be better suited to phase 2 go/no-go decisions. Over-interpretation of phase 2 data, and overly optimistic communication of exploratory analyses must be avoided to ensure optimal prioritization for the investment needed for definitive phase 3 trials and to minimize the harm of false hope for people living with ALS. Delivering on advances in understanding of the neurobiology of ALS requires urgent attention to phase 2 design and implementation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1106-1111
Number of pages6
JournalBrain : a journal of neurology
Volume148
Issue number4
Early online date6 Dec 2024
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2025

Keywords

  • biomarkers
  • go/no-go decisions
  • multiplicity
  • outcome measures
  • result communication
  • trial design

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Rethinking phase 2 trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this