title: Clinical tests of neurotrophic factors for human neurodegenerative diseases, part 1: Where have we been and what have we learned?
abstract: Over the past 25years, about 3 dozen clinical reports have been published regarding the safety and possible efficacy of neurotrophic factors in patients with various neurodegenerative diseases. This effort involved a half dozen different neurotrophic factors, using at least 5 different general delivery approaches for ALS (amyolateral sclerosis), peripheral neuropathies, PD (Parkinson's disease) and AD (Alzheimer's disease). While none of these efforts have yet produced efficacy data sufficiently robust or reliable to establish neurotrophic factors as treatments for any human disease, the obstacles encountered and novel information reported, when viewed collectively, provide important insight to help future efforts. Three consistent themes emerge from these publications: (1) unexpected and undesirable side effects, at times serious, have plagued many efforts to deliver neurotrophic factors to humans; (2) the magnitude and consistency of clinical benefit has been disappointing; (3) by far that most consistently proposed reason for the side effects and poor efficacy has been inadequate dosing and delivery. This paper reviews and attempts to synthesize the available data derived from clinical tests of neurotrophic factors for neurodegenerative diseases. The obstacles encountered, the solutions attempted, and the lessons learned are discussed. The vast majority of solutions have involved changes in dosing paradigms and dose levels, which has primarily led to improved safety outcomes. However, lack of adequate efficacy remains a significant issue. While current efforts continue to focus exclusively on still-further changes in dosing parameters, a review of available data argues that it may now be the time to ask whether other, non-dose-related variables should be given more serious consideration as being responsible for the great divide that exists between the robust effects seen in animal models and the relatively weak effects seen in human neurodegenerative patients. Foremost among these appears to be the severe degeneration seen in the majority of patients enrolled in past and current trials testing neurotrophic factors in humans. A companion paper (Bartus and Johnson, 2016), reviews the contemporary data and concludes that compelling empirical evidence already exists for enrolling earlier-stage subjects as likely essential to achieving more robust and reliable benefit.
authors.affiliation: RTBioconsultants, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. Electronic address: bartus@RTBioconsultants.com.
authors.forename: Raymond T
authors.initials: RT
authors.lastname: Bartus
authors.affiliation: Departments of Neurology and Developmental Biology, Washington University Medical School, St. Louis, MO, USA.
authors.forename: Eugene M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Johnson
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D006801:Humans; D009414:Nerve Growth Factors / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000235:genetics; D019636:Neurodegenerative Diseases / Q000628:therapy*; D018696:Neuroprotective Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage*
chemical_list: D009414:Nerve Growth Factors; D018696:Neuroprotective Agents
keywords: ALS; Alzheimer's; Clinical trials; Disease progression; Gene therapy; Huntington's; Neurodegeneration; Neuron repair; Neuroprotection; Neurorestoration; Parkinson's; Peripheral neuropathies; Stage-of-disease; Treatment approaches