Disease-modifying vs symptomatic treatments: Splitting over lumping

Abstract

Clinical trials of putative disease-modifying therapies in neurodegeneration have obeyed the century-old principle of convergence, or lumping, whereby any feature of a clinicopathologic disease entity is considered relevant to most of those affected. While this convergent approach has resulted in important successes in trials of symptomatic therapies, largely aimed at correcting common neurotransmitter deficiencies (e.g., cholinergic deficiency in Alzheimer's disease or dopaminergic deficiency in Parkinson's disease), it has been consistently futile in trials of neuroprotective or disease-modifying interventions. As individuals affected by the same neurodegenerative disorder do not share the same biological drivers, splitting such disease into small molecular/biological subtypes, to match people to therapies most likely to benefit them, is vital in the pursuit of disease modification. We here discuss three paths toward the splitting needed for future successes in precision medicine: (1) encourage the development of aging cohorts agnostic to phenotype in order to enact a biology-to-phenotype direction of biomarker development and validate divergence biomarkers (present in some, absent in most); (2) demand bioassay-based recruitment of subjects into disease-modifying trials of putative neuroprotective interventions in order to match the right therapies to the right recipients; and (3) evaluate promising epidemiologic leads of presumed pathogenetic potential using Mendelian randomization studies before designing the corresponding clinical trials. The reconfiguration of disease-modifying efforts for patients with neurodegenerative disorders will require a paradigm shift from lumping to splitting and from proteinopathy to proteinopenia.

Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; Clinical trials; Disease modification; Parkinson's disease; Precision medicine.