Search

BACKGROUND: Defining treatment success in progressive diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD), can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of employing different criteria to define a treatment 'responder' using analyses of patient-level data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies of donepezil in AD. METHODS: Trials were included in the analysis if they met several criteria, including the following: randomized, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil 10 mg/day in mild-to-moderate AD; cognition measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); and a 24-week endpoint and outcomes that included global assessments. Definitions of response were: improvements in cognition plus one other domain; improvement in cognition only; improvement or improvement/no change in global response; and improvement/stabilization/less than expected decline by

Background: PF-04447943 is a potent, selective phosphodiesterase 9A (PDE9A) inhibitor that elevates guanoscine 3',5' - cyclic monophosphate (cGMP) in brain and cerebrospinal fluid. PDE9A inhibition enhances synaptic plasticity and improves memory in preclinical cognition models, and prevents decreases in dendritic spine density in transgenic mice that overexpress amyloid precursor protein (APP) leading to high levels of amyloid beta (Aβ) production (Tg2576)., Objective: This Phase 2 multicenter study was designed to assess the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of PF-04447943 compared with placebo in mild to moderate probable Alzheimer's disease (AD)., Methods: Subjects in overall good health with Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of 14-26 were randomized to 12 weeks treatment with PF-04447943 25 mg q12h (n=91) or placebo (n=100). Concomitant acetylcholinesterase inhibitor or memantine use was excluded. The primary outcome was the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog). The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) and standard safety measures were secondary outcomes., Results: Completion rates were similar, 87% PF-04447943 vs 92% placebo. At week 12 the mean (SE) baseline adjusted decrease from baseline in ADAS cog for PF-04447943-treated patients was -1.91 (0.54). Placebo treated patients had a change of -1.60 (0.50). The difference between treatments was -0.31 (90% CI of -1.52, 0.90). Corresponding values for the NPI were -2.86 (0.72) vs -2.70 (0.67) with a treatment difference of -0.16 (90% CI of -1.78, 1.48). Neither these changes nor the distribution of CGI-I scores were statistically significantly different between groups. The incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar between groups with 2 deaths in the placebo group. The PF-04447943 group reported more gastrointestinal AEs including diarrhea (5.5% vs 3%) and nausea (5.5% vs 1%) and had a higher rate of discontinuation due to AEs (6.6% vs 2%)., Conclusions: Although generally safe and well-tolerated, 12 weeks PF-04447943 treatment did not improve cognition, behavior, and global change compared with placebo.

Background: Evidence supports a role of α4β2 receptors in Alzheimer's disease (AD)., Methods: This Korean, multicenter, double-blind, two-period (6 weeks each), crossover study randomized participants to the order in which they received varenicline (1 mg twice daily) and placebo. Assessments included AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) 75, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), adverse events (AEs) and Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS)., Results: For varenicline versus placebo (n = 66 randomized), there was no significant difference in the week 6 least square (LS) mean ADAS-Cog 75 total score (primary endpoint; 18.07 vs. 18.49; p = 0.3873) and a slight worsening in the week 6 LS mean NPI (3.82 vs. 2.55; p = 0.0468), primarily driven by decreased appetite/eating. Common treatment-related AEs were nausea (23.3; 3.4%), vomiting (15.0%; 0) and decreased appetite (15.0; 6.8%)., Conclusions: Varenicline did not improve cognition, behavior or global change in this population. The most frequent varenicline-associated AEs were gastrointestinal; psychiatric AEs were rare and similar between the groups.

Objective: Individual clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of donepezil in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Data were pooled from three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of donepezil for severe AD to further evaluate treatment effects and overall tolerability/safety., Methods: Total scores and sub-scores were analyzed for measures of cognition, global function, function, and behavior. Additional analyses were performed to investigate (1) relationships between cognitive, functional, and behavioral changes, and (2) patterns of combined domain response., Results: Using pooled total scores, significant treatment differences at endpoint in favor of donepezil were observed for cognition, global function (both p < 0.0001), and function (p = 0.03), with an effect size (Cohen's d) of 0.51, 0.26, and 0.17, respectively. There was no significant treatment difference for behavior. However, donepezil-treated patients with stabilized/improved cognition tended to show significant improvements in function and behavior over placebo-treated patients. Patients treated with donepezil were 2-3 times more likely to achieve a combined domain response than placebo-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Adverse events were as expected for cholinergic therapy, and mortality rates were similar between the treatment groups., Conclusions: These findings suggest measurable donepezil-mediated symptomatic benefits in cognition, global function, and daily living activities in patients with severe AD. The treatment effects support the importance of cholinesterase inhibition as a clinically relevant therapeutic option across the spectrum of AD.

Objective: Given its complexity, there is growing consensus on the need to measure patient-rated broad outcomes like health-related quality of life (HRQL) as well as discrete functions like cognition and behaviour in dementia. This review brings together current data on the distribution, determinants and course of HRQL in dementia to investigate the predictive and explanatory value of measures of HRQL in people with dementia., Design: A systematic review of papers in English published up to October 2007 to identify data on the use of disease-specific measures of HRQL in dementia., Results: There are no clear or consistent associations between socio-demographic variables and HRQL. There is no convincing evidence that lower cognition or greater activity limitation is associated with lower HRQL. There is a strong suggestion that depression is consistently associated with decreased HRQL in dementia. However, the magnitude of the associations observed is moderate only and the proportion of variance explained is low suggesting that depression and HRQL are different constructs. We currently know almost nothing about the natural history of HRQL in dementia or what attributes or interventions promote or inhibit HRQL life for people with dementia., Conclusions: While in other illnesses there may be simple association between HRQL and an easily measurable clinical variable, in dementia this is not so. There are now instruments available with which to measure disease-specific HRQL directly in clinical trials and other studies that can yield informative data., ((c) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In increasingly aging societies throughout the developed and developing world, Alzheimer's disease and related dementias are fast becoming a critical public health issue, exacting an enormous toll on individuals and healthcare systems. Over the past 10 years, five drugs have been developed and approved for the symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's dementia, and several disease-modifying drugs are in various stages of clinical development. While symptomatic medications were consistently shown to have clinical benefit in numerous efficacy studies, the cost effectiveness of antidementia therapies and their value to healthcare systems remain unclear. The pharmacoeconomics of antidementia therapies is an evolving field, with several unanswered questions. This poses many challenges for biopharmaceutical companies developing these therapies, regulatory agencies responsible for their approval, and payers responsible for ensuring their availability to patients. The challenge partly relates to the unique nature of dementia as a disease of impaired cognition, behavior, and function. Thus, the selection of appropriate outcome measures that directly relate to healthcare utilization, quality of life, caregiver burden, and pharmacoeconomic analysis has been difficult. The development of meaningful and widely acceptable outcome measures, as well as novel clinical-study designs, is needed to better evaluate cost effectiveness and to demonstrate the value of therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. Providing the decision-makers in healthcare systems with a body of evidence that demonstrates a positive relationship between clinical outcomes and the economic and humanistic benefits of antidementia therapeutics will improve patient access to novel drugs as they become available.

Background: There have been very limited investigations of cholinesterase inhibitor therapy in more advanced stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The efficacy and safety of donepezil were evaluated in post hoc analyses of a subgroup of patients with more severe AD (standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE] score 5-12) within a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in moderate to severe AD (MSAD study). Additional analyses examined whether donepezil's treatment effects were consistent across the full range of baseline AD severity studied (sMMSE score 5-17)., Methods: Patients with moderate to severe AD (n = 290) who were living in the community or in assisted living facilities received donepezil or placebo for 24 weeks; n = 145 in the more severe AD subgroup. The primary outcome measure was the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC-plus) with secondary outcomes including the sMMSE, Severe Impairment Battery, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, and Disability Assessment for Dementia. Analysis of Variance and Analysis of Covariance models tested for treatment x disease severity interaction in the full MSAD study sample., Results: CIBIC-plus scores for donepezil patients were significantly improved compared with placebo for each time-point, with a 0.70 mean treatment difference at Week 24 last observation carried forward (LOCF; p = 0.0002). Significant differences favoring donepezil were noted at Week 24 LOCF for all secondary measures. There were no treatment x severity interactions for any of the efficacy measures., Conclusions: In this analysis, donepezil had significant benefits over placebo on global, cognitive, functional, and behavioral measures in a subgroup of patients with more severe AD. Furthermore, the treatment effects of donepezil were not driven by a particular stratum within the moderate to severe dementia range., (Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of donepezil in the management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) residing in nursing home facilities., Design: Twenty-four-week, randomized, multicenter, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial., Setting: Twenty-seven nursing homes across the United States., Participants: Two hundred eight nursing home patients with a diagnosis of probable or possible AD, or AD with cerebrovascular disease; mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score 14.4; mean age 85.7., Measurements: The primary outcome measure was the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home Version (NPI-NH). Secondary efficacy measures were the Clinical Dementia Rating (Nursing Home Version)-Sum of the Boxes (CDR-SB), MMSE, and the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS). Safety was monitored by physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs)., Results: Eighty-two percent of donepezil- and 74% of placebo-treated patients completed the trial. Eleven percent of donepezil- and 18% of placebo-treated patients withdrew because of AEs. Mean NPI-NH 12-item total scores improved relative to baseline for both groups, with no significant differences observed between the groups at any assessment. Mean change from baseline CDR-SB total score improved significantly with donepezil compared with placebo at Week 24 (P < .05). The change in CDR-SB total score was not influenced by age. Differences in mean change from baseline on the MMSE favored donepezil over placebo at Weeks 8, 16, and 20 (P < .05). No significant differences were observed between the groups on the PSMS. Overall rates of occurrence and severity of AEs were similar between the two groups (97% placebo, 96% donepezil). Gastrointestinal AEs occurred more frequently in donepezil-treated patients. In general, AEs were similar in older and younger donepezil-treated patients, with the majority of patients experiencing only AEs that were transient and mild or moderate in severity. Weight loss was reported as an AE more frequently in older patients, although a loss at last visit of >or=7% of screening weight occurred at the same rate in older and younger patients (9% of donepezil- and 6% of placebo-treated patients). No significant differences between groups in vital sign changes, bradycardia, or rates of clinically significant laboratory or ECG abnormalities were observed., Conclusion: Patients treated with donepezil maintained or improved in cognition and overall dementia severity in contrast to placebo-treated patients who declined during the 6-month treatment period. The safety and tolerability profile was comparable with that reported in outpatient studies of donepezil. These findings also suggest that advanced age, comorbid illnesses, and high concomitant medication usage should not be barriers to donepezil treatment. Given the apparent improvement in behavior in the placebo group, and the high use of concomitant medications in both groups, the impact of donepezil on behavior in the nursing home setting is unresolved and merits further investigation. In summary, effects on cognition, overall dementia severity, and safety and tolerability findings are consistent with previous findings in outpatients and support the use of donepezil in patients with AD who reside in nursing homes.

The effects of i.v. administered flumazenil (3.0 mg) were studied in healthy male subjects who received pretreatment with p.o. placebo or lorazepam. The duration of placebo or lorazepam (3.0 mg single p.o. daily dose) pretreatment before a flumazenil or placebo injection was 1, 3, 7 or 14 days in four sequential groups of subjects. Initial administration of lorazepam produced a classic sedative profile of effects on various psychomotor/behavioral performance, observer-rated and subject-rated measures. Tolerance to repeated daily administration of lorazepam was suggested by a progressive diminution of performance disrupting effects. In subjects pretreated with placebo, flumazenil increased subject-ratings of dizziness over preinjection ratings. Flumazenil produced an immediate reversal of lorazepam effects in subjects who were not tolerant to lorazepam (1- and 3-day pretreatment groups). Flumazenil did not precipitate withdrawal symptoms in subjects who received a single administration of lorazepam. Precipitated withdrawal symptoms were evident after 3 and 7 days of lorazepam pretreatment, and there was a tendency toward precipitated withdrawal symptoms (that included one panic attack) after 14 days of lorazepam pretreatment. Precipitated withdrawal was characterized by an elevation in subject-rated symptoms including dizziness, tenseness, tachycardia, perceptual disturbance and sweating. Symptoms were maximal immediately after injection, usually mild in severity and usually resolved within 1 hr. There was no evidence of precipitated withdrawal on psychomotor/behavioral performance or observer ratings. The present study provides the strongest human experimental evidence to date that flumazenil can precipitate withdrawal symptoms after a history of repeated benzodiazepine exposure.

The Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (OAA/S) Scale was developed to measure the level of alertness in subjects who are sedated. This scale was tested in 18 subjects in a three-period crossover study to assess its reliability and its criterion, behavioral, and construct validity. After receiving either placebo or a titrated dose of midazolam to produce light or heavy sedation, each subject was administered two sedation scales (OAA/S Scale and a Visual Analogue Scale) and two performances tests (Digit Symbol Substitution Test and Serial Sevens Subtraction). Two raters individually evaluated the subject's level of alertness on each of the two sedation scales. The results obtained on the OAA/S Scale were reliable and valid as measured by high correlations between the two raters and high correlations between the OAA/S Scale and two of the three standard tests used in this study. The OAA/S Scale was sensitive to the level of midazolam administered; all pairwise comparisons were significant (p less than 0.05) for all three treatment levels at both test periods.