Search

Older adults are frequently prescribed medications with sedative effects, which are associated with numerous adverse consequences. However, the prevalence and longitudinal associations of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has not been explored to date. Our objective was to assess the prevalence of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate AD and examine the longitudinal association between sedative medication use and adverse events (AEs). The association between baseline sedative load (SL) and AEs, unscheduled healthcare utilisation, delirium and falls was assessed in older adults with mild–moderate AD over 18 months using secondary analysis of NILVAD trial data (collected from 2014 to 2016). Baseline medication use was assessed, and the SL model was applied to each participant’s medication individually. The SL model classifies medications into one of four categories: (1) primary sedatives, (2) medications with a sedating component or prominent side effect, (3) medications with sedation as a potential adverse reaction and (4) all other medications with no known sedative side effects. Medications in group 1 were assigned an SL score of 2, those in group 2 were assigned an SL score of 1, and those in categories 3 and 4 an SL score of 0. SL scores for each medication participants were taking were summed and the total SL calculated as an arithmetic sum of individual medications score. A total SL score ≥ 3 was classed as high. Statistical analysis was conducted using Poisson regression and mixed-effects linear regression, with adjustment for important clinical covariates. We also assessed the impact of SL on dementia progression and cognitive decline. Over half (55.7% [284/510]) of those with mild–moderate AD (age 72.8 ± 8.3 years, 61.9% female) were prescribed a regular medication with sedation as a primary effect or prominent side effect, with 22.2% (113/510) having a high SL (≥ 3). The most common medications contributing to SL were antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics and hypnotics. Over 18 months, increasing baseline SL was associated with incident AEs (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.19; p < 0.001), serious AEs (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11–1.36; p < 0.001) and unscheduled general practitioner visits (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13–1.34; p < 0.001). Further, increasing SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident delirium (IRR 1.30; 95% CI 1.11–1.53; p < 0.001) and falls (IRR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03–1.42; p = 0.02). Associations persisted after robust covariate adjustment. SL was not associated with accelerated cognitive decline or AD progression. In the current study, over half of older adults with mild–moderate AD were prescribed at least one drug with a sedative effect, and a significant minority had a high SL. Increasing baseline SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident AEs, delirium and falls, highlighting the need for optimal prescribing in this potentially vulnerable cohort.

Contains fulltext : 218263.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: Benzodiazepines and related drugs (BDZRs) have been associated with an increased risk of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in later life. Despite this, it remains unclear whether ongoing BDZR use may further accelerate cognitive decline in those diagnosed with mild to moderate AD. DESIGN: This study was embedded within NILVAD, a randomized controlled trial of nilvadipine in mild to moderate AD. Cognition was measured at baseline and 18 months using the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale, Cognitive Subsection (ADAS-Cog). We assessed predictors of long-term BDZR use and analyzed the effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores at 18 months. Additionally, the impact of BDZR use on adverse events, incident delirium, and falls over 18-month follow-up was assessed adjusting for relevant covariates. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 448 participants with mild to moderate AD recruited from 23 academic centers in 9 European countries. RESULTS: Overall, 14% (62/448) were prescribed an ongoing BDZR for the study duration. Increasing total number of (non-BDZR) medications was associated with a greater likelihood of BDZR prescription (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.29). At 18 months, BDZR use was not associated with greater cognitive decline on the ADAS-Cog controlling for baseline ADAS-Cog scores, age, gender, study arm, and other clinical covariates (beta = 1.62, -1.34 to 4.56). However, ongoing BDZR use was associated with a greater likelihood of adverse events [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.19, 1.05-1.34], incident delirium (IRR 2.31, 1.45-3.68), and falls (IRR 1.66, 1.02-2.65) over 18 months that persisted after robust adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study found no effect of ongoing BDZR use on ADAS-Cog scores in those with mild to moderate AD over 18 months. However, ongoing use of these medications was associated with an increased risk of adverse events, delirium, and falls. Thus, BDZR use should be avoided where possible and deprescribing interventions should be encouraged in older adults with AD.

Background This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have disease-modifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Methods and findings NILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged >50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer’s disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of ≥12 and, In a randomised controlled trial, Brian Lawlor and colleagues investigate whether the blood pressure medication nivaldipine can slow the progression of Alzheimer disease., Author summary Why was this study done? There are few licensed drug treatments for Alzheimer disease and none are effective in slowing the rate of disease progression. Nilvadipine is a licensed blood pressure medication and has been shown to lower brain amyloid and improve memory function in animal models of Alzheimer disease. If nilvadipine were shown to be effective in slowing the rate of progression of Alzheimer disease, because it is already licensed and available to treat high blood pressure, it would be possible to introduce the drug for use in Alzheimer disease relatively quickly. What did the researchers do and find? We carried out an investigator-led clinical trial funded by the European Union across 23 academic university sites and involving 511 patients with mild- and moderate-stage Alzheimer disease, as diagnosed by a clinician. We tested whether a single dose of nilvadipine, compared with placebo, was safe and slowed the progression of Alzheimer disease over a period of 18 months. We found that nilvadipine appeared safe and was well tolerated but did not slow decline in cognition or function in this group of mild- and moderate-stage Alzheimer disease patients. What do these findings mean? Nilvadipine does not appear to be effective as a treatment for people with mild- or moderate-stage Alzheimer disease. We cannot rule out that this medication may help at an earlier stage of the disease process, before the person experiences loss of function.

IntroductionThis study is a European multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nilvadipine as a disease course modifying treatment for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study that will run for a period of 82 weeks with a treatment period of 78 weeks.Methods and analysisAdult patients, males and females over 50 years with mild-to-moderate AD as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria, will be included in the study. It aims to recruit a total of 500 patients with AD; 250 in the nilvadipine group and 250 in the placebo group. Participants will be randomised to receive nilvadipine, an 8 mg overencapsulated, sustained release capsule, or a matching overencapsulated placebo (sugar pill) for a period of 78 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy outcome measure in this study is the change in cognitive function as assessed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog 12) from baseline to the end of treatment duration (78 weeks). There are two key secondary outcome measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD). If a statistically significant effect is seen in the primary outcome, CDR-sb will be considered to be a coprimary end point and only the DAD will contribute to the secondary outcome analysis.Ethics and disseminationThe study and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country according to national regulations. Each participant will provide written consent to participate in the study. All participants will remain anonymised throughout and the results of the study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberEUDRACT Reference Number: 2012-002764-27.

Background 'Compassionate use' programmes allow medicinal products that are not authorised, but are in the development process, to be made available to patients with a severe disease who have no other satisfactory treatment available to them. We sought to understand how such programmes are regulated in ten European Union countries. Methods The European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) conducted a comprehensive survey on clinical research regulatory requirements, including questions on regulations of 'compassionate use' programmes. Ten European countries, covering approximately 70% of the EU population, were included in the survey (Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and the UK). Results European Regulation 726/2004/EC is clear on the intentions of 'compassionate use' programmes and aimed to harmonise them in the European Union. The survey reveals that different countries have adopted different requirements and that 'compassionate use' is not interpreted in the same way across Europe. Four of the ten countries surveyed have no formal regulatory system for the programmes. We discuss the need for 'compassionate use' programmes and their regulation where protection of patients is paramount. Conclusions 'Compassionate use' is a misleading term and should be replaced with 'expanded access'. There is a need for expanded access programmes in order to serve the interests of seriously ill patients who have no other treatment options. To protect these patients, European legislation needs to be more explicit and informative with regard to the regulatory requirements, restrictions, and responsibilities in expanded access programmes.

Background The use of Clinical Data Management Systems (CDMS) has become essential in clinical trials to handle the increasing amount of data that must be collected and analyzed. With a CDMS trial data are captured at investigator sites with "electronic Case Report Forms". Although more and more of these electronic data management systems are used in academic research centres an overview of CDMS products and of available data management and quality management resources for academic clinical trials in Europe is missing. Methods The ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) data management working group conducted a two-part standardized survey on data management, software tools, and quality management for clinical trials. The questionnaires were answered by nearly 80 centres/units (with an overall response rate of 47% and 43%) from 12 European countries and EORTC. Results Our survey shows that about 90% of centres have a CDMS in routine use. Of these CDMS nearly 50% are commercial systems; Open Source solutions don't play a major role. In general, solutions used for clinical data management are very heterogeneous: 20 different commercial CDMS products (7 Open Source solutions) in addition to 17/18 proprietary systems are in use. The most widely employed CDMS products are MACRO™ and Capture System™, followed by solutions that are used in at least 3 centres: eResearch Network™, CleanWeb™, GCP Base™ and SAS™. Although quality management systems for data management are in place in most centres/units, there exist some deficits in the area of system validation. Conclusions Because the considerable heterogeneity of data management software solutions may be a hindrance to cooperation based on trial data exchange, standards like CDISC (Clinical Data Interchange Standard Consortium) should be implemented more widely. In a heterogeneous environment the use of data standards can simplify data exchange, increase the quality of data and prepare centres for new developments (e.g. the use of EHR for clinical research). Because data management and the use of electronic data capture systems in clinical trials are characterized by the impact of regulations and guidelines, ethical concerns are discussed. In this context quality management becomes an important part of compliant data management. To address these issues ECRIN will establish certified data centres to support electronic data management and associated compliance needs of clinical trial centres in Europe.

Background Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. Methods In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. Results The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. Conclusion The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.

Background In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe. Methods We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries. Results Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised. Conclusion The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.