Prescribing practice with cognition enhancers in outpatient care: are there differences regarding type of dementia?--Results of a representative survey in lower Saxony, Germany.

Abstract

Previous studies of cognition enhancers have mainly focused on insufficiently defined groups of cognition disorders, e.g., "cerebral insufficiency". With regard to the various biological changes in senile dementia of Alzheimer's type (SDAT) and in vascular dementia (VD), which together make up the great majority of senile dementias, many authors have encouraged different studies of these types of dementias, especially since both can be diagnosed clinically with satisfying certainty. Since primary care physicians treat the majority of elderly and demented patients, they have their own experience with cognition enhancers. We were therefore interested to know, how far these physicians differ in their treatment of SDAT and VD. We performed a representative survey (response rate 83.2%; 145 family physicians and 14 neuropsychiatrists) in the Goettingen area. A written case vignette described a 70-year-old widow with moderate dementia and vascular risk factors which are easily treated with drugs. Two versions were randomly assigned, in which (version A) either a "typical" VD history or a typical SDAT history (version B) were described. After perusal, the physician was asked whether and which drugs he would choose to treat the cognitive disorders in this patient. Most frequently, piracetam (A/B: 25.6%/30.9%), ginkgo biloba (24.4%/28.4%), and nimodipine (14.1%/25.9%) were considered. Aspirin was cited by 29.5%(A) and 17.3%(B) of the physicians respectively. As far as the type of dementia was concerned, significant differences were found only for co-dergocrine, which was preferred in SDAT. The following inter-group trends were observed: family physicians considered ginkgo biloba more often than nimodipine or co-dergocrine. The results show the apparent importance of cost-and safety aspects, while the type of dementia has hardly any impact. The latter impression corresponds to the results of drug trials demonstrating no different efficacy. In our opinion, aspirin was not sufficiently taken into consideration.