Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities Of Daily Living Scale Research Articles

Effects of Sport Stacking on Neuropsychological, Neurobiological, and Brain Function Performances in Patients With Mild Alzheimer's Disease and Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of sport stacking on the overall cognition and brain function in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI).MethodsA single-blind randomized controlled design was performed using sport stacking for 30 min, 5 days/week for 12 weeks. Forty-eight subjects with mild AD or MCI were randomly divided into the sport stacking group (T-mAD = 12, T-MCI = 12) and the active control group (C-mAD = 11, C-MCI = 13). Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-30), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were performed, the level of amyloid β-protein-40 (Aβ-40), Aβ-42, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), insulin-like growth factor-1(IGF-1), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), and soluble trigger receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2) in plasma were tested, and brain functional connectivity in resting state and activation under finger movement task were analyzed by functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS).ResultsThirty-nine patients completed the trial. After 4 weeks, we found a significant increase in AVLT score in T-MCI (6.36 ± 5.08 vs. −1.11 ± 4.23, p = 0.004), and T-mAD group (4.60 ± 4.77 vs. −0.11 ± 2.89, p = 0.039). After 12 weeks, there was a significantly improved in AVLT (9.64 ± 4.90 vs. −0.33 ± 6.10, p = 0.002) and ADCS-ADL (3.36 ± 3.59 vs. −1.89 ± 2.71, p = 0.003) in T-MCI. There was a significant improvement in AVLT (5.30 ± 5.42 vs. 0.44 ± 2.40) in T-mAD (p < 0.05). Plasma levels of BDNF were upregulated in both T-MCI and T-mAD, and IGF-1 increased in T-MCI (P < 0.05) compared to the control groups. The functional connectivity in MCI patients between DLPFC.R and SCA.R, SMA.L, and SCA.R was decreased. In contrast, in mAD patients, the brain regional function connection was increased between DLPFC.R and Broca's.L. The activation of channel 36 located in the left primary somatosensory cortex was significantly increased after 12-week training, which was correlated with the improved AVLT and the increase of BDNF.ConclusionOur findings suggested that sport stacking is effective for patients with MCI and mild AD, possibly through increasing the expression of neuroprotective growth factors and enhancing neural plasticity to improve neurocognitive performance.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://www.ClinicalTrials.gov, ChiCTR.org.cn, identifier: ChiCTR-2100045980.

A precision medicine framework using artificial intelligence for the identification and confirmation of genomic biomarkers of response to an Alzheimer's disease therapy: Analysis of the blarcamesine (ANAVEX2-73) Phase 2a clinical study.

IntroductionThe search for drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD) has failed to yield effective therapies. Here we report the first genome‐wide search for biomarkers associated with therapeutic response in AD. Blarcamesine (ANAVEX2‐73), a selective sigma‐1 receptor (SIGMAR1) agonist, was studied in a 57‐week Phase 2a trial (NCT02244541). The study was extended for a further 208 weeks (NCT02756858) after meeting its primary safety endpoint.MethodsSafety, clinical features, pharmacokinetic, and efficacy, measured by changes in the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study‐Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS‐ADL), were recorded. Whole exome and transcriptome sequences were obtained for 21 patients. The relationship between all available patient data and efficacy outcome measures was analyzed with unsupervised formal concept analysis (FCA), integrated in the Knowledge Extraction and Management (KEM) environment.ResultsBiomarkers with a significant impact on clinical outcomes were identified at week 57: mean plasma concentration of blarcamesine (slope MMSE:P < .041), genomic variants SIGMAR1 p.Gln2Pro (ΔMMSE:P < .039; ΔADCS‐ADL:P < .063) and COMT p.Leu146fs (ΔMMSE:P < .039; ΔADCS‐ADL:P < .063), and baseline MMSE score (slope MMSE:P < .015). Their combined impact on drug response was confirmed at week 148 with linear mixed effect models.DiscussionConfirmatory Phase 2b/3 clinical studies of these patient selection markers are ongoing. This FCA/KEM analysis is a template for the identification of patient selection markers in early therapeutic development for neurologic disorders.

Differences Between Self- and Proxy-Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer's Disease

The self-assessment of health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment is commonly higher than the proxy-assessment by caregivers. This study aims at evaluating sociodemographic and clinical factors to explain this difference. HrQoL of 241 community-dwelling patients was analysed using the dementia-specific Quality of Life-Alzheimer's Disease questionnaire (QoL-AD). Behavioural and psychological symptoms and functional capacity were evaluated using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL). The self-assessment of patients' HrQoL was significantly higher than the caregiver-ratings (mean difference: 7.4 ± 5.6, p < 0.001). Considerable influencing factors were the extent of depressive symptoms (GDS), the degree of impairment in functional performance (ADCS-ADL) and the relationship between patients and caregivers. Independent variables explained 23 % of the variance in the difference between self- and proxy-assessment of HrQoL. Future studies should include further influencing factors such as caregivers' mental health.

Alzheimer's disease progression by geographical region in a clinical trial setting.

IntroductionTo facilitate enrollment and meet local registration requirements, sponsors have increasingly implemented multi-national Alzheimer’s disease (AD) studies. Geographic regions vary on many dimensions that may affect disease progression or its measurement. To aid researchers designing and implementing Phase 3 AD trials, we assessed disease progression across geographic regions using placebo data from four large, multi-national clinical trials of investigational compounds developed to target AD pathophysiology.MethodsFour similarly-designed 76 to 80 week, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trials with nearly identical entry criteria enrolled patients aged ≥55 years with mild or moderate NINCDS/ADRDA probable AD. Descriptive analyses were performed for observed mean score and observed mean change in score from baseline at each scheduled visit. Data included in the analyses were pooled from the intent-to-treat placebo-assigned overall (mild and moderate) AD dementia populations from all four studies. Disease progression was assessed as change from baseline for each of 5 scales - the AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog11), the AD Cooperative Study- Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Clinical Dementia Rating scored by the sum of boxes method (CDR-SB), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).ResultsRegions were heterogeneous at baseline. At baseline, disease severity as measured by ADAS-cog11, ADCS-ADL, and CDR-SB was numerically worse for Eastern Europe/Russia compared with other regions. Of all regional populations, Eastern Europe/Russia showed the greatest cognitive and functional decline from baseline; Japan, Asia and/or S. America/Mexico showed the least cognitive and functional decline.ConclusionsThese data suggest that in multi-national clinical trials, AD progression or its measurement may differ across geographic regions; this may be in part due to heterogeneity across populations at baseline. The observed differences in AD progression between outcome measures across geographic regions may generalize to 'real-world' clinic populations, where heterogeneity is the norm.Trial registrationsClinicalTrials.gov NCT00594568 – IDENTITY. Registered 11 January 2008.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00762411 – IDENTITY2. Registered 26 September 2008ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00905372 – EXPEDITION. Registered 18 May 2009ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00904683 – EXPEDITION2. Registered 18 May 2009

Latrepirdine for Alzheimer's disease.

Current treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide modest symptomatic relief but do not slow the progression of the disease. Latrepirdine may modulate several targets involved in AD pathology, including lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial permeability, voltage-gated calcium ion channels as well as neurotransmitter receptor activity, and thus potentially represents both a symptomatic and disease-modifying intervention. Several randomized, placebo-controlled trials have sought to evaluate the effect of latrepirdine on cognition, function and behaviour in patients with AD. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latrepirdine for the treatment of AD. We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 4 June 2014 using the terms: latrepirdine OR dimebon OR dimebolin OR 2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-2,8-dimethyl-5- (2-(6-methyl-3-pyridyl)ethyl)-1H-pyrido(4,3-b)indole. We included all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials where latrepirdine was administered to patients with mild, moderate or severe AD. We assessed the quality of studies and two authors extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for all relevant outcome measures. Seven trials involving a total of 1697 participants were found and six were included in the quantitative analyses. No data were available from the seventh trial. Three trials involving 1243 patients were included in analyses of efficacy outcomes, and four trials involving 1034 patients were included in analyses of safety and tolerability outcomes. We judged five trials to be at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting and three to be at high risk of attrition bias. There was low quality evidence favouring latrepirdine on the Clinician's Interview - Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input after 26 weeks (CIBIC-Plus) (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.31, 1 study, P < 0.001). Due to imprecision in the results, it was not possible to determine whether latrepirdine had any effect on cognition measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) (MD -1.49, 95% CI -3.47 to 0.49, 3 studies, P = 0.14) or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (MD 0.59, 95% CI -0.94 to 2.11, 3 studies, P = 0.45), or on function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study - Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL) (MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.15 to 3.15, 3 studies, P = 0.36) at study endpoint (26 or 52 weeks). We considered the evidence provided on these outcomes to be of overall low quality. However, there was some high quality evidence showing a very small benefit of latrepirdine on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.77, 95% CI -3.09 to -0.45, 3 studies, P = 0.009) at study endpoint (26 or 52 weeks). Additionally, moderate quality evidence suggested that latrepirdine and placebo were comparable in adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14, P = 0.51), serious adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35, P = 0.52), dropouts (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27, P = 0.57) and dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.67, P = 0.93). Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies, imprecision, inconsistencies between studies and likelihood of bias. Nevertheless, the evidence to date suggests that while not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with placebo, there is no effect of latrepirdine on cognition and function in mild-to-moderate AD patients, though there appears to be a modest benefit for behaviour. Further studies should investigate the potential benefit of latrepirdine on neuropsychiatric symptoms in AD.

Understanding the Complexities of Functional Ability in Alzheimer's Disease: More Than Just Basic and Instrumental Factors

Background: Dementia of the Alzheimer’s type (AD) is defined by both cognitive and functional decline; new criteria allow for identification of milder, non-functionally impaired patients. Understanding loss of autonomy in AD is essential, as later stages represent a significant burden and cost to patients, their families, and society. The purpose of the present analyses was to determine the factor structure of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL) in a cohort of AD patients. Methods: Baseline ADCS-ADL assessments of 734 AD patients from the PLASA study were included in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Because the ADCS-ADL was designed to assess change over time, change from baseline scores over 2 years were also analyzed using an EFA. Factorial solutions were evaluated based on cross-loading, non-loadings, and number of items per factor. Results: Mean age at baseline was 79.3, mean MMSE was 19.8 and 73.3‰ of participants were female. Baseline data suggested a 4-factor solution that included factors for basic ADLs (BADLs), domestic/household activities, communication/engagement with the environment, and outside activities. The change scores EFA suggested a 2-factor solution of BADLs and instrumental ADLs (IADLs). Conclusions: Distinct factors of IADLs should be considered for further validation as areas of attention to catch early functional decline.

Comparing Clinical Profiles in Alzheimer's Disease and Parkinson's Disease Dementia

Background: Greater understanding of differences in baseline impairment and disease progression in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease dementia (PDD) may improve the interpretation of drug effects and the design of future studies. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of three randomized, double-blind rivastigmine databases (one in PDD, two in AD). Impairment on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale, 10-item Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-10) and the ADCS-Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) was compared [standardized difference (Cohen's d), similar if <0.1]. Results: Patients with AD or PDD had similar levels of impairment on the ADAS-cog and NPI-10. Scores on the ADCS-ADL scale (standardized difference = 0.47) and the ADAS-cog memory domain (total, 0.33; items, 0.10-0.58) were higher in AD; PDD patients were more impaired in the language (0.23) and praxis (0.34) domains. AD patients receiving placebo showed greater deterioration on the ADAS-cog (0.14) and improvement on the NPI-10 (0.11) compared with patients with PDD. Conclusion: Differing patterns of impairment occur in AD and PDD.

Intranasal Insulin Therapy for Alzheimer Disease and Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment

To examine the effects of intranasal insulin administration on cognition, function, cerebral glucose metabolism, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers in adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (AD). Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clinical research unit of a Veterans Affairs medical center. The intent-to-treat sample consisted of 104 adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (n=64) or mild to moderate AD (n=40). Intervention Participants received placebo (n=30), 20 IU of insulin (n=36), or 40 IU of insulin (n=38) for 4 months, administered with a nasal drug delivery device (Kurve Technology, Bothell, Washington). Primary measures consisted of delayed story recall score and the Dementia Severity Rating Scale score, and secondary measures included the Alzheimer Disease's Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-activities of daily living (ADCS-ADL) scale. A subset of participants underwent lumbar puncture (n=23) and positron emission tomography with fludeoxyglucose F 18 (n=40) before and after treatment. Outcome measures were analyzed using repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Treatment with 20 IU of insulin improved delayed memory (P<.05), and both doses of insulin (20 and 40 IU) preserved caregiver-rated functional ability (P<.01). Both insulin doses also preserved general cognition as assessed by the ADAS-cog score for younger participants and functional abilities as assessed by the ADCS-ADL scale for adults with AD (P<.05). Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers did not change for insulin-treated participants as a group, but, in exploratory analyses, changes in memory and function were associated with changes in the Aβ42 level and in the tau protein-to-Aβ42 ratio in cerebrospinal fluid. Placebo-assigned participants showed decreased fludeoxyglucose F 18 uptake in the parietotemporal, frontal, precuneus, and cuneus regions and insulin-minimized progression. No treatment-related severe adverse events occurred. These results support longer trials of intranasal insulin therapy for patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment and patients with AD. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00438568.

PL‐03‐02: Evaluating semagacestat, a gamma‐secretase inhibitor, in a phase III trial

PL‐03‐02: Evaluating semagacestat, a gamma‐secretase inhibitor, in a phase III trial

Predictors of Sustained Response to Rivastigmine in Patients With Alzheimer’s Disease

The cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine is approved for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. However, it is not possible to predict which individuals will benefit from treatment. This retrospective analysis of an international, 24-week, randomized, double-blind trial aimed to identify the percentage of persons with Alzheimer's disease who have a sustained response with rivastigmine patch, rivastigmine capsules, or placebo; to determine the magnitude of the sustained treatment response; and to investigate baseline patient characteristics predictive of the observed sustained response. Patients who improved on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL) at week 16 and maintained at least the week 16 improvement at week 24 were identified as sustained responders. Treatment differences and baseline predictive factors were assessed in patients demonstrating a 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-point sustained improvement. The first patient was screened in November 2003 and the last patient completed the study in January 2006. More persons with Alzheimer's disease had sustained improvements on the ADAS-cog and ADCS-ADL with rivastigmine versus placebo. Sustained improvements of 4 or 5 points on the ADAS-cog or ADCS-ADL were demonstrated in the 9.5-mg/24-h rivastigmine patch (24% and 36% of patients, respectively) and 12-mg/d capsule groups (28% on both outcome measures). Factors predictive of a sustained response to treatment included baseline Mini-Mental State Examination, ADAS-cog, and ADCS-ADL scores and treatment, country of treatment, and time since first symptom was diagnosed by a physician. Understanding factors predictive of sustained cholinesterase inhibitor treatment response should help to optimize Alzheimer's disease management and encourage compliance by allowing more realistic expectations of treatment effects.

Lack of Evidence for the Efficacy of Memantine in Mild Alzheimer Disease

We directly assessed the clinical trials' evidence for memantine's efficacy in mild Alzheimer disease (AD). Memantine is indicated in the United States and Europe for moderate to severe AD, which is diagnosed if a patient has a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of less than 15 or less than 20, respectively. Yet memantine is very frequently prescribed for mild AD and mild cognitive impairment, and a manufacturer-sponsored meta-analysis claimed its efficacy in mild AD. Manufacturer-sponsored meta-analyses, registries, presentations, and publications were systematically searched for randomized placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials of memantine in patients with mild to moderate AD. The trials' characteristics and outcomes were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. Meta-analyses were performed as inverse variance-weighted averages of mean differences using fixed-effects models. Summary results for patients with mild AD were obtained by contrasting the summary results for patients with mild or moderate AD with the summary results for the subset of patients with moderate AD. Three trials were identified that included 431 patients with mild AD (ie, with MMSE scores of 20-23) and 697 patients with moderate AD (ie, with MMSE scores of 10-19). There were no significant differences between memantine and placebo on any outcome for patients with mild AD, either within any trial or when data were combined: mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus caregiver's input (CIBIC-plus), the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-activities of daily living (ADCS-ADL) scale, and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were -0.17 (95% CI, -1.60 to 1.26), -0.09 (95% CI, -0.30 to 0.12), 0.62 (95% CI, -1.64 to 2.71), and 0.09 (95% CI, -2.11 to 2.29), respectively. For patients with moderate AD, there were small differences on the ADAS-cog and the CIBIC-plus, -1.33 (95% CI, -2.28 to -0.38) and -0.16 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.00), respectively, but no differences on the ADCS-ADL scale (-0.57 [95% CI, -1.75 to 0.60]) or the NPI (0.25 [95% CI, -1.48 to 1.99]). Despite its frequent off-label use, evidence is lacking for a benefit of memantine in mild AD, and there is meager evidence for its efficacy in moderate AD. Prospective trials are needed to further assess the potential for efficacy of memantine either alone or added to cholinesterase inhibitors in mild and moderate AD.

Predictors of nursing home admission among Alzheimer's disease patients with psychosis and/or agitation

The purpose of this study is to identify factors that predict nursing home placement among community-dwelling Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with psychosis and/or agitation in a randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00015548). 418 participants with AD enrolled in the Clinical Antipsychotic Trial of Intervention Effectiveness - AD (CATIE-AD) trial of anti-psychotic medications and having no evidence of nursing home use at baseline were followed at 9 months post-random assignment using data provided by caregiver proxy. χ2 tests, t-tests and Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to examine the baseline correlates of nursing home use. Of outpatients with no prior nursing home use, 15% were placed in a nursing home in the 9 months following baseline, with the average time to placement being 122 days. Bivariate analyses indicate that those with prior outpatient mental health use at study entry were more likely to be admitted; so too were those with worse physical functioning - i.e. lower scores on the AD Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL), lower utility scores on the Health Utility Index (HUI)-III, and worse cognition on the Mini-mental State Examination. Controlling for other factors, non-Hispanic white race (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.16) and prior mental health use (HR = 1.87) increased the likelihood of admission. Those with higher ADCS-ADL scores were less likely to be placed (HR = 0.97). Factors leading to nursing home entry among psychotic/agitated AD patients are similar to the general population, though high incidence of nursing home entry highlights the importance of accounting for such utilization in health economic studies of AD outcomes. It also highlights the importance of using information on ADLs and other characteristics to develop profiles identifying those at greater or lesser risk of nursing home entry and, in so doing, inform population planning associated with AD and identification of those patients and caregivers who might benefit most from interventions to prevent eventual placement.

Efficacy and safety of tarenflurbil in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomised phase II trial

The amyloid-beta peptide Abeta(42) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We aimed to test the effects of tarenflurbil, a selective Abeta(42)-lowering agent (SALA), on cognition and function in patients with mild to moderate AD. 210 patients living in the community who had a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 15-26 were randomly assigned to receive tarenflurbil twice per day (400 mg [n=69] or 800 mg [n=70]) or placebo (n=71) for 12 months in a phase II, multicentre, double-blind study. Primary efficacy outcomes were the AD assessment scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living scale (ADCS-ADL), and the clinical dementia rating sum of boxes (CDR-sb). In a 12-month extended treatment phase, patients who had received tarenflurbil continued to receive the same dose, and patients who had received placebo were randomly assigned to tarenflurbil at 800 mg or 400 mg twice per day. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Health Canada (084527) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in the UK (20365/0001/A 69316). A prespecified interaction analysis revealed that patients with mild AD (baseline MMSE 20-26) and moderate AD (baseline MMSE 15-19) responded differently to tarenflurbil in the ADAS-cog and the ADCS-ADL (p>or=0.10); therefore, these groups were analysed separately. Patients with mild AD in the 800 mg tarenflurbil group had lower rates of decline than did those in the placebo group in activities of daily living (ADCS-ADL difference in slope 3.98 [95% CI 0.33 to 7.62] points per year, effect size [reduction from placebo decline rate] 46.4%, Cohen's d 0.45; p=0.033) and global function (CDR-sb difference -0.80 [-1.57 to -0.03] points per year, effect size 35.7%, Cohen's d 0.42; p=0.042); slowing of cognitive decline did not differ significantly (ADAS-cog difference -1.36 [-4.07 to 1.36] points per year, effect size 33.7%, Cohen's d 0.20; p=0.327). In patients with moderate AD, 800 mg tarenflurbil twice per day had no significant effects on ADCS-ADL and ADAS-cog and had a negative effect on CDR-sb (-52%, Cohen's d -1.08; p=0.003). The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (in seven, nine, and five patients in the 800 mg, 400 mg, and placebo groups, respectively), nausea (in seven, seven, and four patients), and dizziness (in five, nine, and four patients). Patients with mild AD who were in the 800 mg tarenflurbil group for 24 months had lower rates of decline for all three primary outcomes than did patients who were in the placebo group for months 0-12 and a tarenflurbil group for months 12-24 (all p<0.001), and had better outcomes than did patients who were in the placebo group for months 0-12 and the 800 mg tarenflurbil group for months 12-24 (all p<0.05). 800 mg tarenflurbil twice per day was well tolerated for up to 24 months of treatment, with evidence of a dose-related effect on measures of daily activities and global function in patients with mild AD. Myriad Pharmaceuticals.

Do extrapyramidal features in Alzheimer patients treated with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors predict disease progression?

The objective of the study is to explore the longitudinal course of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) with and without extrapyramidal signs (EPS) taking donepezil. A cohort of 106 community-dwelling patients with probable AD receiving donepezil in Sydney, Australia (n = 52) and Manchester, UK (n = 54) was followed over 12 months. Cognition was measured by the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive test (ADAS-Cog) and function by the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL). A further follow-up at five years was conducted to examine mortality and institutionalisation. At baseline, EPS were correlated with MMSE (r = −0.467, p < 0.01), ADAS-Cog (r = 0.485, p < 0.01) and ADCS-ADL (r = −0.526, p < 0.01) scores. Patients with EPS had lower MMSE (F = 9.95, df = 1, p = 0.002) and ADCS-ADL (F = 9.41, df = 1, p = 0.003) scores than patients without EPS. Over one year no time main effects or time x group interaction effects were observed for either dependent variable. At five years patients with EPS were found to have a hazard of institution or death 2.2 times higher than those without EPS (p = 0.018; 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4). There was a positive association between EPS and cognitive and functional impairment. However, EPS did not predict more rapid cognitive or functional decline of patients taking donepezil or response to donepezil. The presence of EPS was a risk factor both for institutionalisation and for death.

Effect of butyrylcholinesterase genotype on the response to rivastigmine or donepezil in younger patients with Alzheimer's disease

A randomized double-blind trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of rivastigmine, an inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), and donepezil, an AChE-selective inhibitor, in patients with Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period. A retrospective analysis showed differential responses to cholinesterase inhibitors (ChE-Is) in patients younger than 75 years. This analysis investigated the effect of BuChE genotype on response to ChE-I therapy in these patients. In a retrospective analysis, patients younger than 75 who had consented to pharmacogenetic analysis were divided into groups according to BuChE genotype. Efficacy measures were the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL). Changes on efficacy parameters were calculated for rivastigmine-treated and donepezil-treated patients in both groups. Of 114 (34.1%) patients younger than 75 who were successfully assessed for BuChE genotype, 76 (66.7%) were homozygous for wild-type BuChE, and 38 (33.3%) carried at least one BuChE K-variant allele. Wild-type BuChE carriers showed significantly greater responses to rivastigmine than to donepezil on the SIB, ADCS-ADL, GDS and NPI. No significant between-treatment differences in efficacy were observed in BuChE K-variant carriers, although adverse events were more frequent in rivastigmine-treated patients. In this retrospective analysis, Alzheimer's disease patients younger than 75 with wild-type BuChE exhibited differential efficacy to rivastigmine, while BuChE K-variant carriers experienced similar long-term treatment effects with both agents. These differences may reflect rivastigmine's ability to inhibit BuChE and AChE.

Effect of age on response to rivastigmine or donepezil in patients with Alzheimer's disease

ABSTRACTBackground: Younger Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients appear to differ genetically and neuropathologically from older AD patients, and may experience a more aggressive disease course compared with older patients. A randomised trial investigated the efficacy and tolerability of rivastigmine, an inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE), and donepezil, an AChE-selective inhibitor, in patients with AD over a 2-year period. This retrospective analysis investigated whether younger and older patients showed differential tolerability and efficacy responses to cholinesterase inhibitor treatment.Methods: For the current analysis, patients were divided according to age at baseline: those aged < 75 years and those aged ≥ 75 years. Efficacy measures were the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the AD Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS‐ADL). Changes in efficacy parameters and adverse event frequencies were calculated for rivastigmine and donepezil-treated patients in both age groups. Exploratory analyses were also conducted on SIB, ADCS‐ADL and NPI in patients who consented to pharmacogenetic testing at baseline. Genotyping of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele and the BuChE K-variant was conducted using the TaqMan assay. Main efficacy analyses were based on an intent-to-treat last observation carried forward (ITT‐LOCF) population.Results: Of the 994 patients who received the study drug, 362 (36.4%) were younger than 75 years and 632 (63.6%) were aged 75 years or over. Rivastigmine provided significant benefits in younger patients compared with donepezil on the NPI‐10, NPI‐12, NPI‐D, GDS and ADCS‐ADL (all p < 0.05, ITT‐LOCF). With the exception of the NPI‐D in favour of donepezil ( p < 0.05, ITT‐LOCF), no significant treatment differences were observed in older patients. Younger patients with two wild-type BuChE alleles had a significantly greater response to rivastigmine than donepezil on the ADCS‐ADL ( p < 0.01, ITT‐LOCF) and SIB ( p < 0.05, ITT‐LOCF). The most common adverse events were nausea and vomiting and these were more frequent in rivastigmine-treated patients.Conclusion: In this sub group analysis, patients younger than 75 years of age showed greater treatment responses to rivastigmine than donepezil. Analysis of response by BuChE genotype suggests that this differential effect may be due to the inhibition of BuChE, in addition to AChE, by rivastigmine.