Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Research Articles

Wrist-worn sensor-based measurements for drug effect detection with small samples in people with Lewy Body Dementia

IntroductionFew late-stage clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) have produced evidence on the clinical validity of sensor-based digital measurements of daily life activities to detect responses to treatment. The objective of this study was to assess whether digital measures from patients with mild-to-moderate Lewy Body Dementia demonstrate treatment effects during a randomized Phase 2 trial. MethodsSubstudy within a 12-week trial of mevidalen (placebo vs 10, 30, or 75 mg), where 70/344 patients (comparable to the overall population) wore a wrist-worn multi-sensor device. ResultsTreatment effects were statistically significant by conventional clinical assessments (Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale [MDS-UPDRS] sum of Parts I-III and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change [ADCS-CGIC] scores) in the full study cohort at Week 12, but not in the substudy. However, digital measurements detected significant effects in the substudy cohort at week 6, persisting to week 12. ConclusionsDigital measurements detected treatment effects in a smaller cohort over a shorter period than conventional clinical assessments. Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT03305809

TREATMENT PARAMETERS AND RATIONALE FOR THE USE OF ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TREATMENT-REFRACTORY AGITATION IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

TREATMENT PARAMETERS AND RATIONALE FOR THE USE OF ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TREATMENT-REFRACTORY AGITATION IN ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE

Safety and tolerability of GRF6019 in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia.

IntroductionThis phase 2 trial evaluated the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of repeated infusions of the plasma fraction GRF6019 in mild‐to‐moderate Alzheimer's disease.MethodsIn this randomized, double‐blind, dose‐comparison trial, 47 patients were randomized 1:1 to receive daily infusions of 100 mL (n = 24) or 250 mL (n = 23) of GRF6019 for 5 consecutive days over two dosing periods separated by a treatment‐free interval of 3 months.ResultsThe mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of the enrolled patients was 74.3 (6.9), and 62% were women. Most adverse events (55%) were mild, with no clinically significant differences in safety or tolerability between the two dose levels. The mean (SD) baseline Mini‐Mental State Examination score was 20.6 (3.7) in the 100 mL group and 19.6 (3.7) in the 250 mL group; at 24 weeks, the within‐patient mean change from baseline was –1.0 points (95% confidence interval [CI], –3.1 to 1.1) in the 100 mL group and +1.5 points (95% CI, –0.4 to 3.3) in the 250 mL group. The within‐patient mean change from baseline on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale‐Cognitive subscale was –0.4 points (95% CI, –2.9 to 2.2) in the 100 mL group, while in the 250 mL group it was –0.9 points (95% CI, –3.0 to 1.2). The within‐patient mean change from baseline on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study‐Activities of Daily Living was –0.7 points in the 100 mL group (95% CI, –4.3 to 3.0) and –1.3 points (95% CI, –3.4 to 0.7) in the 250 mL group. The mean change from baseline on the Category Fluency Test, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale–Sum of Boxes, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire was similar for both treatment groups and did not show any worsening.DiscussionGRF6019 was safe and well tolerated, and patients experienced no cognitive decline and minimal functional decline. These results support further development of GRF6019.

Safety and Efficacy of Edonerpic Maleate for Patients With Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease

Edonerpic maleate (T-817MA) protects against Aβ40-induced neurotoxic effects and memory deficits, promotes neurite outgrowth, and preserves hippocampal synapses and spatial memory in tau transgenic mice. These effects may be mediated via sigma-1 receptor activation, delivery of synaptic AMPA receptors, or modulation of microglial function and may benefit patients with Alzheimer disease. To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of edonerpic for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 2 clinical trial conducted over 52 weeks from June 2, 2014, to December 14, 2016, at 52 US clinical and academic centers. Of 822 outpatients screened, 484 met the following criteria and were randomly assigned to treatment: 55 to 85 years of age, probable Alzheimer disease, Mini-Mental State Examination scores from 12 to 22, and taking stable doses of donepezil or rivastigmine with or without memantine. Random assignment (1:1:1 allocation) to placebo or 224 mg or 448 mg of edonerpic maleate, once per day. Coprimary outcomes were scores on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) at week 52. Biomarkers were brain, lateral ventricular, and hippocampal volumes, as determined on magnetic resonance imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid Aβ40, Aβ42, total tau, and phospho-tau181. The primary efficacy analysis was performed on the coprimary end points for the modified intention-to-treat population. Of 482 participants in the safety population, 140 of 158 participants (88.6%) assigned to placebo, 117 of 166 participants (70.5%) to 224 mg of edonerpic maleate, and 120 of 158 participants (76.0%) to 448 mg of edonerpic maleate completed the trial. The mean ADAS-cog score change at week 52 was 7.91 for the placebo group, 7.45 for the 224-mg group, and 7.08 for the 448-mg group. Mean differences from placebo were -0.47 (95% CI, -2.36 to 1.43; P = .63) for the 224-mg group and -0.84 (95% CI, -2.75 to 1.08; P = .39) for the 448-mg group. Mean ADCS-CGIC scores were 5.22 for the placebo group, 5.24 for the 224-mg group, and 5.25 for the 448-mg group, with mean differences from placebo of 0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.25; P = .81) for the 224-mg group and 0.04 (95% CI, -0.19 to 0.26; P = .76) for the 448-mg group. In the safety population, a total of 7 of 158 participants (4.4%) in the placebo group, 23 of 166 participants (13.9%) in the 224-mg group, and 23 of 158 participants (14.6%) in the 448-mg group discontinued because of adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were diarrhea and vomiting. Edonerpic maleate appeared to be safe and tolerable, with expected gastrointestinal symptoms occurring early but without evidence for a clinical effect among patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02079909.

ELECTROCONVULSIVE THERAPY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ACUTE AGITATION AND AGGRESSION IN ALZHEIMER'S DEMENTIA (ECT-AD)

Introduction Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease of aging, affecting approximately 5.4 million individuals in the US, and predicted to increase to 13.8 million by 2050. Occurring in over 90% of AD patients, neuropsychiatric symptoms such as agitation, depression and apathy, contribute to caregiver burden and increase patient morbidity and mortality. With no FDA-approved options available, treatments for severe agitation in people with advanced dementia are limited, with modest evidence for efficacy and substantial safety concerns. Behavioral therapies are recommended as first-line treatments for agitation in AD; however, they require substantial time to take effect and may be less efficacious for the most severely agitated patients. Psychotropic medications, especially antipsychotics, are widely used off-label to treat agitation in AD even with documented limitations in efficacy and safety concerns. Therefore, new treatments for severe agitation in AD refractory to standard interventions are timely and warranted. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders of late life, including depression, mania and psychosis. Recently, small open label studies suggest efficacy and safety of ECT for agitation in individuals with AD who are refractory to standard therapies. The present randomized controlled trial builds upon prior work and aims to determine the efficacy and safety of ECT for severe agitation in moderate to severe stage AD, while also examining the durability of the acute treatment effect in an exploratory maintenance naturalistic design. Methods We describe an NIA-funded multi-site, single blind, randomized trial of ECT plus usual care (UC) versus Simulated-ECT (S-ECT) plus UC. We will enroll 200 inpatients with severe agitation and moderate to severe dementia, who have not responded well to prior trials of psychotropic medications. Our primary efficacy outcome measure is the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Clinician Version (NPI-C), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change Scale (ADCS-CGIC), and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS) will be secondary measures. Safety and tolerability will be assessed with the Severe Impairment Battery – 8 item (SIB-8), the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and adverse event monitoring. Results Preliminary open-label data from our team suggests acute ECT treatment is safe and effective in reducing agitation in this population as measured by the CMAI, PAS, CGI, and adverse event monitoring. A multi-site, prospective case series investigated ECT treatment in 23 consecutive inpatients with dementia and severe agitation who did not benefit from standard behavioral interventions and pharmacotherapy. Eighteen of the 23 subjects experienced a significant reduction in agitation from baseline to discharge on the CMAI. In a retrospective chart review study of 16 patients undergoing ECT for agitation related to AD, only two experienced more than transient confusion post-ECT that required treatment, and no other clinically significant adverse events were noted in this group. We hypothesize ECT+UC will be more efficacious in reducing severe agitation in AD subjects than S-ECT+UC, as measured by our primary and secondary efficacy measures, and that there will be no difference in tolerability/safety outcomes for ECT+UC and S-ECT+UC as measured by cognitive decline (SIB-8), development of delirium (CAM), and serious adverse event monitoring. Conclusions This innovative study will fill a gap in the current clinical practice of treating severe agitation in AD using a rigorous methodological approach thus providing evidence for a new therapeutic application (severe agitation in AD) of a well-studied, established, and safe treatment (ECT). Study findings may demonstrate support for a new therapeutic use of ECT for severe agitation in AD. Successful management of neuropsychiatric symptoms reduces long-term care placement, decreases the risk of mortality, and enhances patient and caregiver quality-of-life. Such an approach has the potential to offer enormous relief to the substantial socioeconomic burden of AD-related behavioral disturbances. This research was funded by National Institute of Aging R01 AG061100-01

Effect of Idalopirdine as Adjunct to Cholinesterase Inhibitors on Change in Cognition in Patients With Alzheimer Disease

New therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer disease (AD) are needed. To assess whether idalopirdine, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-6 receptor antagonist, is effective for symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate AD. Three randomized clinical trials that included 2525 patients aged 50 years or older with mild to moderate AD (study 1: n = 933 patients at 119 sites; study 2: n = 858 at 158 sites; and study 3: n = 734 at 126 sites). The 24-week studies were conducted from October 2013 to January 2017; final follow-up on January 12, 2017. Idalopirdine (10, 30, or 60 mg/d) or placebo added to cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (donepezil in studies 1 and 2; donepezil, rivastigmine, or galantamine in study 3). Primary end point in all 3 studies: change in cognition total score (range, 0-70; a lower score indicates less impairment) from baseline to 24 weeks measured by the 11-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog); key secondary end points: Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change Scale and 23-item Activities of Daily Living Inventory scores. Dose group efficacy required a significant benefit over placebo for the primary end point and 1 or more key secondary end points. Safety data and adverse event profiles were recorded. Among 2525 patients randomized in the 3 trials (mean age, 74 years; mean baseline ADAS-Cog total score, 26; between 62% and 65% of participants were women), 2254 (89%) completed the studies. In study 1, the mean change in ADAS-Cog total score between baseline and 24 weeks was 0.37 for the 60-mg dose of idalopirdine group, 0.61 for the 30-mg dose group, and 0.41 for the placebo group (adjusted mean difference vs placebo, 0.05 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.98] for the 60-mg dose group and 0.33 [95% CI, -0.59 to 1.26] for the 30-mg dose group). In study 2, the mean change in ADAS-Cog total score between baseline and 24 weeks was 1.01 for the 30-mg dose of idalopirdine group, 0.53 for the 10-mg dose group, and 0.56 for the placebo group (adjusted mean difference vs placebo, 0.63 [95% CI, -0.38 to 1.65] for the 30-mg dose group; given the gated testing strategy and the null findings at the 30-mg dose, statistical comparison of the 10-mg dose was not performed). In study 3, the mean change in ADAS-Cog total score between baseline and 24 weeks was 0.38 for the 60-mg dose of idalopirdine group and 0.82 for the placebo group (adjusted mean difference vs placebo, -0.55 [95% CI, -1.45 to 0.36]). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in between 55.4% and 69.7% of participants in the idalopirdine groups vs between 56.7% and 61.4% of participants in the placebo groups. In patients with mild to moderate AD, the use of idalopirdine compared with placebo did not improve cognition over 24 weeks of treatment. These findings do not support the use of idalopirdine for the treatment of AD. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT01955161, NCT02006641, and NCT02006654.

R- and S-citalopram concentrations have differential effects on neuropsychiatric scores in elders with dementia and agitation.

The aim was to determine the relationship between (R) and (S)-citalopram enantiomer exposure (AUC(0,24h)) and therapeutic response in agitated individuals greater than 60 years old with Alzheimer's dementia (AD). Citalopram enantiomer exposures (AUC(0,24h)) derived from an established population pharmacokinetic analysis were utilized to explore the relationship between (R)- and (S)-citalopram area under the curve (AUC(0,24)) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neurobehavioural Rating Scale-Agitation Subscale (NBRS-A), modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation subscale (NPIA) scores. Time dependent changes in these scores (disease progression) were accounted for prior to exploring the exposure effect relationship for each enantiomer. These relationships were evaluated using a non-linear-mixed effects modelling approach as implemented in nonmem v7.3. (S)-AUC(0,24h) and (R)-AUC(0,24h) each contributed to improvement in NBRS-A scores (k3(R) -0.502; k4(S) -0.712) as did time in treatment. However, increasing (R)-AUC(0,24h) decreased the probability of patient response (maximum Δ -0.182%/AUC(0,24h)) based on the CGIC while (S)-AUC(0,24h) improved the probability of response (maximum Δ 0.112%/AUC(0,24h)). (R)-AUC(0,24h) was also associated with worsening in MMSE scores (-0.5 points). Our results suggest that citalopram enantiomers contributed differentially to treatment outcomes. (R)-citalopram accounted for a greater proportion of the adverse consequences associated with racemic citalopram treatment in patients with AD including a decreased probability of treatment response as measured by the CGIC and a reduction in MMSE scores. The S-enantiomer was associated with increased probability of response based on the CGIC.

Rasagiline for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease: A placebo-controlled trial.

This study's aims were to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rasagiline, a selective monoamine oxidase inhibitor B, for PD patients with mild cognitive impairment. Patients on stable dopaminergic therapy were randomized to adjunct rasagiline 1 mg/day or placebo in this 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multisite study. The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline to week 24 on the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition total score. Key secondary measures included changes in cognition, activities of daily living, motor scores, and Clinical Global Impression of Change, as well as safety and tolerability measures. Of the 170 patients randomized, 151 (88.2%) completed the study. Change in Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's Disease-Cognition scores were not significantly different in the rasagiline and placebo groups (adjusted mean: 1.6 [standard error {SE} = 0.5] vs. 0.8 [SE = 0.5] points; LS means difference = 0.8; 95% confidence interval: -0.48, 2.05; P = 0.22). There were no between-group differences in change in the MoCA (p=0.84) or Penn Daily Activities Questionnaire (P = 0.48) scores or in the distribution of Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change modified for mild cognitive impairment (P = 0.1). Changes in motor (UPDRS part III; P = 0.02) and activities of daily living (UPDRS part II; P < 0.001) scores favored rasagiline. Rasagiline was well tolerated; the most common adverse events in both groups were falls and dizziness. Rasagiline treatment in PD patients with mild cognitive impairment was not associated with cognitive improvement. Rasagiline did not worsen cognition, improved motor symptoms and activities of daily living, and was well tolerated in elderly cognitively impaired patients. © 2016 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Rivastigmine Patch in Chinese Patients with Probable Alzheimer's disease: A 24-week, Randomized, Double-Blind Parallel-Group Study Comparing Rivastigmine Patch (9.5 mg/24 h) with Capsule (6 mg Twice Daily).

To compare the once-daily rivastigmine patch 9.5 mg/24 h (10 cm(2) ) versus twice-daily capsule (12 mg/day) in Chinese patients with probable Alzheimer's disease (AD) (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] scores of 10-20). The primary objective was to demonstrate the noninferiority of patch to capsule in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) change from baseline to 24 week. Secondary endpoints included cognition (MMSE), overall clinical response (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change [ADCS-CGIC]), activities of daily living (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living [ADCS-ADL]), behavior (Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI-12]), and safety. Similar cognitive improvement was observed in both patch (n = 248) and capsule (n = 253) groups. Statistical noninferiority for ADAS-Cog was not established (least-square means difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, -1.2; 1.5). Considering all efficacy parameters into account, both treatments showed similar performance at Week 24. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were lower for patch (39.7%) compared with capsule (49.8%). Application site pruritus was reported in 10.9% of patients receiving patch; most cases were mild. Gastrointestinal AEs including nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea occurred less frequently in the patch group (15.8% vs. 28.7%). Rivastigmine patch 9.5 mg/24 h is effective and well tolerated in Chinese patients with probable AD.

Dextromethorphan Plus Quinidine Helps Quell Agitation

norepinephrine, and possibly other old with probable Alzheimer’s disease, group continued receiving the drug neurotransmitters. clinically significant agitation, and combination in stage 2, whereas the plaPublished in the Journal of the Mini-Mental State Examination score cebo group was stratified by response American Medical Association, the findof 8–28. Clinically significant agitation and re-randomized in a 1:1 ratio to ings are from a 10-week, 42-center was defined as poorly organized and dextromethorphan-quinidine (n = 59) double-blind, placebo-controlled study purposeless psychomotor activity and or placebo (n = 60). A Clinical Global led by Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, ScD, aggressive verbal, aggressive physical, or Impressions-Severity (CGIS) agitation from the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo nonaggressive physical behaviors. score up to 3 and a decrease of at least Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas In stage 1 of the trial, participants 25% in the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (JAMA 2015;314:1242–54.). Conducted were randomized in a 3:4 ratio to receive (NPI) Agitation/Aggression domain from August 2012 to August 2014, the dextromethorphan-quinidine (n = 93) or score constituted a response to treattrial enrolled 1,220 patients 50–90 years placebo (n = 127). The active treatment ment at the end of stage 1. Dextromethorphan Plus Quinidine Helps Quell Agitation

Evaluation of a hospital-based day-structuring exercise programme on exacerbated behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia--the exercise carrousel: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundConceptual reviews and observational studies describe a link between physical inactivity and behavioural disturbances in people with dementia. Consequently, treatment of these symptoms requires physical activation and pharmacological or physical immobilization should be avoided. The few trials that have been conducted in inpatient dementia care to investigate the effects of exercise on behavioural and psychological symptoms revealed inconsistent results. Due to a lack of evidence, there is a paucity of recommendations for physical activation in this stage of care. Therefore, this trial seeks to investigate the effects of a day-structuring exercise programme on behavioural and psychological symptoms as well as on circadian rhythms of patients with dementia, hospitalized because of their behavioural and psychological disturbances.Methods/DesignA single-centre randomised controlled trial will be conducted in three special dementia care units of an old age psychiatry hospital. Enrolled patients will receive either a 2-week exercise programme, or a 2-week social stimulation programme in addition to usual care. Due to the provision of four day-structuring exercise-sessions in the course of an intervention day, the exercise programme for the study group is called exercise-carrousel. Baseline and post-intervention assessment for the primary outcome variable - the overall effects on behavioural and psychological symptoms - will be measured by the Alzheimer's disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change. The following objectives are set up as secondary outcomes: dimensions of the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and caregiver burden, routine and on-demand psychotropic medication, patients’ motor behaviour, diurnal cortisol-levels from saliva probes and brain-derived neurotrophic factor-levels from blood serum.DiscussionIn order to be regarded as an important treatment option for behavioural and psychological symptoms, physical activation in inpatient hospital dementia care requires more evidence and appropriate recommendations. Respecting hospital routines and the intra-daily variability of the patients’ motivation and behavioural disturbances in the provision of exercise sessions could lead to higher exercise adherence and better effects on patients’ behavioural and psychological symptoms than former trials have presented. The concealment of allocation throughout the trial and the rating of individual exercise exertion present the key challenges and main limitations of this trial.Trial registrationDRKS00006740 (German Clinical Trial Register, date of registration: 28 October 2014).

Rivastigmine for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson disease: a placebo-controlled study.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in Parkinson's disease (PD) may be associated with subtle functional impairment and worse quality of life. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of rivastigmine for PD-MCI. Patients with PD-MCI (n = 28) were enrolled in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, single-site study of the rivastigmine transdermal patch. The primary outcome measure was the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Secondary outcomes included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Dementia Rating Scale-2 (DRS-2), Neurotrax computerized cognitive battery, the Everyday Cognition Battery (ECB), and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8). Twenty-six participants (92.9%) completed both study phase assessments, and 23 (82.1%) completed both phases on study medication. The CGIC response rate demonstrated a trend effect in favor of rivastigmine (regression coefficient for interaction term in linear mixed-effects model = 0.44, F[df] = 3.01 [1, 24], P = 0.096). For secondary outcomes, a significant rivastigmine effect on the ECB (regression coefficient = -2.41, F[df] = 5.81 [1, 22.05], P = 0.03) was seen, but no treatment effect was found on any cognitive measures. Trend effects also occurred in favor of rivastigmine on the PDQ-8 (regression coefficient = 4.55, F[df] = 3.93 [1, 14. 79], P = 0.09) and the State Anxiety Inventory (regression coefficient = -1.24, F[df] = 3.17 [1, 33], P = 0.08). Rivastigmine in PD-MCI showed a trend effect for improvements on a global rating of cognition, disease-related health status, and anxiety severity, and significant improvement on a performance-based measure of cognitive abilities. © 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Evaluating Response to High-Dose 13.3mg/24h Rivastigmine Patch in Patients with Severe Alzheimer's Disease.

To identify factors predicting improvement/stabilization on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and investigate whether early treatment responses can predict long-term outcomes, during a trial of 13.3mg/24h versus 4.6mg/24h rivastigmine patch in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Logistic regression was used to relate Week 24 ADCS-CGIC score to potential baseline predictors. Additional analyses based on receiver-operating characteristic curves were performed using Week 8/16 ADCS-CGIC scores to predict response (13.3mg/24h patch) at Week 24. ADCS-CGIC score of (1) 1-3="improvement," (2) 1-4="improvement or no change". "Treatment" (13.3mg/24h patch) and increased age were significant predictors of "improvement" (P=0.01 and P=0.003, respectively), and "treatment" (P=0.001), increased age (P=0.002), and prior AD treatment (P=0.03) for "improvement or no change". At Week 8 and 16, ADCS-CGIC scores of 4 and 5 were optimal thresholds in predicting "improvement," and "improvement or no change," respectively, at Week 24. A significant therapeutic effect of high-dose rivastigmine patch on ADCS-CGIC response was observed. The 13.3mg/24h patch was identified as a predictor of "improvement" or "improvement or no change". Patients with minimal worsening/improvement/no change after treatment initiation may be more likely to respond following long-term therapy.

Memantine for Lewy Body Disorders: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

To clarify whether memantine is more efficacious in several outcomes and safer than placebo in patients with Lewy body disorders, we performed a meta-analysis of memantine in patients with Lewy body disorders. The meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials of memantine for Lewy body disorders in all patients with Lewy body disorders. Motor function, activities of daily living, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, Mini-Mental State Exam, discontinuation rate, and individual side effects were evaluated. No significant effects of memantine on motor function scores, Mini-Mental State Exam scores, Neuropsychiatric Inventory scores, and activity of daily living scores were found. However, memantine was superior to placebo in Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change scores (standardized mean difference:-0.26; 95% confidence interval:-0.51 to-0.02; z= 2.08; p= 0.04; two studies; N= 258). Dropout due to all causes, inefficacy, or adverse events were similar in both groups. Moreover, no significant differences in serious adverse events, somnolence/tiredness, stroke, dizziness/vertigo, and confusion were found between the groups. Our results suggest that memantine did not have a benefit for the treatment of Lewy body disorders in cognition and motor function. However, memantine may be superior to placebo for the overall impression of the disorders. Further, memantine is well tolerated.

Safety and Efficacy of Methylphenidate for Apathy in Alzheimer’s Disease

In a recent crossover trial, methylphenidate treatment decreased apathy in Alzheimer's disease. We further assessed this finding in the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET). Six-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial enrolling Alzheimer's disease participants (NINCDS-ADRDA criteria) with apathy assigned to methylphenidate 20 mg daily or placebo, conducted from June 2010 to December 2011. Primary outcomes were change in Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) score and modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGI-C). Secondary outcomes included change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy score, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and safety. 60 participants were randomly assigned (29 methylphenidate, 31 placebo). At baseline, mean (SD) age = 76 (8) years, MMSE score = 20 (5), AES score = 51 (12), NPI total score = 16 (8), and 62% of the participants (n = 37) were female. After 6 weeks' treatment, mean (SD) change in AES score was -1.9 (1.5) for methylphenidate and 0.6 (1.4) for placebo (P = .23). Odds ratio for improvement in ADCS-CGI-C was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 10.8) (P = .02), with 21% of methylphenidate versus 3% of placebo rated as moderately or markedly improved. NPI apathy score improvement was 1.8 points (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4) greater on methylphenidate than on placebo (P = .02). MMSE trended toward improvement on methylphenidate (P = .06). There were trends toward greater anxiety and weight loss > 2% in the methylphenidate-treated group. Methylphenidate treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease was associated with significant improvement in 2 of 3 efficacy outcomes and a trend toward improved global cognition with minimal adverse events, supporting the safety and efficacy of methylphenidate treatment for apathy in Alzheimer's disease. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01117181.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for dementia with Lewy bodies, Parkinson's disease dementia and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease

Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The clinical features of DLB and PDD have much in common and are distinguished primarily on the basis of whether or not parkinsonism precedes dementia by more than a year. Patients with both conditions have particularly severe deficits in cortical levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Therefore, blocking its breakdown using cholinesterase inhibitors may lead to clinical improvement. To assess the efficacy, safety and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD), and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease falling short of dementia (CIND-PD) (considered as separate phenomena and also grouped together as Lewy body disease). The trials were identified from a search of ALOIS, the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (on 30 August 2011) using the search terms Lewy, Parkinson, PDD, DLB, LBD. This register consists of records from major healthcare databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL) and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly.Reference lists of relevant studies were searched for additional trials. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in DLB, PDD and cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD). Data were extracted from published reports by one review author (MR). The data for each 'condition' (that is DLB, PDD or CIND-PD) were considered separately and, where possible, also pooled together. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager version 5.0. Six trials met the inclusion criteria for this review, in which a total of 1236 participants were randomised. Four of the trials were of a parallel group design and two cross-over trials were included. Four of the trials included participants with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished. Leroi 2004 included patients with cognitive impairment and Parkinson's disease (both with and without dementia). Patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were included in only one of the trials (McKeith 2000).For global assessment, three trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitor treatment to placebo in PDD (Aarsland 2002a; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005) reported a difference in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) score of -0.38, favouring the cholinesterase inhibitors (95% CI -0.56 to -0.24, P < 0.0001).For cognitive function, a pooled estimate of the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on cognitive function measures was consistent with the presence of a therapeutic benefit (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.23, P < 0.00001). There was evidence of a positive effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in patients with PDD (WMD 1.09, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.73, P = 0.0008) and in the single PDD and CIND-PD trial (WMD 1.05, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.68, P = 0.01) but not in the single DLB trial.For behavioural disturbance, analysis of the pooled continuous data relating to behavioural disturbance rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.04, P = 0.01).For activities of daily living, combined data for the ADCS and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) activities of daily living rating scales favoured treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02, P = 0.03).For safety and tolerability, those taking a cholinesterase inhibitor were more likely to experience an adverse event (318/452 versus 668/842; odds ratio (OR) 1.64, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.15, P = 0.0003) and to drop out (128/465 versus 45/279; OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.84, P = 0.0006). Adverse events were more common amongst those taking rivastigmine (357/421 versus 173/240; OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.53 to 3.38, P < 0.0001) but not those taking donepezil (311/421 versus 145/212; OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.80, P = 0.25). Parkinsonian symptoms in particular tremor (64/739 versus 12/352; OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.44 to 5.09, P = 0.002), but not falls (P = 0.39), were reported more commonly in the treatment group but this did not have a significant impact on the UPDRS (total and motor) scores (P = 0.71). Fewer deaths occurred in the treatment group than in the placebo group (4/465 versus 9/279; OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.84, P = 0.03). The currently available evidence supports the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with PDD, with a positive impact on global assessment, cognitive function, behavioural disturbance and activities of daily living rating scales. The effect in DLB remains unclear. There is no current disaggregated evidence to support their use in CIND-PD.

A 24-week, multicentre, open evaluation of the clinical effectiveness of the rivastigmine patch in patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease

Cholinesterase inhibitors form the mainstay of treatment for persons with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). The rivastigmine patch may increase compliance and the proportion of patients maintaining an efficacious dose compared with oral cholinesterase inhibitors. To investigate the proportion of patients who reached and maintained the target rivastigmine patch dose compared with the target rivastigmine capsule dose reported in clinical trials. This was a multicentre, 24-week, open-label study in persons with probable AD and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥ 10 and ≤ 26. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients (ITT population) treated with 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch for at least 8 weeks at week 24. Secondary outcomes included week 24 MMSE, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC), Trail Making Test Part A (TMT-A) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scores. Overall, 208 participants received treatment and 155 (74.5%) completed the study. Within the ITT population, 147/182 patients (80.8%; 95% CI 75.0-86.5%) were treated for at least 8 weeks with the 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch; 135/182 patients (74.2%; 95% CI 67.8-80.5%) were treated for at least 8 weeks and completed the study. The most common adverse events were nausea (10.1% of patients), erythema (8.7%), pruritus (8.2%) and vomiting (7.2%). At week 24, patients treated with the rivastigmine patch showed improvements on MMSE, ADCS-ADL, ADCS-CGIC and TMT-A scores. Caregivers reported acceptance, preference and satisfaction with the patch. Transdermal delivery may allow more patients to reach and maintain therapeutic doses of rivastigmine compared with oral rivastigmine.

A phase II trial of huperzine A in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

Huperzine A is a natural cholinesterase inhibitor derived from the Chinese herb Huperzia serrata that may compare favorably in symptomatic efficacy to cholinesterase inhibitors currently in use for Alzheimer disease (AD). We assessed the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of huperzine A in mild to moderate AD in a multicenter trial in which 210 individuals were randomized to receive placebo (n = 70) or huperzine A (200 μg BID [n = 70] or 400 μg BID [n = 70]), for at least 16 weeks, with 177 subjects completing the treatment phase. The primary analysis assessed the cognitive effects of huperzine A 200 μg BID (change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale [ADAS-Cog] at week 16 at 200 μg BID compared to placebo). Secondary analyses assessed the effect of huperzine A 400 μg BID, as well as effect on other outcomes including Mini-Mental State Examination, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change scale, Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living scale, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Huperzine A 200 μg BID did not influence change in ADAS-Cog at 16 weeks. In secondary analyses, huperzine A 400 μg BID showed a 2.27-point improvement in ADAS-Cog at 11 weeks vs 0.29-point decline in the placebo group (p = 0.001), and a 1.92-point improvement vs 0.34-point improvement in the placebo arm (p = 0.07) at week 16. Changes in clinical global impression of change, NPI, and activities of daily living were not significant at either dose. The primary efficacy analysis did not show cognitive benefit with huperzine A 200 μg BID. This study provides Class III evidence that huperzine A 200 μg BID has no demonstrable cognitive effect in patients with mild to moderate AD.

Sertraline for the Treatment of Depression in Alzheimer Disease

Depression is common in Alzheimer disease (AD), and antidepressants are commonly used for its treatment, however, evidence for antidepressant efficacy in this population is lacking. The authors conducted a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial titled "Depression in Alzheimer's Disease-2" to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sertraline for depression in AD. One hundred thirty-one participants from five U.S. medical centers with mild-to-moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination scores 10-26) and depression of AD were randomized to double-blinded treatment with sertraline (N = 67) or placebo (N = 64), with a target dosage of 100 mg daily. Efficacy was assessed using logistic regressions and mixed effects models in an intention-to-treat analysis with imputation of missing data. Principal outcome measures were modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC), change in Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) scores, and remission defined by both mADCS-CGIC score <or=2 and CSDD score <or=6. mADCS-CGIC ratings (odd ratio [OR = 1.01], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-1.97, p = 0.98), CSDD scores (median difference at 12 weeks 1.2, 95% CI: 1.65-4.05, p = 0.41), and remission at 12 weeks of follow-up (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.84-5.04, p = 0.11) did not differ between sertraline (N = 67) and placebo (N = 64). Sertraline-treated patients experienced more adverse events, most notably gastrointestinal and respiratory, than placebo-treated patients. Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. In addition, its use was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Thus, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be of limited value for treating depression in patients with AD.

Characteristics and Performance of a Modified Version of the ADCS-CGIC CIBIC+ for Mild Cognitive Impairment Clinical Trials

The Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) was modified for use in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) trials and tested in the ADCS MCI randomized clinical trial of donepezil, vitamin E, and placebo. We assessed feasibility for its use by determining whether or not: (1) it distinguished a medication effect at 6 months and 12 months, (2) baseline demographic or clinical characteristics predicted change, (3) there was an association between MCI-CGIC and change in other clinical measures in order to evaluate external or concurrent validity. We used a generalized estimating equations approach for ordinal outcome data to test the effects of treatment, baseline characteristics, and change in clinical measures on the MCI-CGIC over 12 months, and ordinal logistic regression to assess the association between MCI-CGIC and change in clinical measures at 6 months and 12 months. On the MCI-CGIC overall, 12.9% and 10.6% were rated as having improved, and 31.6% and 39.8% as having worsened over 6 months and 12 months, respectively. The MCI-CGIC did not distinguish the donepezil or vitamin E groups from placebo at 6 and 12 months treatment. Variables at screening or baseline that were associated with worse CGIC scores over 6 and 12 months included white race, greater years of education, worse depression, dementia severity rating, cognitive, and daily activities scores, and lower memory domain scores on a neuropsychological battery. Rate of worsening on the MCI-CGIC over 12 months was associated with change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive and on executive function. Worsening at 6 months and 12 months, separately, were associated with the corresponding change in Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive, Activities of Daily Living, Beck Depression Inventory, Mini-Mental State Examination, Clinical Dementia Rating sum of boxes, memory, and executive function. Change detected by the MCI-CGIC was associated with baseline clinical severity and with change in clinical ratings over 6 and 12 months, supporting the validity of a CGIC approach in MCI. The effect size of the donepezil-placebo difference was similar to that of other outcomes at 12 months. About 40% of MCI patients were judged worse and about 11% improved, consistent with clinical experience and other ratings.