A multinational, randomised, 12-week study comparing the effects of donepezil and galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease

To compare directly, in the same patient cohort, the ease of use and tolerability of donepezil and galantamine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and investigate the effects of both treatments on cognition and activities of daily living (ADL).

A 6-month open-label study of the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with Alzheimer's disease

The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of galantamine in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in everyday clinical practice. Patient selection was made on 36 sequential patients attending Belfast City Hospital Memory Clinic between December 2000 and June 2001. Patients were treated with galantamine for 6 months, starting from 4 mg twice daily increasing to 8 mg twice daily and then to 12 mg twice daily at 4-weekly intervals. Patients (25 females, 11 males), mean age 78 years (59-90), were diagnosed with probable AD and had a mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score of 10-26. Efficacy was assessed using the MMSE, neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI), neuropsychiatric inventory caregiver distress (NPI-D) scale and the Bristol activities of daily living (B-ADL) scale at baseline and after 3 and 6 months of treatment. Mean improvements were noted on all four measures of efficacy at 3 and 6 months; improvements were significant on the MMSE, NPI and NPI-D at 3 months and on the NPI-D at 6 months. Galantamine was overall well tolerated. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal, particularly nausea. Four patients stopped treatment due to adverse events, and seven were stabilised on 8 mg twice daily as they were unable to tolerate the target dose. This naturalistic study confirms clinical trial data, which shows galantamine improves cognition and behavioural symptoms and is overall well tolerated. © 2004 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs:a revised (second) consensus statement from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

The British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP) coordinated a meeting of experts to review and revise its first (2006) Guidelines for clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs. As before, levels of evidence were rated using accepted standards which were then translated into grades of recommendation A to D, with A having the strongest evidence base (from randomized controlled trials) and D the weakest (case studies or expert opinion). Current clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia have sufficient accuracy to be applied in clinical practice (B) and brain imaging can improve diagnostic accuracy (B). Cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) are effective for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (A) and memantine for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (A). Until further evidence is available other drugs, including statins, anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin E and Ginkgo biloba, cannot be recommended either for the treatment or prevention of Alzheimer's disease (A). Neither cholinesterase inhibitors nor memantine are effective in those with mild cognitive impairment (A). Cholinesterase inhibitors are not effective in frontotemporal dementia and may cause agitation (A), though selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may help behavioural (but not cognitive) features (B). Cholinesterase inhibitors should be used for the treatment of people with Lewy body dementias (Parkinson's disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)), especially for neuropsychiatric symptoms (A). Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine can produce cognitive improvements in DLB (A). There is no clear evidence that any intervention can prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Although the consensus statement focuses on medication, psychological interventions can be effective in addition to pharmacotherapy, both for cognitive and non-cognitive symptoms. Many novel pharmacological approaches involving strategies to reduce amyloid and/or tau deposition are in progress. Although results of pivotal studies are awaited, results to date have been equivocal and no disease-modifying agents are either licensed or can be currently recommended for clinical use.

Pharmacological interventions for dementia in people with Down Syndrome (Protocol).

Background: People with Down syndrome are vulnerable to developing dementia at an earlier age than the general population. Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome can place a significant burden on both the person with Down syndrome and their family and carers. Various pharmacological interventions, including donepezil, galantamine, memantine and rivastigmine, appear to have some effect in treating cognitive decline in people without Down syndrome, but their effectiveness for those with Down syndrome remains unclear. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions and nutritional supplements for treating cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome. Search methods In January 2015, we searched CENTRAL, ALOIS (the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, seven other databases, and two trials registers. In addition, we checked the references of relevant reviews and studies and contacted study authors, other researchers and relevant drug manufacturers to identify additional studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-dementia pharmacological interventions or nutritional supplements for adults (aged 18 years and older) with Down syndrome, in which treatment was administered and compared with either placebo or no treatment. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of included trials and extracted the relevant data. Review authors contacted study authors to obtain missing information where necessaryMain results Only nine studies (427 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four of these (192 participants) assessed the effectiveness of donepezil, two (139 participants) assessed memantine, one (21 participants) assessed simvastatin, one study (35 participants) assessed antioxidants, and one study (40 participants) assessed acetyl-L-carnitine. Five studies focused on adults aged 45 to 55 years, while the remaining four studies focused on adults aged 20 to 29 years. Seven studies were conducted in either the USA or UK, one between Norway and the UK, and one in Japan. Follow-up periods in studies ranged from four weeks to two years. The reviewers judged all included studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. Analyses indicate that for participants who received donepezil, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to 1.13) and measures of behaviour (SMD 0.42, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.89) were similar to those who received placebo. However, participants who received donepezil were significantly more likely to experience an adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.62). The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included donepezil studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death. For participants who received memantine, scores in measures of cognitive functioning (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.52), behaviour (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.11), and occurrence of adverse events (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17) were similar to those who received placebo. The quality of this body of evidence was low. None of the included memantine studies reported data for carer stress, institutional/home care, or death. Due to insufficient data, it was possible to provide a narrative account only of the outcomes for simvastatin, antioxidants, and acetylL-carnitine. Results from one pilot study suggest that participants who received simvastatin may have shown a slight improvement in cognitive measures. Authors’ conclusions Due to the low quality of the body of evidence in this review, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of any pharmacological intervention for cognitive decline in people with Down syndrome.