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

Background - 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. Objectives - 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). Search methods - 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. Selection criteria - 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 collection and analysis - 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. Main results - 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Parkinson's disease with dementia (Aarsland 2002a; Dubois 2007; Emre 2004; Ravina 2005), of which Dubois 2007 remains unpublished.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). Authors' conclusions - 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.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for Parkinson's disease dementia

Background - The loss of cholinergic, dopaminergic and noradrenergic innervations seen in Parkinson's Disease Dementia (PDD) suggest a potential role for cholinesterase inhibitors. Concerns have been expressed about a theoretical worsening of Parkinson's disease related symptoms, particularly movement symptoms. Objectives - To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and health economic data relating to the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in PDD. Search methods - The trials were identified from the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 19 April 2005 using the search term parkinson*. This register contains records from major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. Comprehensive searches of abstracts from major scientific meetings were performed. Pharmaceutical companies were approached for information regarding additional and ongoing studies. Selection criteria - Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessing the effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in PDD. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated to limit bias. Data collection and analysis - Two reviewers (IM, CF) independently reviewed the quality of the studies utilizing criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Medications were examined separately and as a group. The outcome measures assessed were in the following domains: neuropsychiatric features, cognition, global impression, daily living activities, quality of life, burden on caregiver, Parkinsonian related symptoms, treatment acceptability as determined by withdrawal from trials, safety as determined by the frequency of adverse events, institutionalisation, death and health economic factors. Main results - A detailed and systematic search of relevant databases identified one published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (Emre 2004) involving 541 patients that compared rivastigmine with placebo. Rivastigmine produced statistically significant improvements in several outcome measures. On the primary cognitive measure, the ADAS-Cog, rivastigmine was associated with a 2.80 point ADAS-Cog improvement [WMD -2.80, 95% Cl -4.26 to -1.34, P = 0.0002] and a 2.50 point ADCS-ADL improvement [95% Cl 0.43 to 4.57, P = 0.02] relative to placebo. Clinically meaningful (moderate or marked) improvement occurred in 5.3% more patients on rivastigmine, and meaningful worsening occurred in 10.1% more patients on placebo. Tolerability appeared to be a significant issue. Significantly more patients on rivastigmine dropped out of the study due to adverse events [62/362 versus 14/179, OR 2.44, 95% Cl 1.32 to 4.48, P = 0.004]. Nausea [20/179 versus 105/362, OR 3.25, 95% Cl 1.94 to 5.45, P < 0.00001], tremor [7/179 versus 37/362, OR 2.80, 95% Cl 1.22 to 6.41, P = 0.01] and in particular vomiting [3/179 versus 60/362, OR 11.66, 95% Cl 3.60 to 37.72, P < 0.0001] were significantly more common with rivastigmine. However, significantly fewer patients died on rivastigmine than placebo [4/362 versus 7/179, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95, P = 0.04] Authors' conclusions - Rivastigmine appears to improve cognition and activities of daily living in patients with PDD. This results in clinically meaningful benefit in about 15% of cases. There is a need for more studies utilising pragmatic measures such as time to residential care facility and both patient and carer quality of life assessments. Future trials should involve other cholinesterase inhibitors, utilise tools to analyse the data that limit any bias and measure health economic factors. It is unlikely that relying solely on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) is sufficient. Publication of the observed case data in the largest trial would assist (Emre 2004). Adverse events were associated with the cholinergic activity of rivastigmine, but may limit patient acceptability as evidenced by the high drop out rate in the active arm.