Cognitive, global, and functional benefits of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia:results from large-scale clinical trials

Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are both associated with deficits in cholinergic neurotransmission that are amenable to therapeutic intervention. The cholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, is clinically effective in both AD and VaD. Results from a 10-study metaanalysis of donepezil (5 or 10 mg/day) in AD and a two-study combined analysis of donepezil (5 or 10 mg/day) in VaD are presented to compare patient characteristics and donepezil treatment outcomes. The analyzed studies were randomized, placebo-controlled, and of up to 24 weeks duration. In both AD and VaD, donepezil provided significant benefits compared with placebo on measures of cognition and global function. Placebo-treated AD patients showed a decline in cognition and global function, whereas placebo-treated VaD patients remained stable, suggesting treatment effects of donepezil in VaD were driven by improvement rather than stabilization or reduced decline. More VaD patients than AD patients received concomitant medications. Cardiovascular adverse events were more common in VaD than AD patients but were not increased by donepezil. In conclusion, although there are differences between AD and VaD patients in comorbid conditions and concomitant medications, donepezil is effective and well tolerated in both types of dementia.

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.

The geriatric minimum data set for clinical trials (GMDS)

To overcome the weak evidence base coming from often poor and insufficient clinical research in older people, a minimum data set to achieve harmonisation is highly advisable. This will lead to uniform nomenclature and to the standardisation of the assessment tools. Our primary objective was to develop a Geriatric Minimum Data Set (GMDS) for clinical research.

Obesity associated severe asthma represents a distinct clinical phenotype - Analysis of the British Thoracic Society Difficult Asthma Registry patient cohort according to body mass index

BACKGROUND: Obesity has emerged as a risk factor for the development of asthma and it may also influence asthma control and airways inflammation. However, the role of obesity in severe asthma remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between obesity (defined by BMI) and severe asthma. METHODS: Data from the National Registry for dedicated UK Difficult Asthma Services were used to compare patient demographics, disease characteristics and healthcare utilisation between three body mass index (BMI) categories (normal weight: 18.5 -24.99, overweight: 25 -29.99, obese: =30) in a well characterised group of severe asthmatic adults. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 666 severe asthmatics with a median BMI of 29.8 (interquartile range 22.5 -34.0). The obese group exhibited greater asthma medication requirements in terms of maintenance corticosteroid therapy (48.9% versus 40.4% and 34.5% in the overweight and normal weight groups, respectively), steroid burst therapy and short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) use per day. Significant differences were seen with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) (53.9% versus 48.1% and 39.7% in the overweight and normal weight groups, respectively) and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use. Bone density scores were higher in the obese group, whilst pulmonary function testing revealed a reduced FVC and raised Kco. Serum IgE levels decreased with increasing BMI and the obese group were more likely to report eczema, but less likely to have a history of nasal polyps. CONCLUSIONS: Severe asthmatics display particular characteristics according to BMI that support the view that obesity associated severe asthma may represent a distinct clinical phenotype.1Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK;2Department of Computing, Imperial College, UK3Airways Disease, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College, UK;4Centre for infection and immunity, Queen's University of Belfast, UK;5University of Leicester, UK;6The University of Manchester and University Hospital of South Manchester, UK;7Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, University of Birmingham, UK;8Gartnavel General Hospital, University of Glasgow, UK;9Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UKCorrespondence: Dr Andrew N. Menzies-Gow, Royal Brompton Hospital, Fulham Road, London SW3 6HP.

Genotypic subgrouping of clinical isolates of Candida albicans and Candida dubliniensis by 25S intron analysis

To determine the frequency, distribution and association of genotypes of Candida albicans and C. dubliniensis in invasive and noninvasive clinical isolates.

Cough hypersensitivity syndrome is an important clinical concept:a pro/con debate

The major etiologies of chronic cough are generally accepted to consist of upper airway cough syndrome (formerly postnasal drip syndrome), eosinophilic airway inflammation (asthma, nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). However, only a small percentage of patients with these very common conditions suffers from chronic cough. Furthermore, acute cough due to viral upper respiratory tract infection (URI) is almost always a transient, self-limited condition, yet in a small subgroup of patients, URI heralds the onset of chronic, refractory cough. The cough hypersensitivity syndrome has been proposed to explain the occurrence of chronic cough in a subgroup of patients exposed to the same putative triggers as the vast majority of the population in whom chronic cough does not result. Although conceptually the cough hypersensitivity syndrome may be intellectually satisfying, differences of opinion remain as to whether this newly recognized entity is of clinical significance, i.e., useful for the treatment of patients suffering from chronic cough. The Third American Cough Conference, held in New York in June 2011, provided an ideal forum for the debate of this issue between two internationally recognized authorities in the field of cough.