A pattern of test findings predicting attention problems at school

M. Korkman,Kaisa Peltomaa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00919088

1991-08-01

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

P4‐305: Withdrawn

Kazuki Uemura,Hiroyuki Umegaki,Yasuko Yoshida,Hiroyuki Shimada,Masafumi Kuzuya,Tsuyoshi Hamaguchi,Kazuo Iwasa,Shoko Kobayashi,Toshitada Nagai,Hiryoyuki Nakamura,Masahito Yamada,Zhongxin Zhao,Xueyuan Liu,Xiaoping Wang,Hengge Xie,Qinpu Jiang,Benyan Luo,Lan Shang,Weixian Chen,Zhi Song,Yingyyi Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.08.135

2015-01-01

Abstract:placebo-controlled trials of MEM IR (10 mg BID; 2 monotherapy; 1 of patients on stable donepezil) and 1 trial of MEM ER (28 mg QD; patients on stable ChEI regimen) in moderate to severe AD. Efficacy outcomes included cognition (SIB), function (ADCS-ADL19), behavior (NPI), and global status (CIBICPlus), and clinically meaningful events were defined as the median decline at Endpoint for placebo-only treated patients; the K-M method was used to compare median time to reach this point in the treatment groups and an unadjusted log-rank test was performed on the intent-to-treat population. Results:Meaningful events were defined as declines of 4 points on SIB, 3 points on ADCS-ADL19, NPI total score increase 0, and final score 5 for CIBIC-Plus. The median times-to-events (days) were: SIB (PBO-only: 85; PBO+ChEI: 176 [P<0.0001 vs PBO-only]; MEM-only: 188 [P1⁄40.0001 vs PBO-only]; MEM+ChEI: >196 [P<0.0001 vs PBO-only]; all-PBO groups: 168; all-MEM groups: 193 [P1⁄40.0037 vs all-PBO]), ADCSADL19 (PBO-only: 125; PBO+ChEI: 127 [P1⁄40.9854 vs PBOonly]; MEM-only: 172 [P1⁄40.0445 vs PBO-only]; MEM+ChEI: 168 [P1⁄40.2390 vs PBO-only]; all-PBO: 127; all-MEM: 168 [P1⁄40.0127 vs all-PBO]), NPI (PBO-only: 85; PBO+ChEI: 84 [P<0.0001 vs PBO-only]; MEM-only: 101 [P1⁄40.3518 vs PBO-only]; MEM+ChEI: 87 [P1⁄40.0333 vs PBO-only]; all-PBO: 85; all-MEM: 88 [P1⁄40.0027 vs all-PBO]), and CIBIC-Plus (PBO-only: 126; PBO+ChEI: 126 [P1⁄40.4567 vs PBO-only]; MEM-only: 168 [P1⁄40.1429 vs PBO-only]; MEM+ChEI: 168 [P1⁄40.4011 vs PBO-only]; all-PBO: 126; all-MEM: 168 [P1⁄40.0205 vs all-PBO]). Conclusions: Time-to-event analyses support the conclusion that memantine alone or in combination with a ChEI is efficacious in delaying cognitive, functional, and behavioral declines in patients with moderate to severe AD.
The Efficacy of Transdermal Rivastigmine in Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease with Concomitant Small Vessel Cerebrovascular Disease: Findings from an Open-Label Study

Fatin Zahra Zailan,N. Kandiah,A. Ng,Chathuri Yatawara,L. Lim,E. Chua,Joanna Sihan Wang,Eveline Silva,K. Ng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S290055

IF: 3.829

2021-02-01

Clinical Interventions in Aging

Abstract:Background Rivastigmine is used to treat cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease (AD); however, the efficacy of Rivastigmine in patients with AD and concomitant small vessel cerebrovascular disease (svCVD) remains unclear. We investigated the effectiveness of Rivastigmine Patch in patients with AD and svCVD. Methods In this open-label study, 100 patients with AD and MRI confirmed svCVD received 9.5mg/24 hours Rivastigmine transdermal treatment for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was global cognition indexed using the ADAS-Cog. Secondary outcomes included clinical-rated impression of change (indexed using (ADCS‐CGIC), activities of daily living (indexed using ADCS-ADL) and side effects. Results Overall, performance on the ADAS-Cog after 24 weeks deteriorated by 1.78 (SD = 5.29) points. Fifty-two percent of the sample demonstrated improvement or remained stable, while 48% demonstrated worsening of ADAS-Cog scores. Of the 52%, significant improvement (2 or more-point decline) on the ADAS-Cog was observed in 25% of the sample, with a mean change of −5.08 (SD = 3.11). A decline on the ADAS-Cog was observed in 48% of the sample, with a mean change of 6 (SD = 2.98) points. Cognitive outcome did not interact with severity of svCVD. ADCS-ADL scores remained stable from baseline to week 24 and ADCS‐CGIC reports indicated that 81% of the patients remained stable after treatment. Side effects were reported by 16% of the patients, with contact dermatitis being the most common. Conclusion Our findings suggest that Rivastigmine may have a role in the management of patients having AD and concomitant mild-severe svCVD, with minimal side effects.

Medicine
Real-world Evaluation of Tolerability, Safety and Efficacy of Rivastigmine Oral Solution in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia

Wenfu Wang,S. Hsieh,Nai-Ching Chen,Yuan-Han Yang,Jui-Cheng Chen,Kai-Ming Jhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.9758/cpn.2021.19.3.459

2021-08-31

Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience

Abstract:Objective The purpose of this study is to investigate the safety, tolerability and efficacy of titrating dose of rivastigmine oral solution in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in Taiwan. Methods We recruited 108 mild to moderate AD patients with RivastⓇ (rivastigmine oral solution 2 mg/ml) treatment for 52 weeks. We recorded the demographic characteristics, initial cognition by mini-mental state examination (MMSE), initial global status by clinical dementia rating (CDR) with CDR-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB), initial dose, and titrating dose at each visit. We investigated the adherence, proportion of possible side effects, optimal dose, and time to optimal dose. We demonstrated the proportion of cognitive decline and its possible risk factors. Results During the course, 9 patients discontinued the rivastigmine oral solution due to poor compliance or preference. Twelve out of 99 patients (12.1%) reported possible side effects. Among 87 patients, the mean age was 77.2 ± 9.0 years ago with female predominant (65.2%). The optimal dose was 3.6 ± 1.4 ml in average and 4 ml (n = 31, 35.6%) in mode. The duration to optimal dose was 12.5 ± 10.2 weeks and 24 weeks (n = 35, 40.2%) in mode. It presented 25% with cognitive decline in MMSE, 27% with global function decline in CDR and 63% with global function decline in CDR-SB. Conclusion We demonstrated the clinical experience of rivastigmine oral solution in mild to moderate AD patients. It suggested rivastigmine oral solution 4ml is the optimal dose with 24 weeks to the optimal dose for at least one third of patients.

Medicine
Bioavailability Study of a Transdermal Patch Formulation of Rivastigmine Compared with Exelon in Healthy Subjects

Adelaida Morte,Anna Vaqué,Marc Iniesta,Barbara Schug,Cornelius Koch,Rafael De la Torre,Bjoern Schurad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13318-022-00778-5

Abstract:Background and objectives: Rivastigmine is a reversible cholinesterase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of all stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Transdermal patch formulation allows smooth and continuous drug delivery. Its tolerability, efficacy and convenience of use increase treatment compliance. This study was designed to evaluate the bioavailability and to assess the bioequivalence of two rivastigmine transdermal patches at steady state (RIV-TDS Test Product versus Exelon Marketed Reference Product), with a release rate of 13.3 mg/24 h, after multiple patch applications. As secondary objectives, safety, patch adhesion and skin irritation were evaluated. Methods: This was an open-label, randomized, balanced, two-period, two-sequence, cross-over study of healthy adults (n = 31). The treatment period consisted of two 5-day study periods during which consecutive daily application of the investigational patches with a release rate of 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine took place. Serial blood samples were collected to measure plasma concentrations. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of patches. Results: Point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of pharmacokinetic parameters at steady state, viz. area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from dosing time to the end of the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [AUC0-τ,ss] (97.4; 88.8-106.9), maximum plasma concentration within the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [Cmax,ss] (99.6; 90.4-109.7) and trough plasma concentration at the end of the dosing interval τ (profile day) at steady state [Cτ,ss] (96.8; 86.2-108.9), demonstrated that both patches were bioequivalent. Evaluation of patch adhesion showed better skin adherence for RIV-TDS as well as dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal). Conclusions: For both products, bioequivalence was shown and systemic tolerability was in accordance with the safety profile of the drug substance. The trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03573050 and EudraCT: 2018-000968-28.
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)

Zhenxin Zhang,Zhen Hong,Yanping Wang,Li He,Ning Wang,Zhao Zhi-gang,Gang Zhao,Lei Shang,Marianne Weisskopf,Francesca Callegari,Christine Strohmaier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cns.12521

2016-01-01

CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics

Abstract: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.
Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Cognition in Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for an Interim Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Zahra Moussavi,Lisa Koski,Paul B Fitzgerald,Colleen Millikin,Brian Lithgow,Mohammad Jafari-Jozani,Xikui Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/31183

2021-08-09

JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:Background Many clinical trials investigating treatment efficacy require an interim analysis. Recently we have been running a large, multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial investigating the effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) treatment for improving or stabilizing the cognition of patients diagnosed with Alzheimer disease. Objective The objectives of this paper are to report on recruitment, adherence, and adverse events (AEs) to date, and to describe in detail the protocol for interim analysis of the clinical trial data. The protocol will investigate whether the trial is likely to reach its objectives if continued to the planned maximum sample size. Methods The specific requirements of the analytic protocol are to (1) ensure the double-blind nature of the data while doing the analysis, (2) estimate the predictive probabilities of success (PPoSs), (3) estimate the numbers needed to treat, (4) re-estimate the initial required sample size. The initial estimate of sample size was 208. The interim analysis will be based on 150 patients who will be enrolled in the study and finish at least 8 weeks of the study. Our protocol for interim analysis, at the very first stage, is to determine the response rate for each participant to the treatment (either sham or active), while ensuring the double-blind nature of the data. The blinded data will be analyzed by a statistician to investigate the treatment efficacy. We will use Bayesian PPoS to predict the success rate and determine whether the study should continue. Results The enrollment has been slowed significantly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. Nevertheless, so far 133 participants have been enrolled, while 22 of these have been withdrawn or dropped out for various reasons. In general, rTMS has been found tolerable with no serious AE. Only 2 patients dropped out of the study due to their intolerability to rTMS pulses. Conclusions Overall, the study with the same protocol is going as expected with no serious AE or any major protocol deviation. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02908815; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02908815 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/31183
P4-308: Efficacy and safety of a novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitor octohydroaminoacridine in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: A phase ii multicenter randomized controlled trial

Shifu Xiao,Tao Wang,Xia Li,Zhongxin Zhao,Xueyuan Liu,Xiaoping Wang,Hengge Xie,Li Sun,Qinpu Jiang,Benyan Luo,Lan Shang,Weixian Chen,Yan Bai,Muni Tang,Maolin He,Kaixiang Liu,Qilin Ma,Zhi Song,Yingyyi Qin,Xiuqiang Ma,Jia He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2015.08.138

2015-01-01

Abstract:The octohydroaminoacridine, a new humanized acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, is a potential treatment for Alzheimer's disease. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase 2 clinical trial to investigate the effects of octohydroaminoacridine in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. 284 patients were randomized to receive placebo thrice-daily (TID), octohydroaminoacridine 1 mg TID (low dose group), or to titrate up to 2 mg TID (middle dose group) in two weeks, or to titrated up to 4 mg TID (high dose group) in four weeks. Changes from baseline to week 16 were assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus (CIBIC+), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). A 2-way analysis of covariance and least squares mean (LSM) t-test were used. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01569516). In this study, 71, 70, 71 and 72 patients were randomized to low dose group, middle dose group, high dose group, and placebo group, respectively. At week 16, the between-group differences of the change from baseline in the primary outcome of ADAS-cog (octohydroaminoacridine groups minus placebo group) were 3.16, 3.27 and 5.01 for low, middle, and high dose groups, respectively (p<0.0001 for all these tests). For secondary outcomes, the patients in three drug groups had better performance in CIBIC-plus score and ADL score, but there were no significant between-group differences in NPI score. There was not any evidence for more adverse events occurred in different drug groups than placebo group. Octohydroaminoacridine significantly improved cognitive function and behavior among these patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.
A responder analysis of memantine treatment in patients with Alzheimer disease maintained on donepezil

Christopher H van Dyck,Frederick A Schmitt,Jason T Olin,Memantine MEM-MD-02 Study Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.JGP.0000203151.17311.38

Abstract:Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the clinical utility of memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer disease (AD) using responder analyses. Method: Data from a previously published 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 10 mg memantine twice a day in patients with moderate-to-severe AD (N = 404) on stable donepezil therapy were evaluated using three sets of responder criteria. Response rates were calculated and analyzed for the intention-to-treat population using a generalized estimating equations model. The following outcomes were examined separately and in combination: the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living 19-Item Inventory (ADCS-ADL19), Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-Plus), and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Results: When treatment response required cognitive improvement relative to baseline, memantine yielded higher response rates than placebo. When treatment response was defined as stabilization of individual outcomes, memantine resulted in significantly higher response rates than placebo for all outcomes, with number needed to treat (NNT) ranging from 8-10. More conservative definitions of response that required simultaneous stabilization on multiple outcome measures again favored memantine treatment for six of 10 combinatorial definitions. Conclusions: These responder analyses may assist clinicians in evaluating the impact of memantine in a relevant clinical scenario, i.e., in patients with AD previously stabilized on a cholinesterase inhibitor. The current results indicate that in this setting, memantine produces both improvement and stabilization of symptoms, across multiple outcomes, and thus provides a clinically important treatment benefit for patients with moderate-to-severe AD.
Efficacy and safety of a novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitor octohydroaminoacridine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a Phase II multicenter randomised controlled trial.

Shifu Xiao,Tao Wang,Xiuqiang Ma,Yingyi Qin,Xia Li,Zhongxin Zhao,Xueyuan Liu,Xiaoping Wang,Hengge Xie,Qinpu Jiang,Li Sun,Benyan Luo,Lan Shang,Weixian Chen,Yan Bai,Muni Tang,Maolin He,Lan Wu,Qilin Ma,Deren Hou,Jia He

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx045

2017-01-01

Age and Ageing

Abstract:Background: inhibition of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) has been a effective treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Octohydroaminoacridine, a new AChE inhibitor, is a potential treatment for AD. Method: we conducted a multicenter, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group Phase II clinical trial to investigate the effects of octohydroaminoacridine in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Patients were randomised to receive placebo thrice daily, octohydroaminoacridine 1 mg/thrice daily (TID) (low-dose group), 2 mg/TID (middle-dose group) or 4 mg/TID (high-dose group). Doses in the middle-dose and high-dose group were titrated over 2-4 weeks. Changes from baseline to Week 16 were assessed with the AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus (CIBIC+), activities of daily living (ADL) and the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). ADAS-cog was the primary end point of the study. A two-way analysis of covariance and least squares mean t-test were used. Results: at Week 16, the changes from baseline in ADAS-cog were 1.4, -2.1, -2.2 and -4.2 for placebo, low-, middle-and high-dose groups, respectively. Patients in the high-dose group had better performance in CIBIC+ and ADL scores at the end of the study. There was no significant difference in the change in NPI score among the groups. The effects of octohydroaminoacridine were dose dependent, and were effective within 16 weeks of treatment. No evidence was found for more adverse events that occurred in different drug groups than placebo group. Conclusions: octohydroaminoacridine significantly improved cognitive function and behaviour in patients with mild-to-moderate AD and this effect was dose dependent.
Comparative safety and effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease: a network meta-analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials

Kai-Xin Dou,Meng-Shan Tan,Chen-Chen Tan,Xi-Peng Cao,Xiao-He Hou,Qi-Hao Guo,Lan Tan,Vincent Mok,Jin-Tai Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-018-0457-9

2018-12-01

Alzheimer's Research and Therapy

Abstract:BackgroundCholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have been approved for management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but there has been no consensus about the choice of various types and doses of drugs at different stages. Hence, we compared and ranked the efficacy and tolerability of these available drugs.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to July 21, 2017. The primary outcomes were the mean overall changes in cognitive function and responders who had any adverse events. We conducted a random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsForty-one RCTs were included in this study. Compared with placebo, galantamine 32 mg daily (standardized mean difference – 0.51, 95% credible interval – 0.67 to − 0.35), galantamine 24 mg daily (− 0.50, − 0.61 to − 0.40), and donepezil 10 mg daily (− 0.40, − 0.51 to − 0.29) were probably the most effective agents on cognition for mild to moderate AD, and memantine 20 mg combined with donepezil 10 mg (0.76, 0.39 to 1.11) was recommended for moderate to severe patients. Memantine showed the best profile of acceptability. Rivastigmine transdermal 15-cm2 patch was the best optional treatment both in function and global changes. None of the medicines was likely to improve neuropsychiatric symptoms through this analysis.ConclusionsPharmacological interventions have beneficial effects on cognition, function, and global changes, but not on neuropsychiatric symptoms, through current network meta-analysis. The choice of drugs may mainly depend on the disease severity and clinical symptoms.
Sixteen-Week Interventional Study to Evaluate the Clinical Effects and Safety of Rivastigmine Capsules in Chinese Patients with Alzheimer's Disease.

Jianping Jia,Yong Ji,Tao Feng,Qinyong Ye,Dantao Peng,Weihong Kuang,Yuping Ning,Zhihou Liang,Dongsheng Fan,Wenshi Wei,Yansheng Li,Shifu Xiao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190791

2019-01-01

Abstract:Background: Rivastigmine is a cholinesterase inhibitor, approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate dementia of Alzheimer's type. Objective: To explore the efficacy and safety of the maximal tolerated dose of rivastigmine capsules in Chinese patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: The study was a multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase IV clinical study in mild-to-moderate drug-naive AD patients treated with rivastigmine capsules. The primary endpoint was the changes in the total scores of Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) from baseline to week 16. Secondary endpoints included changes in the scores of the following assessment scales and safety: Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study; Activities of Daily Living; Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE); Neuropsychiatry Index (NPI), and Caregiver Burden Inventory. Results: 222 patients were enrolled. Of these, 136 (75.1%) patients received and maintained the effective dose (>= 6 mg/d) of rivastigmine for at least 4 weeks. The ADAS-Cog scale score improved in rivastigmine-treated patients at week 16 compared with baseline (p < 0.001) by 2.0 (95% CI: -3.0 to -1.1) points, which met the pre-defined superiority criteria. NPI-10 and NPI-12 scores improved by 3.6 and 4.0 points at week 16 (p = 0.001, p < 0.001), respectively. A total of 107 patients (59.1%) experienced adverse effects (AEs) during the study; common AEs included nausea (20.5%), vomiting (16.6%), anorexia (7.8%), dizziness (7.7%), and diarrhea (7.2%). Conclusion: This was the first phase IV study on rivastigmine in mainland China. The study preliminarily demonstrated that rivastigmine capsules showed good tolerability and efficacy in mild-to-moderate AD patients with the maximal tolerated dose.
Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Cognition in Patients With Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Zahra Moussavi,Grant Rutherford,Brian Lithgow,Colleen Millikin,Mandana Modirrousta,Behzad Mansouri,Xikui Wang,Craig Omelan,Lesley Fellows,Paul Fitzgerald,Lisa Koski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/25144

2021-01-08

JMIR Research Protocols

Abstract:Background Alzheimer disease has no known cure. As existing pharmacologic interventions only modestly slow cognitive decline, there is a need for new treatments. Recent trials of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) have reported encouraging results for improving or stabilizing cognition in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer dementia. However, owing to small samples and lack of a well-controlled double-blind design, the results to date are inconclusive. This paper presents the protocol for a large placebo-controlled double-blind study designed with sufficient statistical rigor to measure the efficacy of rTMS treatment in patients with Alzheimer dementia. Objective The objectives are to (1) recruit and enroll up to 200 eligible participants, (2) estimate the difference in treatment effects between active treatment and sham treatment, (3) estimate the difference in treatment effects between two doses of rTMS applications, (4) estimate the duration of treatment effects among responders to active rTMS treatment, and (5) estimate the effect of dementia severity on treatment outcomes among patients receiving active rTMS treatment. Methods We have designed our study to be a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating the short- and long-term (up to 6 months) benefits of active rTMS treatment at two doses (10 sessions over 2 weeks and 20 sessions over 4 weeks) compared with sham rTMS treatment. The study will include patients aged ≥55 years who are diagnosed with Alzheimer disease at an early to moderate stage and have no history of seizures and no major depression. The primary outcome measure is the change in the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale score from pretreatment to posttreatment. Secondary outcomes are changes in performance on tests of frontal lobe functioning (Stroop test and verbal fluency), changes in neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire), and changes in activities of daily living (Alzheimer Disease Co-operative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory). Tolerability of the intervention will be assessed using a modification of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication. We assess participants at baseline and 3, 5, 8, 16, and 24 weeks after the intervention. Results As of November 1, 2020, we have screened 523 individuals, out of which 133 were eligible and have been enrolled. Out of the 133 individuals, 104 have completed the study. Moreover, as of November 1, 2020, there has been no serious adverse event. We anticipate that rTMS will considerably improve cognitive function, with effects lasting up to 3 months. Moreover, we expect rTMS to be a well-tolerated treatment with no serious side effect. Conclusions This protocol design will allow to address both the rTMS active treatment dose and its short- and long-term effects compared with sham treatment in large samples. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02908815; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02908815 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/25144
The treatment by using rivastigmine for patients with Alzheimer disease: results of a multicenter,randomized,open-labeled,controlled clinical trial

王荫华,陈清棠,张振馨,舒良,姚景莉,余慧贞,张昱,杨期东,赵伟秦,金弘敏,孔凡元,苏炳华,陈峰

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j.issn:1006-7876.2001.04.006

2001-01-01

Abstract:Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in treating Chinese patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Methods. A multicenter, randomized, open-labeled, controlled clinical trial was conducted. In this trial, 124 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, aged 50 years or more, scored 10 to 26 on MMSE were enrolled. They were assigned to two groups randomly, 62 in rivastigmine group and 62 in donepezil group. Efficacy was assessed on basis of scores on MMSE, Blessed-Roth scale and GDS, at the baseline and at the end of week 16. AD was set to be differentiated from VD by using Hachinski Ischemic Scale. Safety was assessed according to vital signs, laboratory test and ECG, once per four weeks. Results. Two groups were comparable on demography (P > 0.05). After treatment the scores of the two groups on MMSE, GDS and Blessed-Roth Scale were all improved significantly (P < 0.01). By self-contrast of the subitems scores on Blessed-Roth Scale it revealed rivastigmine could improve the activity of daily life (P < 0.01), but Donepezil couldn't (P > 0.05). With the variances between pre- and post- treatment comparison, it revealed that rivastigmine had a little better than Donepezil in improving social activity (P = 0.0592). There was no significant difference between the two groups in other indexes of the scales (P > 0.05). The overall incidence of adverse effects was between 12.9% and 28.8%. There were no significant differences between these two groups. Rivastigmine had no influence on vital signs and laboratory indexes. Conclusion. Rivastigmine may significantly improve the symptoms of the patient with AD and have a good safety and tolerability, being an ideal choice in treating AD.
An update on the safety of current therapies for Alzheimer’s disease: focus on rivastigmine

Rita Khoury,Jayashree Rajamanickam,George T. Grossberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098617750555

2018-01-08

Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety

Abstract:Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common cause of major neurocognitive disorders worldwide. Despite all research efforts, therapeutic options for AD are still limited to two drug classes: cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and the NMDA-receptor antagonist memantine. Donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine are the three ChEIs FDA-approved as first-line treatment for AD. Although they share the same mode of action, they differ in terms of their pharmacologic characteristics and route of administration, which can impact their safety and tolerability profile. Rivastigmine, available in both oral and transdermal patch formulations, is a slowly reversible dual inhibitor of acetyl and butyryl cholinesterase, selective for the G1 isoform of acetylcholinesterase, without hepatic metabolism by the CYP-450 system. Despite its unique features, it has been associated with a higher incidence of adverse events in comparison to other ChEIs. The oral form, approved for the treatment of mild to moderate AD, is associated with a higher incidence of gastrointestinal side effects. The transdermal patch formulation approved for use across all stages of AD has been shown to have a better tolerability profile in comparison to both the oral form and even other ChEIs. One important tolerability concern is adverse dermatologic reactions, which are mostly benign, and can be either preventable or manageable. One important safety concern is the risk of treatment overdose by administering multiple patches at the same time, potentially leading to fatal outcomes. This can be prevented by educating patients and caregivers about the proper use of the patch. The goal for the future would be to optimize the patch formulation to increase both efficacy and safety.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine, and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease

Dan-Dan Li,Ya-Hong Zhang,Wei Zhang,Pu Zhao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2019.00472

IF: 4.3

2019-05-15

Frontiers in Neuroscience

Abstract:To study the impact of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine on cognitive, functional, behavioral, global changes and adverse effects in patients with mild, moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), we screened the literature published before September 2017 in the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science Electronic databases according to the inclusion criteria. Thirty-six studies were finally determined from 1560 preliminary screened articles. The AD Assessment Scale-cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog), AD Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input scale (CIBIC+) were used as valid endpoints. Of the 36 trials included, meta-analyses of these placebo-control trials showed that there were significant differences between the donepezil, rivastigmine and placebo groups using ADAS-cog, ADCS-ADL, and CIBIC+. Meta-analyses of these placebo-controlled trials showed that there were significant differences between the galantamine and placebo groups using ADAS-cog, ADCS-ADL, NPI, and CIBIC+. These observations suggest that memantine is beneficial for stabilizing or slowing the decline in ADAS-cog and ADCS-ADL<sub>19</sub> changes in AD patients. However, there was no significant effect according to the ADCS-ADL<sub>23</sub>, NPI, and CIBIC+ tests, which indicated that memantine treatment has no significant effect on these cognitive aspects of AD patients. Different effects of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine on AD were found in this study. According to the results, we conclude that galantamine is effective in treating all aspects of AD and is the first choice for the treatment of AD. However, due to limited data, we should consider additional data to obtain more stable results.

neurosciences
Multicenter Research on Efficacy and Tolerance of Memantine in Chinese Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

CHEN Xia,ZHANG Zhen-xin,WANG Xin-de,YAO Jing-li,CHEN Sheng-di,QIAN Cai-yun,XIAO Shi-fu,SHU Liang,TANG Hong-chuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j.issn:1006-7876.2007.06.002

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of memantine in the treatment of patients with Alzheimer' s disease (AD).Methods This was a 16-week,multi-center,randomized,double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Study 10116).A total of 258 AD patients (MMSE score 5—18) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into either memantine 10—20 mg/day (MEM,n=128) or placebo (PBO,n= 130) group for 16 weeks.Efficacy was primarily assessed in terms of changes of severe impairment battery (SIB) score in patients from baseline up to SIB assessment in the 16th week (16-week completers set, CS16).While ehanges of MMSE,ADCS-ADL_(19),and NPI (neuropsychiatric inventory) were evaluated as secondary efficacy parameters on both CSI6 and full-analysis set (FAS).Safety was assessed by physical examination,lab assays,ECG,and adverse events.Results 236 subjeets (CS16:MEM n=117,PBO n=119) were eligible for the efficacy assessment.No statistically significant difference between the treatments was observed on the primary and seeondary efficacy analysis,although both treatment groups had a slight increase from baseline in SIB total score.Post hoe evaluation of the data identified two bias factors that had a significant impact on the results of the pre-protoeol specified primary and secondary analyses.In a re-analysis of the data (CS16_(modified),MEM n=94,PBO n=95) excluding patient data affeeted by these factors,memantine-treated patients showed a statistically significant improvement related to placebo in the 16th week on the SIB (MEM 2.2 vs PBO 0.3,P=0.04),MMSE (MEM 1.0 vs PBO 0.1,P=0.03),and ADL (MEM 0.1 vs PBO-1.6,P=0.02) scales,indicating that memantine improved the cognitive function of AD patients and stabilized the activity of daily life.Memantine was well tolerated with an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo.Conclusion This study provides further support for pre-existing data,showing that memantine is efficacious,safe,and well-tolerated in patients with moderate to severe AD.
Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chen-Chen Tan,Jin-Tai Yu,Hui-Fu Wang,Meng-Shan Tan,Xiang-Fei Meng,Chong Wang,Teng Jiang,Xi-Chen Zhu,Lan Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-132690

2014-01-01

Journal of Alzheimer s Disease

Abstract:Background: The role of currently available drugs for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been controversial, with some national formularies restricting their use, and health economists questioning whether the small clinical effects are economically worthwhile. Objective: To estimate the efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for the treatment of AD. Methods: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, with random assignment to a cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine trials were included into the pooled studies. Results: Cognitive effects were significant for all drugs, ranging from a -1.29 points mean difference (95% CI -2.30 to -0.28) in the 20 mg daily memantine trials to -3.20 points (95% CI -3.28 to -3.12) in the 32 mg daily galantamine group. Only memantine had no effect on the Clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale. No behavioral benefits were observed, except for -2.72 (95% CI -4.92 to -0.52) in the 10 mg daily donepezil group and -1.72 (95% CI -3.12 to -0.33) for 24 mg daily galantamine trial. Only 5 mg daily donepezil had no effect on the function outcome. Compared with placebo, more dropouts and adverse events occurred with the cholinesterase inhibitors, but not with memantine. Conclusions: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are able to stabilize or slow decline in cognition, function, behavior, and global change.
Memantine for dementia.

Rupert McShane,Maggie J Westby,Emmert Roberts,Neda Minakaran,Lon Schneider,Lucy E Farrimond,Nicola Maayan,Jennifer Ware,Jean Debarros

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6

IF: 8.4

2019-10-07

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off‐label for mild AD. To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs). We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information. Double‐blind, parallel group, placebo‐controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia. We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow‐up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate‐to‐severe AD. We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales. Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD. 1. Moderate‐to‐severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High‐certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate‐certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate‐certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI ‐3.71 to 4.71) . The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect). 2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate‐certainty evidence based on post‐hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS‐Cog points (95% CI ‐0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: ‐0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI ‐1.80 to 1.66); and BM: ‐0.29 NPI points (95% CI ‐2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI ‐0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39). 3. Mild‐to‐moderate vascular dementia. Moderate‐ and low‐certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS‐Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI ‐0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self‐care subscale points (95% CI ‐0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34). There is limited, mainly low‐ or very low‐certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS‐related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)). There is high‐certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion expe -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
A 40‐week phase 2B randomized, multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of memantine in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

Salman Bhai,Todd Levine,Dan Moore,Robert Bowser,Andrew J. Heim,Maureen Walsh,Aziz Shibani,Zachary Simmons,James Grogan,Namita A. Goyal,Raghav Govindarajan,Yessar Hussain,Tania Papsdorf,Tiffany Schwasinger‐Schmidt,Nick Olney,Kim Goslin,Michael Pulley,Edward Kasarskis,Michael Weiss,Susan W. Katz,Suzan Moser,Duaa Jabari,Omar Jawdat,Jeffrey Statland,Mazen M. Dimachkie,Richard Barohn,the Neuromuscular Study Group and Western ALS Consortium Memantine ALS Study Group

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.28287

2024-11-09

Muscle & Nerve

Abstract:Introduction Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease with no known cure, limited treatment options with minimal benefits, and significant unmet need for disease modifying therapies. Aims This study investigated memantine's impact on ALS progression, with an additional focus on the effects of memantine on cognitive and behavioral changes associated with the disease. Methods A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial was conducted from December 2018 to September 2020. ALS patients were enrolled in‐person and remotely across 13 sites in the United States. Participants were randomized to memantine (20 mg twice daily) or placebo in a 2:1 ratio and completed 36 weeks of treatment. The primary outcome of disease progression was assessed by the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS‐R), and blood was collected for biomarker analysis. Results Of the 99 participants enrolled in the study, 89 were randomized to memantine or placebo (ages 24–83 years, male‐to‐female ratio ~3:2). Fifty‐two participants completed the study treatment with no significant differences in disease progression, biomarker changes (including neurofilament light chain [NfL]), or neuropsychiatric testing noted between the groups. Initial NfL values correlated with the rate of ALSFRS‐R decline. Discussion In this study, memantine did not impact ALS disease progression or neuropsychiatric symptoms. Trials with remote enrollment may help trial participation and success.

neurosciences,clinical neurology
[Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Akatinol Memantine in Treatment of Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: a Donepezil-Controlled, Randomized Trial].

Hong-tao Hu,Zhen-xin Zhang,Jing-li Yao,Hui-zhen Yu,Yin-hua Wang,Hong-chuan Tang,Cheng-jun Ji,Tao Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/j.issn:0578-1426.2006.04.007

2006-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of akatinol memantine in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD).METHODS:One hundred patients with diagnosis of possible or probable AD and Mini Mental State Examination total scores between 10 and 26 from 6 centers in two cities of China were randomly divided into two groups: akatinol memantine group (n = 50, given akatinol memantine 5 mg/d in first week, 10 mg/d in second week, 15 mg/d in third week and 20 mg/d from fourth to sixteenth week); donepezil group (n = 50, donepezil 5 mg/d). Different scales were used to evaluated cognitive function (MMSE), activity of daily life and behavior and mood (Blessed-Roth scale) as well as the severity of dementia (GDS). Safety evaluation was conducted every 4 weeks.RESULTS:In comparison with the baseline data, there were significant improvements in cognition assessed with MMSE on 16th week in akatinol memantine group (P = 0.000) and donepezil group (P = 0.000) respectively; There also were significant improvements in activity of daily life, behavior and mood assessed by Blessed-Roth scale in akatinol memantine group (P = 0.000) and donepezil group (P = 0.000) on 8th week and 16th week. However there was no improvements in the change of the basic habit of life assessed with the Part II of Blessed-Roth scale (P > 0.05), and nor an improvements in the serious level of dementia assessed with GDS (P > 0.05). In comparison with the data in donepezil group, there were no improvement in the change of MMSE score, Blessed-Roth scale score and GDS score in akatinol memantine group on 16th week (P > 0.05). Mild and transient adverse events were observed in 6% of akatinol memantine group.CONCLUSION:As a safe and effective medicine, akatinol memantine, which has a similar effect as donepezil for AD, can remarkably improve the cognition, behavior, and mood of AD patients.

A pattern of test findings predicting attention problems at school

P4‐305: Withdrawn

The Efficacy of Transdermal Rivastigmine in Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease with Concomitant Small Vessel Cerebrovascular Disease: Findings from an Open-Label Study

Real-world Evaluation of Tolerability, Safety and Efficacy of Rivastigmine Oral Solution in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia

Bioavailability Study of a Transdermal Patch Formulation of Rivastigmine Compared with Exelon in Healthy Subjects

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)

Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Cognition in Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for an Interim Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

P4-308: Efficacy and safety of a novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitor octohydroaminoacridine in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: A phase ii multicenter randomized controlled trial

A responder analysis of memantine treatment in patients with Alzheimer disease maintained on donepezil

Efficacy and safety of a novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitor octohydroaminoacridine in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: a Phase II multicenter randomised controlled trial.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer’s disease: a network meta-analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials

Sixteen-Week Interventional Study to Evaluate the Clinical Effects and Safety of Rivastigmine Capsules in Chinese Patients with Alzheimer's Disease.

Repeated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Improving Cognition in Patients With Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

The treatment by using rivastigmine for patients with Alzheimer disease: results of a multicenter,randomized,open-labeled,controlled clinical trial

An update on the safety of current therapies for Alzheimer’s disease: focus on rivastigmine

Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine, and Memantine for the Treatment of Alzheimer’s Disease

Multicenter Research on Efficacy and Tolerance of Memantine in Chinese Patients with Alzheimer's Disease

Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Memantine for dementia.

A 40‐week phase 2B randomized, multicenter, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study evaluating the safety and efficacy of memantine in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis

[Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Akatinol Memantine in Treatment of Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease: a Donepezil-Controlled, Randomized Trial].