Jacobo Mintzer

A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Donepezil in Patients with Alzheimer's Disease in the Nursing Home Setting

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of donepezil in the management of patients with Alzheimers disease (AD) residing in nursing home facilities.

Donepezil in vascular dementia A randomized, placebo-controlled study

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil in patients with vascular dementia (VaD). Methods: Patients (n = 616; mean age, 75.0 years) with probable or possible VaD, according to National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke–Association Internationale pour la Recherche en l’Enseignement en Neurosciences criteria, were randomized to receive donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 208), donepezil 10 mg/day (after 5 mg/day for the first 28 days) (n = 215), or placebo (n = 193) for 24 weeks. Results: Seventy-six percent of the patients enrolled had probable VaD. A total of 75.3% of the 10 mg donepezil group and 80.8% of the 5 mg group completed the study compared with 83.4% of the placebo group. Both donepezil-treated groups showed improvements in cognitive function on the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale compared with placebo, with a mean endpoint treatment difference, as measured by the change from baseline score, of approximately 2 points (donepezil 5 mg, −1.65 [p = 0.003]; 10 mg, −2.09 [p = 0.0002]). Greater improvements on the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change–plus version were observed with both donepezil groups than with the placebo group (overall donepezil treatment vs placebo p = 0.008); 25% of the placebo group showed improvement compared with 39% (p = 0.004) of the 5 mg group and 32% (p = 0.047) of the 10 mg group. Withdrawal rates due to adverse events were low (placebo, 8.8%; donepezil 5 mg, 10.1%; 10 mg, 16.3%). Conclusions: Donepezil-treated patients demonstrated significant improvements in cognition and global function compared with placebo-treated patients, and donepezil was well tolerated.

Effect of Citalopram on Agitation in Alzheimer Disease: The CitAD Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Agitation is common, persistent, and associated with adverse consequences for patients with Alzheimer disease. Pharmacological treatment options, including antipsychotics are not satisfactory. OBJECTIVE The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of citalopram for agitation in patients with Alzheimer disease. Key secondary objectives examined effects of citalopram on function, caregiver distress, safety, cognitive safety, and tolerability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer Disease Study (CitAD) was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial that enrolled 186 patients with probable Alzheimer disease and clinically significant agitation from 8 academic centers in the United States and Canada from August 2009 to January 2013. INTERVENTIONS Participants (n = 186) were randomized to receive a psychosocial intervention plus either citalopram (n = 94) or placebo (n = 92) for 9 weeks. Dosage began at 10 mg per day with planned titration to 30 mg per day over 3 weeks based on response and tolerability. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome measures were based on scores from the 18-point Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A) and the modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC). Other outcomes were based on scores from the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), ability to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), caregiver distress, cognitive safety (based on scores from the 30-point Mini Mental State Examination [MMSE]), and adverse events. RESULTS Participants who received citalopram showed significant improvement compared with those who received placebo on both primary outcome measures. The NBRS-A estimated treatment difference at week 9 (citalopram minus placebo) was -0.93 (95% CI, -1.80 to -0.06), P = .04. Results from the mADCS-CGIC showed 40% of citalopram participants having moderate or marked improvement from baseline compared with 26% of placebo recipients, with estimated treatment effect (odds ratio [OR] of being at or better than a given CGIC category) of 2.13 (95% CI, 1.23-3.69), P = .01. Participants who received citalopram showed significant improvement on the CMAI, total NPI, and caregiver distress scores but not on the NPI agitation subscale, ADLs, or in less use of rescue lorazepam. Worsening of cognition (-1.05 points; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.13; P = .03) and QT interval prolongation (18.1 ms; 95% CI, 6.1-30.1; P = .01) were seen in the citalopram group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with probable Alzheimer disease and agitation who were receiving psychosocial intervention, the addition of citalopram compared with placebo significantly reduced agitation and caregiver distress; however, cognitive and cardiac adverse effects of citalopram may limit its practical application at the dosage of 30 mg per day. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00898807.

Memantine Treatment in Patients with Mild to Moderate Alzheimers Disease Already Receiving a Cholinesterase Inhibitor: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of memantine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimers disease (AD) receiving cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) treatment. METHODS Participants (N= 433) with probable AD, Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) scores between 10-22 (inclusive), and concurrent stable use of ChEIs (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) were randomized to placebo or memantine (20 mg once daily) for 24 weeks. Primary outcomes were changes from baseline on the Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) and on Clinicians Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-Plus) score. Secondary measures comprised the 23-item Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADCS-ADL(23)), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and MMSE. RESULTS At the end of the trial, there were no statistically significant differences between the memantine- and placebo group on primary and secondary outcome measures. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar between the two groups, with no AE occurring in more than 5% of memantine-treated patients and at a rate twice that of the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS In this trial, memantine did not show an advantage over placebo based on protocol-specified primary or secondary analyses in patients with mild to moderate AD on stable ChEI regimens. There were no significant differences in tolerability and safety between the memantine- and placebo groups.

Comparison of rapidly acting intramuscular olanzapine, lorazepam, and placebo: a double-blind, randomized study in acutely agitated patients with dementia.

This double-blind study investigated the efficacy and safety of rapid-acting intramuscular olanzapine in treating agitation associated with Alzheimers disease and/or vascular dementia. At 2 h, olanzapine (5.0 mg, 2.5 mg) and lorazepam (1.0 mg) showed significant improvement over placebo on the PANSS Excited Component (PANSS-EC) and Agitation–Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES), and both 5.0 mg olanzapine and lorazepam showed superiority to placebo on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. At 24 h, both olanzapine groups maintained superiority over placebo on the PANSS-EC; lorazepam did not. Olanzapine (5.0 mg) and lorazepam improved ACES scores more than placebo. Simpson–Angus and Mini-Mental State Examination scores did not change significantly from baseline. Sedation (ACES ⩾8), adverse events, and laboratory analytes were not significantly different from placebo for any treatment. No significant differences among treatment groups were seen in extrapyramidal symptoms or in corrected QT interval at either 2 h or 24 h, and no significant differences among treatment groups were seen in vital signs, including orthostasis. Intramuscular injection of olanzapine may therefore provide substantial benefit in rapidly treating inpatients with acute dementia-related agitation.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of resveratrol for Alzheimer disease.

Objective: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter 52-week phase 2 trial of resveratrol in individuals with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) examined its safety and tolerability and effects on biomarker (plasma Aβ40 and Aβ42, CSF Aβ40, Aβ42, tau, and phospho-tau 181) and volumetric MRI outcomes (primary outcomes) and clinical outcomes (secondary outcomes). Methods: Participants (n = 119) were randomized to placebo or resveratrol 500 mg orally once daily (with dose escalation by 500-mg increments every 13 weeks, ending with 1,000 mg twice daily). Brain MRI and CSF collection were performed at baseline and after completion of treatment. Detailed pharmacokinetics were performed on a subset (n = 15) at baseline and weeks 13, 26, 39, and 52. Results: Resveratrol and its major metabolites were measurable in plasma and CSF. The most common adverse events were nausea, diarrhea, and weight loss. CSF Aβ40 and plasma Aβ40 levels declined more in the placebo group than the resveratrol-treated group, resulting in a significant difference at week 52. Brain volume loss was increased by resveratrol treatment compared to placebo. Conclusions: Resveratrol was safe and well-tolerated. Resveratrol and its major metabolites penetrated the blood–brain barrier to have CNS effects. Further studies are required to interpret the biomarker changes associated with resveratrol treatment. Classification of evidence: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with AD resveratrol is safe, well-tolerated, and alters some AD biomarker trajectories. The study is rated Class II because more than 2 primary outcomes were designated.

Disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease*

Alzheimers disease (AD) is a chronic, progressive, neurodegenerative disorder that places a substantial burden on patients, their families, and society. The disease affects approximately 5 million individuals in the United States, with an annual cost of care greater than

Relapse Risk after Discontinuation of Risperidone in Alzheimer’s Disease

100 billion. During the past dozen years, several agents have been approved that enhance cognition and global function of AD patients, and recent advances in understanding AD pathogenesis has led to the development of numerous compounds that might modify the disease process. A wide array of antiamyloid and neuroprotective therapeutic approaches are under investigation on the basis of the hypothesis that amyloid beta (Aβ) protein plays a pivotal role in disease onset and progression and that secondary consequences of Aβ generation and deposition, including tau hyperphosphorylation and neurofibrillary tangle formation, oxidation, inflammation, and excitotoxicity, contribute to the disease process. Interventions in these processes with agents that reduce amyloid production, limit aggregation, or increase removal might block the cascade of events comprising AD pathogenesis. Reducing tau hyperphosphorylation, limiting oxidation and excitotoxicity, and controlling inflammation might be beneficial disease‐modifying strategies. Potentially neuroprotective and restorative treatments such as neurotrophins, neurotrophic factor enhancers, and stem cell–related approaches are also under investigation.

Quetiapine Treatment of Psychosis Associated With Dementia: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND Among patients with Alzheimers disease who have had a response to antipsychotic medication for psychosis or agitation-aggression, the risk of a recurrence of symptoms after discontinuation of the medication has not been established. METHODS Patients with Alzheimers disease and psychosis or agitation-aggression received open-label treatment with risperidone for 16 weeks. Those who had a response to risperidone therapy were then randomly assigned, in a double-blind fashion, to one of three regimens: continued risperidone therapy for 32 weeks (group 1), risperidone therapy for 16 weeks followed by placebo for 16 weeks (group 2), or placebo for 32 weeks (group 3). The primary outcome was the time to relapse of psychosis or agitation. RESULTS A total of 180 patients received open-label risperidone (mean dose, 0.97 mg daily). The severity of psychosis and agitation were reduced, although there was a mild increase in extrapyramidal signs; 112 patients met the criteria for response to treatment, of whom 110 underwent randomization. In the first 16 weeks after randomization, the rate of relapse was higher in the group that received placebo than in the groups that received risperidone (60% [24 of 40 patients in group 3] vs. 33% [23 of 70 in groups 1 and 2]; P=0.004; hazard ratio with placebo, 1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 3.45; P=0.02). During the next 16 weeks, the rate of relapse was higher in the group that was switched from risperidone to placebo than in the group that continued to receive risperidone (48% [13 of 27 patients in group 2] vs. 15% [2 of 13 in group 1]; P=0.02; hazard ratio, 4.88; 95% CI, 1.08 to 21.98; P=0.02). The rates of adverse events and death after randomization did not differ significantly among the groups, although comparisons were based on small numbers of patients, especially during the final 16 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In patients with Alzheimers disease who had psychosis or agitation that had responded to risperidone therapy for 4 to 8 months, discontinuation of risperidone was associated with an increased risk of relapse. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00417482.).

Sertraline for the treatment of depression in Alzheimer disease: week-24 outcomes.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of quetiapine for treating psychosis in patients with probable/possible Alzheimer disease and assess its impact on other psychopathology and social and daily functioning. METHOD The authors conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of flexibly dosed quetiapine and haloperidol. Primary outcomes were change in total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) scores at week 10. Secondary outcomes included BPRS factors, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), Multidimensional Observation Scale for Elderly Subjects (MOSES), and Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-four participants (mean age: 83.2 years) were randomized; 63.4% completed; and mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 12.8. Median of the mean daily dose was 96.9 mg for quetiapine and 1.9 mg for haloperidol. No differential benefit was seen on any psychosis measure. BPRS agitation factor scores improved with quetiapine versus placebo and not quetiapine versus haloperidol. BPRS anergia scores worsened with haloperidol versus quetiapine but not quetiapine versus placebo. No NPI factors showed change, including the agitation factor. MOSES Withdrawal Subscale and PSMS total scores worsened with haloperidol versus quetiapine. Somnolence occurred in 25.3%, 36.2%, and 4.1% of the quetiapine, haloperidol, and placebo groups, respectively; parkinsonism was most prevalent in the haloperidol group; other safety and tolerability measures differed little among groups. CONCLUSION All treatment groups showed improvement in measures of psychosis without significant differences between them when planned comparisons were performed. Participants treated with quetiapine or haloperidol showed inconsistent evidence of improvement in agitation. Tolerability was better with quetiapine compared with haloperidol.