-
Medicine Jun 2015The use of acupuncture for treating Alzheimer disease (AD) has been increasing in frequency over recent years. As more studies are conducted on the use of acupuncture... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
UNLABELLED
The use of acupuncture for treating Alzheimer disease (AD) has been increasing in frequency over recent years. As more studies are conducted on the use of acupuncture for treating AD, it is necessary to re-assess the effectiveness and safety of this practice. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for treating AD. Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Chinese Biomedicine Literature (CBM), Chinese Medical Current Content (CMCC) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched from their inception to June 2014. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with AD treated by acupuncture or by acupuncture combined with 1 kind of drugs were included. Two authors extracted data independently. The continuous data were expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Weighted MD (WMD) was used instead of standardized MD (SMD) when the same scales were used. Adverse reactions related to acupuncture were also investigated.Ten randomized controlled trials with a total of 585 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The combined results of 6 trials showed that acupuncture was better than drugs at improving scores on the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) scale (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.16-1.93). Evidence from the pooled results of 3 trials showed that acupuncture plus donepezil was more effective than donepezil alone at improving the MMSE scale score (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.53-3.21). Out of 141 clinical trials, 2 trials reported the incidence of adverse reactions related to acupuncture. Seven out of 3416 patients had adverse reactions related to acupuncture during or after treatment; the reactions were described as tolerable and not severe.Acupuncture may be more effective than drugs and may enhance the effect of drugs for treating AD in terms of improving cognitive function. Acupuncture may also be more effective than drugs at improving AD patients' ability to carry out their daily lives. Moreover, acupuncture is safe for treating people with AD.
PROTOCOL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42014009619. Protocol published in BMJ-open.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Alzheimer Disease; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26039131
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000933 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review updates the original review, 'Pharmacological treatments for fatigue associated with palliative care' and also incorporates the review 'Drug therapy for the management of cancer-related fatigue'.In healthy individuals, fatigue is a protective response to physical or mental stress, often relieved by rest. By contrast, in palliative care patients' fatigue can be severely debilitating and is often not counteracted with rest, thereby impacting daily activity and quality of life. Fatigue frequently occurs in patients with advanced disease (e.g. cancer-related fatigue) and modalities used to treat cancer can often contribute. Further complicating issues are the multidimensionality, subjective nature and lack of a consensus definition of fatigue. The pathophysiology is not fully understood and evidence-based treatment approaches are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatments for fatigue in palliative care, with a focus on patients at an advanced stage of disease, including patients with cancer and other chronic diseases.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE, and a selection of cancer journals up to 28 April 2014. We searched the references of identified articles and contacted authors to obtain unreported data. To validate the search strategy we selected sentinel references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) concerning adult palliative care with a focus on pharmacological treatment of fatigue compared to placebo, application of two drugs, usual care or a non-pharmacological intervention. The primary outcome had to be non-specific fatigue (or related terms such as asthenia). We did not include studies on fatigue related to antineoplastic treatment (e.g. chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgical intervention). We also included secondary outcomes that were assessed in fatigue-related studies (e.g. exhaustion, tiredness).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MM and MC) independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We screened the search results and included studies if they met the selection criteria. If we identified two or more studies that investigated a specific drug with the same dose in a population with the same disease and using the same assessment instrument or scale, we conducted meta-analysis. In addition, we compared the type of drug investigated in specific populations, as well as the frequent adverse effects of fatigue treatment, by creating overview tables.
MAIN RESULTS
For this update, we screened 1645 publications of which 45 met the inclusion criteria (20 additional studies to the previous reviews). In total, we analysed data from 18 drugs and 4696 participants. There was a very high degree of statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the trials and we discuss the reasons for this in the review. There were some sources of potential bias in the included studies, including a lack of description of the methods of blinding and allocation concealment, and the small size of the study populations. We included studies investigating pemoline and modafinil in participants with multiple sclerosis (MS)-associated fatigue and methylphenidate in patients suffering from advanced cancer and fatigue in meta-analysis. Treatment results pointed to weak and inconclusive evidence for the efficacy of amantadine, pemoline and modafinil in multiple sclerosis and for carnitine and donepezil in cancer-related fatigue. Methylphenidate and pemoline seem to be effective in patients with HIV, but this is based only on one study per intervention, with only a moderate number of participants in each study. Meta-analysis shows an estimated superior effect for methylphenidate in cancer-related fatigue (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.83). Therapeutic effects could not be described for dexamphetamine, paroxetine or testosterone. There were a variety of results for the secondary outcomes in some studies. Most studies had low participant numbers and were heterogeneous. In general, adverse reactions were mild and had little or no impact.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on limited evidence, we cannot recommend a specific drug for the treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Fatigue research in palliative care seems to focus on modafinil and methylphenidate, which may be beneficial for the treatment of fatigue associated with palliative care although further research about their efficacy is needed. Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, acetylsalicylic acid, armodafinil, amantadine and L-carnitine should be further examined. Consensus is needed regarding fatigue outcome parameters for clinical trials.
Topics: Adult; Amantadine; Benzhydryl Compounds; Carnitine; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Chronic Disease; Fatigue; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Multiple Sclerosis; Neoplasms; Palliative Care; Pemoline; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26026155
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006788.pub3 -
PloS One 2015To determine whether there are differences in age and sex distribution and presence of comorbidities between participants included in randomized controlled trials of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether there are differences in age and sex distribution and presence of comorbidities between participants included in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and nationwide cohort of persons with Alzheimer's disease.
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases were searched for original articles from their inception to January 4, 2015. Double-blind randomized controlled trials with donepezil, rivastigmine or galantamine compared to placebo in participants with Alzheimer's disease were included. Data from a nationwide cohort of persons with clinically verified diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease was defined as a reference population.
RESULTS
128 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, 31 of them fulfilled criteria. Mean age of participants in randomized controlled trials (n = 15,032) was 5.8 years lower (95% CI 5.7 to 5.9, P < 0.001), compared to the mean age of 79.7 years in the reference population with Alzheimer's disease (n = 28,093). Most of the articles did not report age distribution of participants. The proportion of women was 63.2% (9,475/14,991) in randomized controlled trials and 67.8% (19,043/28,093) (P < 0.001) in the reference population. Information on comorbidities and use of concomitant drugs were lacking or poorly reported in most articles.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a discrepancy between participants in randomized controlled trials of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and real-life population with Alzheimer's disease. Participants in randomized controlled trials were significantly younger. Further, more detailed reporting of age distribution, comorbidities and concomitant drugs would be important information for clinicians when evaluating conclusions from randomized controlled trials to real-life practice. The existing recommendations of inclusion of older people should be followed to ensure safe pharmacotherapy for older people.
Topics: Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Comorbidity; Female; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25933023
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Rarer dementias include Huntington's disease (HD), cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), frontotemporal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Rarer dementias include Huntington's disease (HD), cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), dementia in multiple sclerosis (MS) and progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). Cholinesterase inhibitors, including donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, are considered to be the first-line medicines for Alzheimer's disease and some other dementias, such as dementia in Parkinson's disease. Cholinesterase inhibitors are hypothesised to work by inhibiting the enzyme acetylcholinesterase (AChE) which breaks down the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Cholinesterase inhibitors may also lead to clinical improvement for rarer dementias associated with neurological conditions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for cognitive impairment or dementia associated with neurological conditions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, several trial registries and grey literature sources in August 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, controlled trials assessing the efficacy of treatment of rarer dementias associated with neurological conditions with currently marketed cholinesterase inhibitors.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and quality of trials, and extracted data. We used the standard methodological procedures of the Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs involving 567 participants. Six studies used a simple parallel-group design; the other two consisted of an open-label treatment period followed by a randomised phase. All trials were well concealed for allocation and double-blind, however the sample sizes of most trials were small. All trials used placebo as control. We performed meta-analyses for some outcomes in patients with MS. For all other conditions, results are presented narratively.Two trials included patients with HD; one found that cholinesterase inhibitor use in the short-term had no statistically significant impact on the cognitive portion of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog; 1 study, WMD 1.00, 95% CI -1.66 to 3.66, P = 0.46; low quality evidence), Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS) Verbal Fluency Test (1 study, WMD -1.20, 95% CI -7.97 to 5.57, P = 0.73; low quality evidence), UHDRS Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT; 1 study, WMD 2.70, 95% CI -0.95 to 6.35, P = 0.15; low quality evidence) and other psychometric tests. The other study found that cholinesterase inhibitor use in the medium-term improved the results of the verbal fluency test (1 study, WMD 6.43, 95% CI 0.66 to 12.20, P = 0.03; moderate quality evidence) and California Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition (CVLT-II) Recognition Task (1 study, WMD 2.42, 95% CI 0.17 to 4.67, P = 0.04; moderate quality evidence). There was no statistically significant difference between groups on the SDMT (1 study, WMD -0.31, 95% CI -7.77 to 7.15, P = 0.94; moderate quality evidence), CVLT-II trials 1-5 (1 study, WMD -2.09, 95% CI -11.65 to 7.47, P = 0.67; moderate quality evidence), short-delay recall (1 study, WMD 0.35, 95% CI -2.87 to 3.57, P = 0.83; moderate quality evidence), or long-delay recall (1 study, WMD -0.14, 95% CI -3.08 to 2.80, P = 0.93; moderate quality evidence), and other psychometric tests.Four trials included patients with MS; one found no differences between the cholinesterase inhibitors (short-term) and placebo groups on the Wechsler Memory Scales general memory score (1 study, WMD 0.90, 95% CI -0.52 to 2.32, P = 0.22; low quality evidence). The three other trials found that, in the medium-term - cholinesterase inhibitors improved the clinician's impression of cognitive change (2 studies, OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.62, P = 0.03; high quality evidence). However, the treatment effect on other aspects of cognitive change were unclear, measured by the Selective Reminding Test (3 studies, WMD 1.47, 95% CI -0.39 to 3.32, P = 0.12; high quality evidence), patient's self-reported impression of memory change (2 studies, OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.93 to 3.00, P = 0.08; high quality evidence) and cognitive change (1 study, OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.98, P = 0.89; high quality evidence), clinician's impression of memory change (1 study, OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.84, P = 0.39; moderate quality evidence), other psychometric tests, and activities of daily living - patient reported impact of multiple sclerosis activities (1 study, WMD -1.18, 95% CI -3.02 to 0.66, P = 0.21; low quality evidence).One study on patients with CADASIL found a beneficial effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Executive interview, and Trail Making Test parts A and B. The impact of cholinesterase inhibitors on the Vascular ADAS-Cog score (1 study, WMD 0.04, 95% CI -1.57 to 1.65, P = 0.96; high quality evidence), the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (1 study, WMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.03, P = 0.65; high quality evidence) Disability Assessment for Dementia scale (1 study, WMD 0.58, 95% CI -2.72 to 3.88, P = 0.73; moderate quality evidence), and other measures was unclearOne study included patients with FTD. This trial consisted of an open-label treatment period followed by a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase. No data of primary outcomes were reported in this study.In the included studies, the most common side effect was gastrointestinal symptoms. For all conditions, compared to the treatment group, the placebo group experienced significantly less nausea (6 studies, 44/257 vs. 22/246, OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.62, P = 0.007; high quality evidence), diarrhoea (6 studies, 40/257 vs. 13/246, OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.72 to 6.19, P = 0.0003; moderate quality evidence) and vomiting (3 studies, 17/192 vs. 3/182, OR 5.76, 95% CI 1.67 to 19.87, P = 0.006; moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The sample sizes of most included trials were small, and some of the results were extracted from only one study. There were no poolable data for HD, CADASIL and FTD patients and there were no results for patients with PSP. Current evidence shows that the efficacy on cognitive function and activities of daily living of cholinesterase inhibitors in people with HD, CADASIL, MS, PSP or FTD is unclear, although cholinesterase inhibitors are associated with more gastrointestinal side effects compared with placebo.
Topics: CADASIL; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition Disorders; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Huntington Disease; Multiple Sclerosis; Nootropic Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25734590
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009444.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adult patients treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
In August 2014. we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO and checked the reference lists of included studies. We also searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov, the Physicians Data Query and the Meta Register of Controlled Trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (JD, KZ) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review, six of which were included. Three studies investigated prevention and three studies investigated amelioration. Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Two studies investigated a pharmacological intervention for the prevention of cognitive deficits; memantine compared with placebo, and d-threo-methylphenidate HCL compared with placebo. In the first study the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The second study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The third study investigated a rehabilitation program for the prevention of cognitive deficits but did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups.Three studies investigated the use of a pharmacological intervention for the treatment of cognitive deficits; methylphenidate compared with modafinil, two different doses of modafinil, and donepezil compared with placebo. The first study found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. The second study combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The third study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. No non-pharmacological studies for the amelioration of cognitive deficits were eligible. There were a number of limitations across studies but few without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with primary or metastatic brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation. Patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of both studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher quality of evidence.There is no strong evidence to support any non-pharmacological interventions (medical or cognitive/behavioural) in the prevention or amelioration of cognitive deficits. Non-randomised studies appear promising but are as yet to be conclusive via translation into high quality evidence. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Benzhydryl Compounds; Cognition Disorders; Cranial Irradiation; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Methylphenidate; Modafinil; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25519950
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub2 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2014Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two... (Review)
Review
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 68 children in the United States. Even though it is a common disorder, only two medications (risperidone and aripiprazole) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat symptoms associated with ASD. However, these medications are approved to treat irritability, which is not a core symptom of ASD. A number of novel medications, which have not been approved by the FDA to treat ASD have been used off-label in some studies to treat ASD symptoms, including medications approved for Alzheimer's disease. Interestingly, some of these studies are high-quality, double-blind, placebo-controlled (DBPC) studies. This article systematically reviews studies published through April, 2014, which examined the use of Alzheimer's medications in ASD, including donepezil (seven studies, two were DBPC, five out of seven reported improvements), galantamine (four studies, two were DBPC, all reported improvements), rivastigmine (one study reporting improvements), tacrine (one study reporting improvements), and memantine (nine studies, one was DBPC, eight reported improvements). An evidence-based scale was used to rank each medication. Collectively, these studies reported improvements in expressive language and communication, receptive language, social interaction, irritability, hyperactivity, attention, eye contact, emotional lability, repetitive or self-stimulatory behaviors, motor planning, disruptive behaviors, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, lethargy, overall ASD behaviors, and increased REM sleep. Reported side effects are reviewed and include irritability, gastrointestinal problems, verbal or behavioral regression, headaches, irritability, rash, tremor, sedation, vomiting, and speech problems. Both galantamine and memantine had sufficient evidence ranking for improving both core and associated symptoms of ASD. Given the lack of medications approved to treat ASD, further studies on novel medications, including Alzheimer's disease medications, are needed.
PubMed: 25202686
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2014.00087 -
The British Journal of Psychiatry : the... Sep 2013More people are presenting with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frequently a precursor to dementia, but we do not know how to reduce deterioration. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
More people are presenting with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frequently a precursor to dementia, but we do not know how to reduce deterioration.
AIMS
To systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of any intervention for MCI on cognitive, neuropsychiatric, functional, global outcomes, life quality or incident dementia.
METHOD
We reviewed 41 studies fitting predetermined criteria, assessed validity using a checklist, calculated standardised outcomes and prioritised primary outcome findings in placebo-controlled studies.
RESULTS
The strongest evidence was that cholinesterase inhibitors did not reduce incident dementia. Cognition improved in single trials of: a heterogeneous psychological group intervention over 6 months; piribedil, a dopamine agonist over 3 months; and donepezil over 48 weeks. Nicotine improved attention over 6 months. There was equivocal evidence that Huannao Yicong improved cognition and social functioning.
CONCLUSIONS
There was no replicated evidence that any intervention was effective. Cholinesterase inhibitors and rofecoxib are ineffective in preventing dementia. Further good-quality RCTs are needed and preliminary evidence suggests these should include trials of psychological group interventions and piribedil.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dopamine Agonists; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Exercise Therapy; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Ginkgo biloba; Humans; Nicotine; Nicotinic Agonists; Phytotherapy; Piribedil; Psychotherapy, Group; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Therapy, Computer-Assisted; Treatment Outcome; Vitamins
PubMed: 24085737
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.127811 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Nov 2013Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
METHODS
Our eligibility criteria were studies of the effects of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine on mild cognitive impairment reporting cognition, function, behaviour, global status, and mortality or harms. We identified relevant material by searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), the references of included studies, trial registries and conference proceedings, and by contacting experts. Two reviewers independently screened the results of the literature search, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
We screened 15,554 titles and abstracts and 1384 full-text articles. Eight randomized clinical trials and 3 companion reports met our inclusion criteria. We found no significant effects of cognitive enhancers on cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination: 3 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], mean difference [MD] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.50; Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognition subscale: 3 RCTs, standardized MD -0.07, 95% CI-0.16 to 0.01]) or function (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living inventory: 2 RCTs, MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86). Cognitive enhancers were associated with higher risks of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting than placebo.
INTERPRETATION
Cognitive enhancers did not improve cognition or function among patients with mild cognitive impairment and were associated with a greater risk of gastrointestinal harms. Our findings do not support the use of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Dysfunction; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24043661
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.130451 -
Health Technology Assessment... 2012Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. (Review)
Review
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model.
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK.
OBJECTIVES
Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.
REVIEW METHODS
The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE).
INTERVENTIONS
mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities.
RESULTS
Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £’30,000 per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£’69,592 vs £’69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £’32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £’36,700 per/QALY.
LIMITATIONS
Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug’s use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change. RESEARCH PRIORITIES: RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Middle Aged; Models, Economic; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 22541366
DOI: 10.3310/hta16210 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Previous Cochrane reviews have considered the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in both Parkinson's disease with dementia (PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Lewy Body Disease; Neuroprotective Agents; Parkinson Disease; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 22419314
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006504.pub2