Management of patients with Alzheimer's disease plus cerebrovascular disease: 12 month treatment with galantamine

We evaluated the long-term cognitive effects and safety of galantamine 24 mg/day in patients with Alzheimer's disease plus cerebrovascular disease ( AD + CVD or mixed dementia). Subgroup analysis was performed of patients with AD + CVD who participated in a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study and a 6-month, open-label, active-treatment extension. Method: Two hundred and eighty-five patients with AD + CVD were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 97) or galantamine 24 mg/day (n = 188) for 6 months. Two hundred and thirty-eight (84%) patients continued with the open-label phase of the study ( 86 from the placebo group, 152 from the galantamine group) and were treated with galantamine 24 mg/day. The primary efficacy measure was cognitive performance as assessed using the eleven-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog/11). Standard safety evaluations and adverse-event monitoring were performed throughout the 12-month study period. Patients with AD + CVD treated with galantamine experienced statistically and clinically significant improvement in cognition at month 6 ( mean change in ADAS-cog/11 score -1.1; p less than or equal to 0.05 vs. baseline) and maintained their cognitive function for the entire 12-month study (mean change in ADAS-cog/11 score + 0.1). In contrast, the cognitive function deteriorated among those in the placebo group (mean change in ADAS-cog/11 at month 6 + 2.0; p less than or equal to 0.001 vs. baseline). Patients with AD + CVD who were switched from placebo to galantamine for the open-label phase of the trial did show improvement in cognitive function; however, they never attained the same cognitive level as patients who had been treated with galantamine for the entire 12 months [mean (+/- SE) ADAS-cog/11 scores in the placebo/galantamine group 25.7 +/- 1.32 and 24.2 +/- 1.57 at months 6 and 12, respectively, and in the galantamine/galantamine group 21.5 +/- 0.87 and 22.2 +/- 1.06 at months 6 and 12, respectively]. The results of this subgroup analysis indicate that galantamine is effective for long-term maintenance of the cognitive function in patients with AD + CVD and is safe and well tolerated in this patient population

An open-label extension trail of galantamine in patients with probable vascular dementia and mixed dementia

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) are the most common types of dementia worldwide. Galantamine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and allosteric nicotinic modulator, has shown broad clinical benefits in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to AD, probable VaD, or AD with cerebrosvascular disease (CVD)—so-called mixed dementia. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of galantamine 24 mg/d in patients with VaD or AD with CVD over the longer term (>6 months). Methods: This was an open-label extension of a 6-month double-blind study of galantamine. Patients who had been randomized to receive galantamine 24 mg/d or placebo in the double-blind phase were eligible to continue open-label treatment with galantamine 24 mg/d for 6 months. The primary efficacy end point was change in cognition, based on scores on the 11-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11). Secondary measures included changes in functional ability (as measured on the Disability Assessment for Dementia [DAD]) and behavior (as measured on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI]). Safety and tolerability were also monitored. Results: Four hundred fifty-nine patients (240 men, 219 women; mean [SE] age, 75.2 [0.33] years) entered the open-label phase. Of these patients, 195 (42.5%) had a diagnosis of probable VaD, and 238 (51.9%) had a diagnosis of AD with CVD; the remainder had an inconclusive diagnosis. At month 12 of the study, improvements from baseline (the start of the double-blind phase) in ADAS-cog/11 scores were observed in both the group that received placebo during the double-blind phase (placebo/galantamine group: ?0.3 point; 95% CI, ?1.64 to 1.06) and the group that received galantamine during the double-blind phase (galantamine/galantamine group: ?0.9 point; 95% CI, ?1.73 to 0.03). Improvement in functional ability was demonstrated by statistically significant mean (SE) changes from baseline in DAD score in both the placebo/galantamine group (?7.4 [1.68]; P ? 0.001) and the galantamine/galantamine group (?3.6 [1.33]; P ? 0.01). There was no significant change in mean (SE) NPI scores in either group (0.2 [0.98] and 0.1 [0.70], respectively). Galantamine treatment was well tolerated. Conclusions: In these patients with VaD and AD with CVD, galantamine treatment produced similar sustained benefits in terms of maintenance of or improvement in cognition (ADAS-cog/11), functional ability (DAD), and behavior (NPI) after 12 months

A long-term comparison of galantamine and donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease

Objective: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of galantamine 24 mg/day and donepezil 10 mg/day in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Patients and Study Design: This was a rater-blinded, randomised, parallel-group multicentre study (18 outpatient clinics) in the UK. 182 patients (69 male, 113 female) with Alzheimer's disease were randomised to galantamine (n = 94) or donepezil (n = 88) for 52 weeks. Main outcome measures: The effects of galantamine and donepezil on function using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BrADL); cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11); behaviour using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); caregiver burden using the Screen for Caregiver Burden; and safety were assessed. Results: BrADL total scores showed no significant difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to week 52. In the total population, in terms of cognition, galantamine patients' scores on the MMSE at week 52 did not differ significantly from baseline (-0.52 ± 0.39, p < 0.5 vs baseline), whereas donepezil patients' scores deteriorated significantly from baseline (-1.58 ± 0.42, p < 0.0005 vs baseline). The between-group difference in MMSE change, which showed a trend for superiority of galantamine, did not reach statistical significance (p ≤ 0.1). In the ADAS-cog/11 analysis, between-group differences for the total population were not significant, whereas galantamine-treated patients with MMSE scores of 12-18 demonstrated an increase (worsening) in the ADAS-cog/11 score of 1.61 ± 0.80 versus baseline, compared with an increase of 4.08 ± 0.84 for patients treated with donepezil, with a significant between-group difference in favour of galantamine (p ≤ 0.05). More caregivers of patients receiving galantamine reported reductions in burden compared with donepezil. Changes from baseline in NPI were similar for both treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated; most adverse events were transient and of mild-to-moderate intensity, and were consistent with the findings of previous clinical trials. Conclusions: Significant advantages were found in the treatment response to galantamine (versus donepezil) on cognition as measured by response rates on the MMSE and ADAS-cog/11