scholarly journals A phase 3 trial of IV immunoglobulin for Alzheimer disease

Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 88 (18) ◽  
pp. 1768-1775 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman R. Relkin ◽  
Ronald G. Thomas ◽  
Robert A. Rissman ◽  
James B. Brewer ◽  
Michael S. Rafii ◽  
...  

Objective:We tested biweekly infusions of IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) as a possible treatment for mild to moderate Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia.Methods:In a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 390 participants with mild to moderate AD to receive placebo (low-dose albumin) or IVIg (Gammagard Liquid; Baxalta, Bannockburn, IL) administered IV at doses of 0.2 or 0.4 g/kg every 2 weeks for 18 months. The primary cognitive outcome was change from baseline to 18 months on the 11-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale; the primary functional outcome was 18-month change on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Inventory. Safety and tolerability data, as well as serial MRIs and plasma samples, were collected throughout the study from all enrolled participants.Results:No beneficial effects were observed in the dual primary outcome measures for the 2 IVIg doses tested. Significant decreases in plasma Aβ42 (but not Aβ40) levels were observed in IVIg-treated participants. Analysis of safety data showed no difference between IVIg and placebo in terms of the rate of occurrence of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (brain edema or microhemorrhage). IVIg-treated participants had more systemic reactions (chills, rashes) but fewer respiratory infections than participants receiving placebo.Conclusions:Participants with mild to moderate AD showed good tolerability of treatment with low-dose human IVIg for 18 months but did not show beneficial effects on cognition or function relative to participants who received placebo.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier:NCT00818662.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class II evidence that IVIg infusions performed every 2 weeks do not improve cognition or function at 18 months in patients with mild to moderate AD.

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shifu Xiao ◽  
Piu Chan ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Zhen Hong ◽  
Shuzhen Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background New therapies are urgently needed for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Sodium oligomannate (GV-971) is a marine-derived oligosaccharide with a novel proposed mechanism of action. The first phase 3 clinical trial of GV-971 has been completed in China. Methods We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in participants with mild-to-moderate AD to assess GV-971 efficacy and safety. Participants were randomized to placebo or GV-971 (900 mg) for 36 weeks. The primary outcome was the drug-placebo difference in change from baseline on the 12-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog12). Secondary endpoints were drug-placebo differences on the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC+), Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Safety and tolerability were monitored. Results A total of 818 participants were randomized: 408 to GV-971 and 410 to placebo. A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. The difference between the groups in change from baseline was − 2.15 points (95% confidence interval, − 3.07 to − 1.23; p < 0.0001; effect size 0.531) after 36 weeks of treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was comparable between active treatment and placebo (73.9%, 75.4%). Two deaths determined to be unrelated to drug effects occurred in the GV-971 group. Conclusions GV-971 demonstrated significant efficacy in improving cognition with sustained improvement across all observation periods of a 36-week trial. GV-971 was safe and well-tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02293915. Registered on November 19, 2014


Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. e334-e346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Catharina van Loenhoud ◽  
Wiesje Maria van der Flier ◽  
Alle Meije Wink ◽  
Ellen Dicks ◽  
Colin Groot ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between cognitive reserve (CR) and clinical progression across the Alzheimer disease (AD) spectrum.MethodsWe selected 839 β-amyloid (Aβ)–positive participants with normal cognition (NC, n = 175), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 437), or AD dementia (n = 227) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). CR was quantified using standardized residuals (W scores) from a (covariate-adjusted) linear regression with global cognition (13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive subscale) as an independent variable of interest, and either gray matter volumes or white matter hyperintensity volume as dependent variables. These W scores, reflecting whether an individual's degree of cerebral damage is lower or higher than clinically expected, were tested as predictors of diagnostic conversion (i.e., NC to MCI/AD dementia, or MCI to AD dementia) and longitudinal changes in memory (ADNI-MEM) and executive functions (ADNI-EF).ResultsThe median follow-up period was 24 months (interquartile range 6–42). Corrected for age, sex, APOE4 status, and baseline cerebral damage, higher gray matter volume-based W scores (i.e., greater CR) were associated with a lower diagnostic conversion risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.22, p < 0.001) and slower decline in memory (β = 0.48, p < 0.001) and executive function (β = 0.67, p < 0.001). Stratified by disease stage, we found similar results for NC (diagnostic conversion: HR 0.30, p = 0.038; ADNI-MEM: β = 0.52, p = 0.028; ADNI-EF: β = 0.42, p = 0.077) and MCI (diagnostic conversion: HR 0.21, p < 0.001; ADNI-MEM: β = 0.43, p = 0.003; ADNI-EF: β = 0.59, p < 0.001), but opposite findings (i.e., more rapid decline) for AD dementia (ADNI-MEM: β = −0.91, p = 0.002; ADNI-EF: β = −0.77, p = 0.081).ConclusionsAmong Aβ-positive individuals, greater CR related to attenuated clinical progression in predementia stages of AD, but accelerated cognitive decline after the onset of dementia.


Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (21) ◽  
pp. 2176-2186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon L. Risacher ◽  
Wesley H. Anderson ◽  
Arnaud Charil ◽  
Peter F. Castelluccio ◽  
Sergey Shcherbinin ◽  
...  

Objective:To test the hypothesis that cortical and hippocampal volumes, measured in vivo from volumetric MRI (vMRI) scans, could be used to identify variant subtypes of Alzheimer disease (AD) and to prospectively predict the rate of clinical decline.Methods:Amyloid-positive participants with AD from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) 1 and ADNI2 with baseline MRI scans (n = 229) and 2-year clinical follow-up (n = 100) were included. AD subtypes (hippocampal sparing [HpSpMRI], limbic predominant [LPMRI], typical AD [tADMRI]) were defined according to an algorithm analogous to one recently proposed for tau neuropathology. Relationships between baseline hippocampal volume to cortical volume ratio (HV:CTV) and clinical variables were examined by both continuous regression and categorical models.Results:When participants were divided categorically, the HpSpMRI group showed significantly more AD-like hypometabolism on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET (p < 0.05) and poorer baseline executive function (p < 0.001). Other baseline clinical measures did not differ across the 3 groups. Participants with HpSpMRI also showed faster subsequent clinical decline than participants with LPMRI on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, 13-Item Subscale (ADAS-Cog13), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Functional Assessment Questionnaire (all p < 0.05) and tADMRI on the MMSE and Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) (both p < 0.05). Finally, a larger HV:CTV was associated with poorer baseline executive function and a faster slope of decline in CDR-SB, MMSE, and ADAS-Cog13 score (p < 0.05). These associations were driven mostly by the amount of cortical rather than hippocampal atrophy.Conclusions:AD subtypes with phenotypes consistent with those observed with tau neuropathology can be identified in vivo with vMRI. An increased HV:CTV ratio was predictive of faster clinical decline in participants with AD who were clinically indistinguishable at baseline except for a greater dysexecutive presentation.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shifu Xiao ◽  
Piu Chan ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Zhen Hong ◽  
Shuzhen Wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: New therapies are urgently needed for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Sodium oligomannate (GV-971) is a marine-derived oligosaccharide which reconstitutes gut microbiota, reduces neuroinflammation, decreases amyloid deposition, and improves cognition in AD animal models. The first phase 3 clinical trial of GV-971 has been completed in China. Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in participants with mild-to-moderate AD to assess GV-971 efficacy and safety. Participants were randomized to placebo or GV-971 (900 mg) for 36 weeks. The primary outcome was the drug-placebo difference in change from baseline on the 12-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog12). Secondary endpoints were drug-placebo differences on the Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change with caregiver input (CIBIC+), Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale, and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Safety and tolerability were monitored. Results: 818 participants were randomized: 408 to GV-971 and 410 to placebo. A significant drug-placebo difference on the ADAS-Cog12 favoring GV-971 was present at each measurement time-point, measurable at the week 4 visit and continuing throughout the trial. The difference between groups in change from baseline was −2.15 points (95% confidence interval, −3.07 to −1.23; P<0.0001; effect size 0.531) after 36 weeks treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse event incidence was comparable between active treatment and placebo (73.9%, 75.4%). Two deaths determined to be unrelated to drug effects occurred in the GV-971 group.Conclusions: GV-971 demonstrated significant efficacy in improving cognition with sustained improvement across all observation periods of a 36-week trial. GV-971 was safe and well tolerated. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02293915. Registered on November 19, 2014.


1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-77 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica L Barner ◽  
Shelly L Gray

OBJECTIVE To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, drug–drug interactions, and the therapeutic issues concerning the use of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer disease. DATA SOURCES Published articles and abstracts in English were identified by MEDLINE (January 1985–July 1997) searches using the search terms donepezil, E2020, treatment of Alzheimer's disease, and cholinesterase inhibitors. Additional articles were identified from the bibliographies of the retrieved articles. Data were also obtained from approved product labeling. DATA EXTRACTION The literature was assessed for adequate description of patients, methodology, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor that is selective and specific for acetylcholinesterase. It is metabolized by hepatic isoenzymes CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 and undergoes glucuronidation. Information about drug interactions is limited, but a potential for drug–drug interactions does exist, given the route of elimination. Donepezil has a relative bioavailability of 100% following oral administration and is not affected by the presence of food. In 15- and 30-week trials, donepezil was effective in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease as shown by improvements on standard assessment instruments (i.e., the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale, the Clinical Interview-Based Impression of Change with Caregiver Input). Adverse effects were comparable with those of placebo, and monitoring of liver function tests is not required. CONCLUSIONS Donepezil is an effective symptomatic treatment for some patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. Although no comparative trials have been reported, donepezil appears to be a safe alternative for tacrine, given its convenient once-daily dosing, minimal adverse effects, and lower total cost. OBJETIVO Ofrecer un resumen de la farmacología, farmacocinética, eficacia clínica, efectos adversos, interacciones, y cuestiones terapeúticas relacionadas con el uso de donepezil en pacientes con la enfermedad de Alzheimer. FUENTES DE INFORMACIÓN Artículos y extractos en inglés fueron identificados a través de MEDLINE utilizando los términos donepezil, E2020, tratamiento de Alzheimer, e inhibidores de colinesterasa. Artículos adicionales fueron seleccionados a partir de la bibliografía de la literatura identificada. También se obtuvo información a partir de la marcación aprobada del producto. SELECCIÓN DE ESTUDIOS Los estudios fueron evaluados en cuanto a descripción adecuada de los pacientes, metodología, y resultados. SÍNTESIS Donepezil es un inhibidor selectivo de la colinesterasa y específico para la acetilcolinesterasa. Es metabolizado por las enzimas hepáticas CYP2D6 y CYP3A4 y experimenta glucuronidación. Aunque hay poca información acerca de interacciones con otras drogas, la potencial para estas interacciones existe, dada la ruta de eliminación. Después de administración oral, la biodisponibilidad relativa de donepezil es 100% y no es afectada por la presencia de comida. En estudios clínicos de 15 a 30 semanas de duración, pacientes con síntomas categorizadas como leve o moderados que recibieron donepezil demostraron mejoramientos en cuanto a resultados en pruebas estadardizadas. Efectos adversos fueron comparables con placebo y el uso de donepezil no requiere el monitoreo de pruebas de función hepática. CONCLUSIONES Donepezil es un tratamiento sintomático efectivo para algunos pacientes con la enfermedad de Alzheimer. Aunque no se han reportado estudios comparativos con tacrine, donepezil es un alternativo que ofrece dosificación una vez diariamente, un costo más bajo, efectos adversos mínimos y ningunos reportes de hepatotoxicidad. OBJECTIF Revoir la pharmacologie, la pharmacocinétique, l'efficacité clinique, les effets indésirables, les interactions médicamenteuses, et les buts thérapeutiques du donépézil chez les personnes avec de la maladie d'Alzheimer. REVUE DE LITTÉRATURE Les articles publiés et les RÉSUMÉs de langue anglaise ont été identifiés par une recherche dans la banque informatisee MEDLINE (1985–1997) sous les termes donépézil, E2020, traitement de la maladie d'Alzheimer, et inhibiteurs de la cholinestérase. D'autres articles ont été identifiés à partir des articles déjà identifiés par cette recherche. Des données ont aussi été extraites de la monographie du produit. SÉLECTION DE LINFORMATION: Les articles ont été comparés quant à la description adéquate des patients, la méthodologie, et les résultats attendus. RÉSUMÉ Le donépézil est un inhibiteur sélectif de la cholinestérase spécifique pour l'acétylcholinestérase. Il est métabolisé par les enzymes hépatiques CYP2D6 et CYP3A4 et subit la glucuronidation. L'information sur les interactions médicamenteuses est limitée, mais des interactions médicamenteuses sont possibles compte tenu de la voie d'élimination de ce produit. La biodisponibilité du donépézil est complet 100% par la voie orale et n'est pas modifiée en présence d'aliments. Dans des essais cliniques de 15 et 30 semaines, le donépézil est efficace chez les personnes avec de la maladie d'Alzheimer l'égère à modérée, tel que montré par des améliorations sur des échelles d'évaluation (ADAS-C, CIBIC). Les effets indésirables du donépézil dans ces études sont comparables à ceux du placébo et des tests de la fonction hépatique ne sont pas requis comme avec la tacrine. CONCLUSIONS Le donépézil est un traitement symptomatique efficace chez quelques personnes avec de la maladie d'Alzheimer légère à modérée. Même s'il n'existe pas d'études comparatives, le donépézil semble une alternative sécuritaire à la tacrine, compte tenu de sa prise uniquotidienne, de ses effets indésirables minimes et de son faible coût.


Author(s):  
Wilma G. Rosen ◽  
Richard C. Mohs ◽  
Kenneth L. Davis

2012 ◽  
Vol 153 (12) ◽  
pp. 461-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdolna Pákáski ◽  
Gergely Drótos ◽  
Zoltán Janka ◽  
János Kálmán

The cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale is the most widely used test in the diagnostic and research work of Alzheimer’s disease. Aims: The aim of this study was to validate and investigate reliability of the Hungarian version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and healthy control subjects. Methods: syxty-six patients with mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease and 47 non-demented control subjects were recruited for the study. The cognitive status was established by the Hungarian version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale and Mini Mental State Examination. Discriminative validity, the relation between age and education and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale, and the sensitivity and specificity of the test were determined. Results: Both the Mini Mental State Examination and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale had significant potential in differentiating between patients with mild and moderate stages of Alzheimer’s disease and control subjects. A very strong negative correlation was established between the scores of the Mini Mental State Examination and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale in the Alzheimer’s disease group. The Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale showed slightly negative relationship between education and cognitive performance, whereas a positive correlation between age and Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale scores was detected only in the control group. According to the analysis of the ROC curve, the values of sensitivity and specificity of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale were high. Conclusions: The Hungarian version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale was found to be highly reliable and valid and, therefore, the application of this scale can be recommended for the establishment of the clinical stage and follow-up of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. However, the current Hungarian version of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale is not sufficient; the list of words and linguistic elements should be selected according to the Hungarian standard in the future. Orv. Hetil., 2012, 153, 461–466.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document