Home > News > Pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer’s Disease—Current and Future Perspectives
Alzheimer's Disease & Dementia
Read Time: 4 mins

Pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer’s Disease—Current and Future Perspectives

Published Online: June 4th 2011
Authors: Serge Gauthier, Dennis Seow
Quick Links:
Article
Article Information
Article:

There have been significant advances in the pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and we are at an important stage in the development of symptomatic and disease-modifying drugs (DMDs). This article will summarize some of the evidence for the safety and efficacy of current symptomatic drugs, the design of ongoing studies with potential DMDs, and the challenges facing their use in clinical practice.

Broadly, the disease can be considered to be in a pre-symptomatic stage, when a number of pathological events take place; an early symptomatic or prodromal stage with cognitive manifestations but no significant functional impairment (currently described as amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI)); and symptomatic mild, moderate, and severe stages. Each of these stages can be targeted for specific drug treatments, requiring different trial designs and outcomes:

  • a healthy elderly population can be tested with a safe antioxidant such
    as Ginkgo biloba versus placebo over five1 to seven years using incident
    dementia as the primary outcome;2
  • an aMCI population could be tested with a symptomatic or a potential
    DMD versus placebo over three years using time to diagnose dementia
    as the primary outcome;3
  • patients with mild to moderate AD must be offered the usual standard
    of care to which a potential DMD or placebo is added over 12–18
    months, with a slower decline on cognitive, global, or functional
    autonomy as primary end-points;4 and
  • patients with severe AD are usually in a nursing home setting requiring
    shorter six-month studies with appropriate cognitive, functional, and
    behavioral outcomes.5
  • Disease milestones have also been defined in AD6 and can be used as endpoints in a survival analysis. For instance, α-tocopherol delayed loss of residual autonomy and progression to severe dementia or death in one study by the Alzheimer Disease Co-operative Study group (ADCS),7 thus influencing clinical practice to use vitamin E in all stages of AD (at least in the US until the negative results in the Memory Impairment Study),8 and a meta-analysis of clinical studies using high-dosage vitamin E suggesting a higher mortality rate.9

    Symptomatic domains in dementia include cognition, activities of daily living (ADL), and behavior. In many patients, early changes in mood and anxiety precede the formal diagnosis of AD. Cognitive, functional, and global decline are relatively linear over time, whereas neuro-psychiatric symptoms peak midway into the disease course and improve spontaneously through the severe stage as mobility becomes impaired with emerging Parkinson-like physical signs.10 These natural changes in the symptomatic domains through the stages of AD have an impact on trial design and outcomes.11

    Symptomatic Clinical Trials using

    Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine

    The modern treatment for AD was initiated by the report that tacrine improved some aspects of cognition and daily life.12 The follow-up confirmatory studies used cross-over and parallel-group designs. The latter design group offers the possibility of short-term (minimum of three-month) studies comparing the efficacy of different doses of the drug with placebo.

    The primary analysis is carried out on outcomes at end-point, using the last observation carried forward (LOCF) or intent to treat (ITT) to compensate for missing values in case of drop-outs. Although LOCF/ITT has been favored for symptomatic studies, there is a trend for using observed cases (OC), e.g. completers, for studies of 12 months or longer. For practical purposes, both types of analysis are performed. Although ‘cognitive enhancement’ was the main hope for cholinesterase inhibitors (CIs) as a therapeutic class, the reality that has emerged from six-month studies with open-label extensions and the one-year placebo-controlled Nordic study13 is that although there is a small but statistically significant improvement in cognition peaking at three months with CIs, the most clinically relevant finding has been the stabilization of cognitive decline with ‘return to baseline’ at nine to 12 months for the actively treated groups at the higher therapeutic doses compared with placebo-treated groups, who decline steadily. These results were considered sufficient for CIs to become ‘standard treatment’ for AD in the mild to moderate stage,14–16 notwithstanding the challenges to the effectiveness of CI17 using the arguments that the trial designs were flawed;17 a pragmatic study over three years comparing donepezil with placebo was negative for the primary end-point of delaying entry to institutional care and progression of disability;18 and there was insufficient cost–benefit, at least in mild stages.19

    Memantine acting though N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) receptor inhibition has been found to be effective in studies using parallel group, in moderate-to-severe AD.20 Guidelines appropriate for this stage of disease have been used and accepted by regulatory agencies. The novel design of adding memantine or placebo to a stable dose of a CI has been used successfully,21 and is of great importance as it has paved the way for a number of studies in which novel drugs or placebo are added on to ‘standard treatment.’ Post hoc analysis demonstrated an antiagitation/ aggression effect,22 which is being studied prospectively in Canada. These non-cognitive effects may turn around the current negative appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) regarding the effectiveness of memantine.19

    Disease-modification Strategies

    Although no drug has yet been determined to delay disease modification, attempts are under way using parallel groups over one year or longer with the novel agent or a placebo added on to standard treatment. Outcomes known to have relatively linear changes over time are used, such as the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB),23 the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Component (ADAS-cog), the Alzheimer’s Disease Co-operative Study (ADCS)-ADL,24 or the Disability Assessment in Dementia (DAD),25 supplemented by volumetric brain measurements using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the beginning and the end of treatment. As an example, tramiprosate acting as gag-mimetic 26 has been tested in mild AD over 78 weeks with changes from baseline to week 78 in ADAS-cog, CDR-SB, and DAD as the main clinical outcomes, with the rate of brain atrophy being calculated using MRI. It is possible that delaying progression from CDR total score of 1 (mild dementia) to 2 (moderate dementia) will be the most convincing argument of effectiveness. The next study using flurbiprofen will be completed in June 2008.

    Patterns of responses based on phenotype (age at onset of disease, severity at onset of treatment, rapid decliners) and genotype apolipoprotein E (ApoE) will be of great interest, since it is likely that subgroups of patients with AD will respond well to a given class of drugs or a drug within a class, allowing for a pharmacogenomic approach to the use of DMD. It is encouraging that European regulators have initiated discussions on these matters with investigators and sponsors.27

    Conclusions

    We have gained a better understanding of the natural history of AD and have developed appropriate trial designs and outcomes for the various stages of this condition. There is clear benefit for the treatment of symptoms in mild to severe AD using CIs and memantine. There is cautious optimism for successful disease modification using a number of agents currently under study. Treatment guidelines must be constantly updated to take into account new evidence for the ultimate benefit of patients and care-givers.

Article Information:

References

1. Vellas B, Andrieu S, Ousset PJ, et al., for the Guidage Study Group, The GuidAge study. Methodological issues. A 5-year double-blind randomized trial of the efficacy of EGb 761 for prevention of Alzheimer’s disease in patients over 70 with a memory complaint, Neurology, 2006;67(Suppl. 3);S6–S11.
2. DeKosky ST, Fitzpatrick A, Ives DG, Ginkgo evaluation of Memory (GEM) Study: design and baseline data of a randomized trial of Ginkgo biloba extract in prevention of dementia, Contemp Clinical Trials, 2006;27:238–53.
3. Jelic V, Kivipelto M, Winblad B, Clinical trials in mild cognitive impairment: lessons for the future, J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 2006;77:429–38.
4. Cummings JL, Challenges to demonstrating disease-modifying effects in Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials, Alzheimers Dement, 2006;2:263–71.
5. Winblad B, Kilander L, Eriksson S, et al., for the Severe Alzheimer’s Disease Study Group, Lancet, 2006;367:1057–65.
6. Galasko D, Edland SD, Morris JC, et al., The Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD). Part IX. Clinical milestones in patients with Alzheimer’s disease followed over 3 years, Neurology, 1995;45:1451–5.
7. Sano M, Ernesto C, Thomas RG, et al., A controlled trial of selegiline, alpha-tocopherol, or both as treatment for Alzheimer’s disease, N Engl J Med, 1997;336:1216–22.
8. Petersen RC, Thomas RG, Grundman M, et al., for the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study Group, Vitamin E and donepezil for the treatment of mild cognitive impairment, N Engl J Med, 2005;352: 2379–88.
9. Miller ER, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dulal D, et al., Meta-analysis: highdosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality, Ann Intern Med, 2005;142:37–46.
10. Gauthier S, Thal LJ, Rossor MN, Future diagnosis and management of Alzheimer’s disease. In: Gauthier S (ed.), Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Alzheimer’s Disease, Abingdon: Informa Health Care, 2007:379–82.
11. Gauthier S, Trial design. In: Burns A, O’Brien J, Ames D (eds), Dementia, London: Hodder Arnold, 2005;522–25.
12. Summers WK, Majovski LV, Marsh GM, et al., Oral tetrahydroaminoacridine in long-term treatment of senile dementia, Alzheimer type, N Engl J Med, 1986;315:1241–5.
13. Winblad B, Engedal K, Soininen H, et al., Donepezil Nordic Study Group. A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD, Neurology, 2001;57:489–95.
14. Burns A, O'Brien J Auriacombe S, et al., on behalf of the BAP Dementia Consensus Group, Clinical practice with anti-dementia drugs: a consensus statement from British Association for Psychopharmacology, J Psychopharm, 2006;20:732–55.
15. Lyketsos CG, Colenda CC, Beck C, et al., Position statement of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry regarding principles of care for patients with dementia resulting from Alzheimer’s disease, Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2006;14:561–73.
16. Waldemar G, Dubois B, Emre M, et al., Recommendations for the diagnosis and management of Alzheimer’s disease and other disorders associated with dementia: EFNS guideline. In: Hughes R, Brainin M, Gilhus NE (eds), European Handbook of Neurological Management, London: Blackweek Publishing, 2006.
17. Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP, van den Bussche H, Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review of randomized clinical trials, BMJ, 2005;331:321–7.
18. AD2000 Collaborative Group, Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomized double-blind trial, Lancet, 2004;363:2105–15.
19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, NICE clinical guideline 42, Dementia, November 2006.
20. Winblad B, Poritis N, Memantine in severe dementia: results of the 9M-BEST study (Benefits and Efficacy in Severely Demented Patients During Treatment with Memantine), Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 1999;14:135–46.
21. Tariot PN, Farlow MR, Grossberg GT, et al., Memantine treatment in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer’s disease already receiving donepezil, JAMA, 2004;291:317–24.
22. Gauthier S, Wirth Y, Mobius HJ, Effects of memantine on behavioral symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease patients: an analysis of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) data of two randomized, controlled studies, Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2005;20:459–64.
23. Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, et al., A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia, Brit J Psychiatry, 1982;140:566–72.
24. Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al., An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord, 1997;11(Suppl. 2):S33–S39.
25. Gelinas I, Gauthier L, McIntyre M, Gauthier S, Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: the Disability Assessment for Dementia, Am J Occup Ther, 1999;53: 471–81.
26. Gervais F, Gag mimetics: potential to modify underlying disease process in AD, Neurobiol Aging, 2004;25(Suppl. 1):S11–12.
27. Sampaio C, Alzheimer’s disease: disease modifying trials. Where are we? Where do we need to go? A reflective paper, J Nutr Health Aging, 2006;10:113–15.

Further Resources

Share this Article
Related Content In Alzheimer's Disease & Dementia
  • Copied to clipboard!
    accredited arrow-down-editablearrow-downarrow_leftarrow-right-bluearrow-right-dark-bluearrow-right-greenarrow-right-greyarrow-right-orangearrow-right-whitearrow-right-bluearrow-up-orangeavatarcalendarchevron-down consultant-pathologist-nurseconsultant-pathologistcrosscrossdownloademailexclaimationfeedbackfiltergraph-arrowinterviewslinkmdt_iconmenumore_dots nurse-consultantpadlock patient-advocate-pathologistpatient-consultantpatientperson pharmacist-nurseplay_buttonplay-colour-tmcplay-colourAsset 1podcastprinter scenerysearch share single-doctor social_facebooksocial_googleplussocial_instagramsocial_linkedin_altsocial_linkedin_altsocial_pinterestlogo-twitter-glyph-32social_youtubeshape-star (1)tick-bluetick-orangetick-red tick-whiteticktimetranscriptup-arrowwebinar Department Location NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-07NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-08NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-09NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-10NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-11NEW TMM Corporate Services Icons-12Salary £ TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-01TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-02TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-03TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-04TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-05TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-06TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-07TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-08TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-09TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-10TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-11TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-12TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-13TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-14TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-15TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-16TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-17TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-18TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-19TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-20TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-21TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-22TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-23TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-24TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-25TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-26TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-27TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-28TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-29TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-30TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-31TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-32TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-33TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-34TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-35TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-36TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-37TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-38TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-39TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-40TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-41TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-42TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-43TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-44TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-45TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-46TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-47TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-48TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-49TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-50TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-51TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-52TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-53TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-54TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-55TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-56TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-57TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-58TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-59TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-60TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-61TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-62TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-63TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-64TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-65TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-66TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-67TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-68TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-69TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-70TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-71TMM-Corp-Site-Icons-72