Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson's disease. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of rivastigmine capsules in patients with probable vascular dementia: the VantagE study. A 12-month study of the efficacy of rivastigmine in patients with advanced moderate Alzheimer's disease. Effect of rivastigmine on delay to diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease from mild cognitive impairment: the InDDEx study. Efficacy of rivastigmine in subjects with moderately severe Alzheimer's disease. Rivastigmine and donepezil treatment in moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period.
Cholinergic deficits are prominent in patients who have dementia associated with Parkinson's disease. We investigated the effects of the dual cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine in such patients.
                Patients in whom mild-to-moderate dementia developed at least 2 years after they received a clinical diagnosis of Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned to receive placebo or 3 to 12 mg of rivastigmine per day for 24 weeks. Primary efficacy variables were the scores for the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinician's Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC). Secondary clinical outcomes were the scores for the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living, the 10-item Neuropsychiatric Inventory, the Mini-Mental State Examination, Cognitive Drug Research power of attention tests, the Verbal Fluency test, and the Ten Point Clock-Drawing test.
                A total of 541 patients were enrolled, and 410 completed the study. The outcomes were better among patients treated with rivastigmine than among those who received placebo; however, the differences between these two groups were moderate and similar to those reported in trials of rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease. Rivastigmine-treated patients had a mean improvement of 2.1 points in the score for the 70-point ADAS-cog, from a baseline score of 23.8, as compared with a 0.7-point worsening in the placebo group, from a baseline score of 24.3 (P<0.001). Clinically meaningful improvements in the scores for the ADCS-CGIC were observed in 19.8 percent of patients in the rivastigmine group and 14.5 percent of those in the placebo group, and clinically meaningful worsening was observed in 13.0 percent and 23.1 percent, respectively (mean score at 24 weeks, 3.8 and 4.3, respectively; P=0.007). Significantly better outcomes were seen with rivastigmine with respect to all secondary efficacy variables. The most frequent adverse events were nausea (affecting 29.0 percent of patients in the rivastigmine group and 11.2 percent of those in the placebo group, P<0.001), vomiting (16.6 and 1.7 percent, P<0.001), and tremor (10.2 and 3.9 percent, P=0.01).
                In this placebo-controlled study, rivastigmine was associated with moderate improvements in dementia associated with Parkinson's disease but also with higher rates of nausea, vomiting, and tremor.
                Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of rivastigmine capsules in patients diagnosed with probable vascular dementia (VaD).
                VantagE (Vascular Dementia trial studying Exelon) was a 24-week, multicentre, double-blind study. VaD patients aged 50-85 years were randomized to rivastigmine capsules (3-12 mg/day) or placebo. Efficacy assessments included global and cognitive performances, activities of daily living and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Adverse events were recorded. Additional exploratory analyses determined whether heterogeneity in pathologies and symptoms extended to differential treatment effects.
                NCT00099216.
                710 patients were randomized. Rivastigmine demonstrated superiority over placebo on three measures of cognitive performance (Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale, Mini-Mental State Examination; all p< or = 0.05, intent-to-treat population [ITT]), but not other outcomes. Predominant adverse events were nausea and vomiting. Exploratory analyses indicated that older patients (> or =75 years old), assumed more likely to also have Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, demonstrated significant cognitive responses to rivastigmine and a safety profile similar to that seen in AD patients. Younger patients, assumed less likely to have concomitant AD pathology, showed no efficacy response and were associated with slight elevations of blood pressure, cerebrovascular accidents and mortality. Rivastigmine-placebo differences in patients with, versus those without, medial temporal atrophy (also suggestive of concomitant AD) showed a numerical difference similar to that seen between the older versus younger patients, but did not attain statistical significance.
                Consistent with trials evaluating other cholinesterase inhibitors, rivastigmine did not provide consistent efficacy in probable VaD. The efficacy apparent on cognitive outcomes was derived from effects in older patients likely to have concomitant Alzheimer pathology. This is supportive of an existing argument that the putative cholinergic deficit in VaD reflects the presence of concomitant Alzheimer pathology. The efficacy of a centrally active cholinesterase inhibitor, rivastigmine tartrate (ENA 713), in patients with advanced moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) was evaluated in a 12-month placebo-controlled study. We aimed to investigate whether there was any evidence for the benefits of rivastigmine in patients with severe disease. These patients were compared with matched controls. In this study, 24 patients with advanced moderate AD received rivastigmine for 12 months. Another 20 patients received placebo. Mean daily doses of rivastigmine in the higher-dose group at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 6.1 +/- 1.0, 8.3 +/- 1.2, 8.9 +/- 1.3, and 10.7 +/- 1.6 mg/day, respectively. Cognitive abilities were assessed using the 11-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog). Forty-five percent of placebo-treated patients declined by at least 4 points on the ADAS-cog. Conversely, only 18.3% of patients treated with rivastigmine declined by 4 or more points. Functional disabilities, as assessed using the Disability Assessment for Dementia Scale, remained significantly superior in rivastigmine-treated patients compared with placebo-treated patients. Patients benefited from high-dose rivastigmine treatment on all outcome measures, including the Mini-Mental State Examination, Progressive Deterioration Scale, as well as the Global Deterioration Scale. Patients receiving rivastigmine for 12 months significantly improved compared with placebo-treated patients (p < 0.001). By 52 weeks, patients originally treated with 6-12 mg/day rivastigmine had a significantly better cognitive function than patients originally treated with placebo. Long-term rivastigmine treatment appeared to be well tolerated in patients with advanced moderate AD and significantly benefits the cognitive and functional symptoms of AD.
                Copyright 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel. To assess the effect of rivastigmine in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) on the time to clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the rate of cognitive decline.
                The study was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of up to 48 months. All patients had MCI operationally defined by having cognitive symptoms, a global clinical dementia rating stage of 0.5, a score of less than 9 on the New York University delayed paragraph recall test, and by not meeting the diagnostic criteria for AD. Primary efficacy variables were time to clinical diagnosis of AD, and change in performance on a cognitive test battery. This study is registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trials database (ClinicalTrials.gov), number NCT00000174.
                Of 1018 study patients enrolled, 508 were randomly assigned to rivastigmine and 510 to placebo; 17.3% of patients on rivastigmine and 21.4% on placebo progressed to AD (hazard ratio 0.85 [95% CI 0.64-1.12]; p=0.225). There was no significant difference between the rivastigmine and placebo groups on the standardised Z score for the cognitive test battery measured as mean change from baseline to endpoint (-0.10 [95% CI -0.63 to 0.44], p=0.726). Serious adverse events were reported by 141 (27.9%) rivastigmine-treated patients and 155 (30.5%) patients on placebo; adverse events of all types were reported by 483 (95.6%) rivastigmine-treated patients and 472 (92.7%) placebo-treated patients. The predominant adverse events were cholinergic: the frequencies of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and dizziness were two to four times higher in the rivastigmine group than in the placebo group.
                There was no significant benefit of rivastigmine on the progression rate to AD or on cognitive function over 4 years. The overall rate of progression from MCI to AD in this randomised clinical trial was much lower than predicted. Rivastigmine treatment was not associated with any significant safety concerns. Cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitors are primarily used in the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), but may also be effective in more severe disease.
                To evaluate the dual ChE inhibitor, rivastigmine, in more severe dementia.
                We retrospectively analysed pooled data from three randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, 6-month trials, involving 2126 AD subjects. Subjects were selected according to baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score to identify subjects with more severe cognitive impairment (10-12 MMSE points). One-hundred-and-seventeen subjects were included who had been treated with rivastigmine 6-12 mg/day or placebo. The AD Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), the MMSE, a six-item subscore of the Progressive Deterioration Scale (PDS) and the BEHAVE-AD assessed efficacy. Tolerability was assessed by recording adverse events (AEs) and the relative risk (RR) of discontinuation.
                This group of subjects responded well to rivastigmine. After 6 months, the mean ADAS-Cog score declined by 6.3 points in the placebo group and increased by 0.2 points in the rivastigmine group (observed cases; p<0.001). Clinical benefits were also observed with the MMSE, the six-item PDS score and items of the BEHAVE-AD. Rivastigmine showed the same pattern of AEs as in other studies, but the RR of dropping out due to AEs was lower than in subjects with milder AD.
                Current treatment guidelines do not recommend treating individuals with severe AD with ChE inhibitors. However, this retrospective analysis suggests that rivastigmine 6-12 mg/day may benefit subjects with more severe disease, as well as subjects with mild to moderate impairment.
                Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Randomised controlled trials that directly compare cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease have been characterised by significant methodological limitations. As a consequence, they have failed to establish whether there are differences between agents in this class. To help address this question, a double-blind, randomised, controlled, multicentre trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of cholinesterase inhibitor treatment in patients with moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period.
                Patients were randomly assigned to rivastigmine 3-12 mg/day or donepezil 5-10 mg/day. Efficacy measures comprised assessments of cognition, activities of daily living, global functioning and behavioural symptoms. Safety and tolerability assessments included adverse events and measurement of vital signs.
                In total, 994 patients received cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (rivastigmine, n = 495; donepezil, n = 499), and 57.9% of patients completed the study. The most frequent reason for premature discontinuation in both treatment groups was adverse events, primarily gastrointestinal. Adverse events were more frequent in the rivastigmine group during the titration phase, but similar in the maintenance phase. Serious adverse events were reported by 31.7% of rivastigmine- and 32.5% of donepezil-treated patients, respectively. Rivastigmine and donepezil had similar effects on measures of cognition and behaviour, but rivastigmine showed a statistically significant advantage on measures of activities of daily living and global functioning in the ITT-LOCF population. However, this was not maintained in the non-ITT-LOCF populations. In secondary subgroup analyses, AD patients who had genotypes that encoded for full expression of the butyrylcholinesterase enzyme (BuChE wt/wt; n = 226/340), who were < 75 years of age (n = 362/994) or who had symptoms suggestive of concomitant Lewy body disease (n = 49/994) showed significantly greater benefits from rivastigmine treatment.
                Cholinesterase inhibitor treatment may offer continued therapeutic benefit for up to 2 years in patients with moderate AD. Although both drugs performed similarly on cognition and behaviour, rivastigmine may provide greater benefit in activities of daily living and global functioning.
Rivastigmine appears to be beneficial for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. In comparisons with placebo, improvements were seen in the rate of decline of cognitive function, activities of daily living, and severity of dementia with daily doses of 6 to 12 mg. Adverse events were consistent with the cholinergic actions of the drug. A transdermal patch has been tested in one trial, and there is evidence that the lower dose smaller patch is associated with fewer side effects than the capsules or the higher dose larger patch and has comparable efficacy to both. This review has not examined economic data.