Article

The effect of stimulation therapy and donepezil on cognitive function in Alzheimer’s disease. A community based RCT with a two-by-two factorial design

BMC Neurology (Impact Factor: 2.49). 07/2012; 12(1):59. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-59
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BackgroundProgressive neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) induces cognitive deterioration, and there is controversy regarding the optimal treatment strategy in early AD. Stimulation therapy, including physical exercise and cholinesterase inhibitors are both reported to postpone cognitive deterioration in separate studies. We aimed to study the effect of stimulation therapy and the additional effect of donepezil on cognitive function in early AD.MethodDesign: A two-by-two factorial trial comprising stimulation therapy for one year compared to standard care to which a randomized double-blinded placebo controlled trial with donepezil was added.Setting: Nine rural municipalities in Northern Norway.Participants: 187 participants 65 years and older with a recent diagnosis of mild or moderate AD were included in the study of which 146 completed a one-year follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: In five municipalities the participants received stimulation therapy whereas participants in four received standard care. All participants were randomised double-blindly to donepezil or placebo and tested with three different cognitive tests four times during the one-year study period.Main outcome: Changes in MMSE sum score.Secondary outcome: Changes in ADAS-Cog and Clock Drawing Test.ResultsMMSE scores remained unchanged amongst AD participants receiving stimulation therapy and those receiving standard care. The results were consistent for ADAS-Cog and Clock Drawing Test. No time trend differences were found during one-year follow-up between groups receiving stimulation therapy versus standard care or between donepezil versus placebo.ConclusionIn rural AD patients non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapy did not improve outcome compared with standard care but all groups retained cognitive function during one year follow-up. Other studies are needed to confirm these results.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT00443014). EudraCT database (no 2004-002613-37).

1 Bookmark
 · 
194 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is general consensus regarding the benefit of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g. donepezil) in Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the combined effect of acetylcholinesterase and cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is still controversial. This study examines their combined effect on the progression of cognitive decline in AD by comparing the cognitive performance of 17 AD patients treated with CST and donepezil (combined treatment group) and 13 AD patients treated with donepezil alone (control group). Patients in the combined treatment group received 5 mg of donepezil per day and about 20 one-hour CST sessions for one year, whereas the control group received only 5 mg of donepezil per day. The first eight sessions were carried out once a week, and subsequent sessions were generally once every two weeks. The patients were evaluated for changes in cognitive ability by administering the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) before the start of CST (baseline) and about one year later (follow-up). A repeated-measure analysis of variance revealed a significant group x time interaction. The MMSE score decreased significantly in the control group, but did not change significantly in the combined treatment group. Three patients in the control group declined by four points on the MMSE, compared to none in the combined treatment group. Effect size (ES) in the control group was relatively large and negative, while the ES in the combined treatment group was close to zero. The results suggest the possibility that donepezil plus CST slowed the rate of cognitive decline more than the administration of donepezil alone.
    International Psychogeriatrics 05/2007; 19(2):241-52. · 1.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cross-cultural investigation in psychiatry is revealing the need for standardised instruments in diagnosing and assessing depression. Recently, a new instrument was developed to evaluate depressed patients, namely the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). The present study introduced the MADRS in Brazil, comparing it to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Visual Analogue Mood Scale (a self-rating scale), and with the global clinical assessment of independent Brazilian psychiatrists. The results show correlation between MADRS and the three other assessments, indicating that it is a useful and operational instrument to evaluate depressed patients. They also support the application of the MADRS in cross-cultural studies of depression in Brazil and other countries. These results are critically discussed.
    The British Journal of Psychiatry 07/1987; 150:797-800. · 7.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One of the aims of therapy is to inhibit the breakdown of a chemical neurotransmitter, acetylcholine, by blocking the relevant enzyme. This can be done by a group of chemicals known as cholinesterase inhibitors. However, some (like tacrine) are associated with adverse effects such as hepatotoxicity, but E2020 (donepezil, Aricept) is thought to be more specific in its action, and safer. The objective of this review is to assess whether or not donepezil improves the well-being of patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register was searched using the terms 'donepezil', 'E2020' and 'Aricept'. Members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc were contacted. All unconfounded, double-blind, randomized controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was compared with placebo for patients with Alzheimer's disease. Data were extracted by one reviewer (JSB ), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the weighted mean differences or Peto odds ratios (95%CI) estimated. Where possible, intention-to-treat (ITT) data were used. Eight trials are included, involving 2664 participants. The trials were of 12, 24 or 52 weeks duration in selected patients. Available outcome data cover domains including cognitive function and global clinical state, but data on several important dimensions of outcome are not available. For cognition there is a statistically significant improvement for both 5 and 10 mg/day of donepezil at 24 weeks compared to placebo (1.9 points on the ADAS-Cog scale, WMD 1.86, 95%CI -2.60 to -1.11; 2.9 points on the ADAS-Cog scale, WMD -2.91, 95% CI -3.65 to -2.16)and for 10mg/day donepezil compared to placebo at 52 weeks (1.7 MMSE points, 95% CI, -2.59 to -0.82). The results of three studies show some improvement in global clinical state (assessed by an independent clinician) in those treated with 5 and 10mg/day of donepezil compared with placebo at 12 and 24 weeks. The patients' own ratings of their Quality of Life showed no benefit of donepezil compared with placebo. There were significantly more withdrawals before the end of treatment from the 10mg/day (but not the 5mg/day) donepezil group compared with placebo which may have resulted in some overestimation of beneficial changes at 10mg/day A variety of adverse effects were recorded, with more incidents of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and anorexia in the 10mg/day group compared with placebo and the 5mg/day group, but very few patients left a trial as a direct result of the intervention. In selected patients with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12, 24 or 52 weeks, donepezil produced modest improvements in cognitive function and study clinicians rated global clinical state more positively in treated patients. No improvements were present on patient self-assessed quality of life and data on many important outcomes are not available. The practical importance of these changes to patients and carers is unclear.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2000; · 5.94 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
32 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014