The Association of Multimorbidity With Preclinical AD Stages and SNAP in Cognitively Unimpaired Persons.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity (defined as ≥2 chronic conditions) has been associated with increased risk of mild cognitive impairment and cross-sectionally with imaging biomarkers of neurodegeneration in cognitively unimpaired persons aged ≥70 years. Its association with preclinical Alzheimer's disease stages has not been studied in detail yet. The objective of the study was to assess the cross-sectional association of multimorbidity with preclinical Alzheimer's disease stages and suspected non-amyloid pathophysiology in cognitively unimpaired participants of the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (≥50 years of age). METHODS: The study included 1,535 cognitively unimpaired participants with multimorbidity, 11C-PiB positron emission topography and magnetic resonance imaging data available. Abnormal (elevated) 11C-PiB-positron emission topography retention ratio (A+; standardized uptake value ratio >1.42) and abnormal (reduced) Alzheimer's disease signature cortical thickness (N+; <2.67 mm) were used to define biomarker combinations (A-N-, A+N-, A-N+, A+N+). Chronic medical conditions were ascertained by using the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical records linkage system and International Classification of Diseases criteria. Cross-sectional associations were examined using multinomial logistic regression models adjusting for age, sex, education, and apolipoprotein E ɛ4 allele status. RESULTS: Frequency of A+, N+, A+N+, and A-N+ biomarker groups increased significantly with increasing number of chronic conditions. Multimorbidity was significantly associated with A+N+ (vs A-N-; odds ratio, 1.76, 95% confidence interval 1.02, 2.90) and A-N+ (vs A-N-; odds ratio, 2.16, 95% confidence interval 1.47, 3.18). There was a dose-response relationship between increasing number of chronic conditions (eg, 0-1, 2-3, and 4+) and the odds of A+N+ and A-N+ (vs A-N-). CONCLUSIONS: Multimorbidity was associated with biomarker combinations that included neurodegeneration with or without elevated amyloid deposition (ie, A-N+, A+N+). The associations should be validated in longitudinal studies.

Association Between Functional Performance and Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers in Individuals Without Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the cross-sectional association between functional performance and Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuroimaging biomarkers in individuals without dementia (cognitively unimpaired (CU), and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Olmsted County, Minnesota. PARTICIPANTS: Population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) participants (aged ≥ 50, mean age 71.3 ± 10.2; 53.4% male; 28.3% apolipoprotein (APO)E ε4 allele carriers, 1,578 CU, 204 MCI) who underwent 11 C-Pittsburgh compound B (11 C-PiB) positron emission tomography (PET) (N=1,782). MEASUREMENTS: We defined an abnormal (high) 11 C-PiB-PET retention ratio as a standardized uptake value ratio greater than 1.42 (high amyloid; A+), abnormal (reduced) AD signature cortical thickness (neurodegeneration; N+) as less than 2.67 mm (MRI measurement), and biomarker groups according to the combination of abnormality (or not) for amyloid accumulation (A+/A-) and neurodegeneration (N+/N-). Functional performance was assessed using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Sum of Boxes (SOB) for functional domains and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). RESULTS: Participants with a CDR-SOB (functional) score greater than 0 were almost 4 times as likely to have N + (odds ratio (OR)=3.92, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.77-8.67, adjusting for age, sex, education, global cognitive z-score, and APOE ε4 allele status; p<.001) and those with a FAQ score greater than 0 were 1.5 times as likely to have A + (OR=1.48, 95% CI=1.04-2.11, p=.03). Higher FAQ scores were associated with greater odds of A+N + and A-N + in CU participants. CONCLUSION: The findings of this cross-sectional study supplement limited available information that supports an association between functional performance and AD neuroimaging biomarkers very early in the dementia pathophysiology. The associations should be validated in longitudinal studies. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2274-2281, 2018.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Amyloid Positivity Among Persons Without Dementia in a Longitudinal, Population-Based Setting.

Importance: Brain amyloid deposition is a marker of Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology. The population-based prevalence and outcomes of amyloid positivity in a population without dementia are important for understanding the trajectory of amyloid positivity to clinically significant outcomes and for designing AD prevention trials. Objective: To determine prevalence and outcomes of amyloid positivity in a population without dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the prospective, population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging in Olmsted County, Minnesota, participants without dementia were randomly selected from the county population and were clinically and cognitively evaluated at baseline and every 15 months from August 1, 2008, to September 18, 2018. They were also invited to undergo carbon11-Pittburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Exposures: Amyloid positivity (defined as a standardized uptake value ratio >1.42 on PET). Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of amyloid positivity in the Olmsted County population without dementia and risk of progression from no cognitive impairment (ie, normal cognition for age) to incident amnestic MCI (aMCI) and from MCI or aMCI to incident AD dementia. Results: Of 3894 participants, 1671 underwent PET imaging and were included in the study; 2198 did not undergo imaging, and 25 were excluded for other reasons. The mean (SD) age of participants was 71.3 (9.8) years; 892 (53.4%) were men, and 179 (10.7%) had prevalent MCI. The prevalence of amyloid positivity without cognitive impairment in the population without dementia increased from 2.7% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.9%) in persons aged 50 to 59 years to 41.3% (95% CI, 33.4% to 49.2%) in those aged 80 to 89 years at baseline. Prevalence of amyloid-positive MCI in the population without dementia increased from 0% in persons aged 50 to 59 years to 16.4% (95% CI, 10.3% to 22.5%) in those aged 80 to 89 years. The incident aMCI risk increased more than 2-fold in participants without cognitive impairment who were amyloid positive vs those who were amyloid negative (hazard ratio [HR], 2.26; 95% CI, 1.52 to 3.35; P < .001). The risk of AD dementia was 1.86 (95% CI, 0.89 to 3.88; P = .10) for amyloid-positive participants with MCI vs amyloid-negative participants with MCI, 1.63 (95% CI, 0.78 to 3.41; P = .20) for participants with aMCI who were amyloid positive vs amyloid negative, and 2.56 (95% CI, 1.35 to 4.88; P = .004) for amyloid-positive participants who were either without cognitive impairment or had aMCI vs those who were amyloid negative. Global cognitive and memory domain z scores declined significantly in amyloid-positive individuals during follow-up. The mean (SD) follow-up time from baseline was 3.7 (1.9) years to incident aMCI and 3.8 (2.0) years to incident AD dementia. Conclusions and Relevance: Population-based prevalence of amyloid-positive status and progression rates of amyloid positivity provide valid information for designing AD prevention trials and assessing the public health outcomes of AD prevention and interventions.

The impact of ß-amyloid positron emission tomography on the diagnostic and treatment decisions of dementia experts.

AIM: Amyloid positron emission tomography (aPET) measurement of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology could improve the accurate diagnosis of cognitive disorders. Appropriate use criteria recommend that only dementia experts order aPET. MATERIALS & METHODS: We surveyed 145 dementia experts about their current approaches to evaluation and treatment and the likely influence of aPET. RESULTS: Experts expected aPET to alter diagnostic procedures and patient management and also increase diagnostic certainty. They anticipated confirming AD or altering pharmacological treatment following positive results more than excluding AD following negative results. Experts familiar with aPET reported changes that were more consistent with appropriate use criteria and published evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge about aPET strongly influenced effects on diagnostic certainty and changed clinical practice. Dementia experts may need additional training to achieve optimal benefit from aPET.

Histopathology and Florbetaben PET in Patients Incorrectly Diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease.

Of 57 individuals diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study, 13 (23%) had amyloid-ß (Aß) levels on postmortem histopathology that did not explain the dementia. Based on postmortem histopathology, a wide range of different non-AD conditions was identified, including frontotemporal dementia, hippocampal sclerosis, and dementia with Lewy bodies. Of the histopathologically Aß negative scored cases ante-mortem Florbetaben PET scans were classified as negative for Aß in 11 patients based on visual analysis and in all 12 quantifiable cases based on composite standardized uptake value ratios. Thus, florbetaben PET can assist physicians in the differential diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders by reliably excluding Aß pathology.

Predictors and impact of non-adherence in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder receiving OROS methylphenidate: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Medication non-adherence has an important impact on treatment efficacy and healthcare burden across a range of conditions and therapeutic areas. The aim of this analysis was to determine predictors of non-adherence and impact of non-adherence on treatment response in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of a 13-week randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study of OROS methylphenidate (MPH) 54 and 72 mg/day. Primary efficacy variable was the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale - Screening Version (CAARS:O-SV). Daily adherence was calculated as average daily adherence (100 × capsules taken/2), with overall adherence calculated as the average daily adherence. Predictors of adherence were assessed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were generated for change in CAARS:O-SV score for adherent (> 95% adherence) and non-adherent subjects. Predictors of change were analyzed using a mixed model. RESULTS: Subjects were allocated to OROS MPH (54 mg, n = 87; 72 mg, n = 92) or placebo (n = 97). Mean adherence was 92.6% and 93.3% (OROS MPH 54 and 72 mg/day, respectively), versus 97.5% (placebo). Adherence was higher and less variable in completers. Factors significantly associated with non-adherence included female sex, shorter time since ADHD diagnosis, higher education level (completion of university) and score on the Drug Use Screening Inventory psychiatric disorders subscale. Improvements from baseline in CAARS:O-SV score were numerically greater in subjects defined as adherent than in those who were non-adherent. Significant predictors of CAARS:O-SV change in patients who completed the study included percentage adherence up to the point of assessment (p < 0.0001), baseline score (p < 0.0001) and family history of ADHD (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis suggest that newly diagnosed patients, those with a high score on the DUSI-R psychiatric disorder scale, women, and subjects with high educational degrees may be at increased risk of non-adherence. Clinicians and policymakers should therefore pay special attention to these individuals, as non-adherence is a significant predictor of reduced response to treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT #: 2007-002111-82.

Efficacy and safety of prolonged-release OROS methylphenidate in adults with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a 13-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, fixed-dose study.

OBJECTIVES: Methylphenidate (MPH) is effective for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OROS MPH in adults with ADHD. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind study; 279 subjects received OROS MPH 54 or 72 mg/day, or placebo, for 13 weeks. Primary endpoint was the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale - Screening Version (CAARS-O:SV). Secondary outcomes included CAARS Self Report - Short Version (CAARS-S:S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and ADHD Impact Module - Adult (AIM-A). RESULTS: Improvements in CAARS-O:SV were significantly greater with OROS MPH 72 mg vs. placebo (P = 0.0024). CAARS-S:S scores decreased significantly vs. placebo in both OROS MPH arms (P < 0.05). There was no significant change in SDS score from baseline in either treatment arm, although significant benefit vs. placebo was observed on several AIM-A subscales. Treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: OROS MPH provided overall benefits in the treatment of adults with ADHD.

Correlation of symptomatic improvements with functional improvements and patient-reported outcomes in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder treated with OROS methylphenidate.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate correlations between symptom severity and daily functioning in adults with ADHD. METHODS: In the 5-week, double-blind LAMDA study, 401 adults with ADHD were randomly assigned to Osmotic-Release Oral System (OROS) methylphenidate (MPH) 18, 36 or 72 mg/day, or placebo. The primary variable - investigator-rated Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS:O-SV) - has been presented previously. Secondary endpoints included the self-reported version of CAARS (CAARS-S:S) and Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S). Daily functioning and quality of life were assessed using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Relationships between symptom and functional outcomes were evaluated in post-hoc Pearson partial correlation, multivariate regression and mediator analyses. RESULTS: Improvements in CAARS-S:S, CGI-S and SDS scores were significantly greater in each OROS MPH arm versus placebo (P < 0.01 for all comparisons). Correlations between symptom and functioning scores were significant for all comparisons (P < 0.0001). In regression analyses, CAARS Hyperactivity/Impulsivity subscale and CGI-S were correlated with SDS (P < 0.05). CAARS Inattention was correlated with the SDS Family Life domain (P < 0.05). In a mediator analysis, the impact of treatment on SDS scores was fully mediated by improvement in CAARS:O-SV score. CONCLUSIONS: OROS MPH 18-72 mg/day was associated with significant improvements in ADHD symptoms, which correlated with improved daily functioning and health-related quality of life.

Galantamine versus donepezil in Chinese patients with Alzheimer's disease: results from a randomized, double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors are considered standard of care for Alzheimer's disease in many countries. Galantamine is an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that may also act via allosteric modulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Therefore, it may provide benefits compared with other acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. The present study compared galantamine (n = 116) with donepezil (n = 117) in a double-blind trial at nine hospitals in China. METHODS: After washout of any previous acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease received galantamine or donepezil for 16 weeks. RESULTS: Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11) scores improved significantly from baseline in both treatment arms, with a significant difference in favor of galantamine on the "language" functional area (P = 0.035). Significantly more galantamine-treated patients responded to treatment (defined as a reduction in ADAS-cog/11 score of >4, >7, or >10 points; all P < 0.05), and had an ADAS-cog/11 score < 20 at end point (P = 0.015). Both treatments were well tolerated, although fewer galantamine-treated patients experienced gastrointestinal adverse events compared with donepezil (30% versus 48%). CONCLUSION: Cognitive function improved significantly in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease treated with galantamine or donepezil, and both treatments were generally well tolerated. Significant benefits for galantamine over donepezil were observed for language and response to treatment.

Predictors of placebo response in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: data from 2 randomized trials of osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate.

OBJECTIVE: To find potential correlates of placebo response in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and gain insights into why placebo response may be high in clinical trials. METHOD: Post hoc analysis of placebo data from 2 randomized controlled trials of osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate in adults with ADHD defined according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases, Fourth Edition: the Long-Acting Methylphenidate in Adults with ADHD (LAMDA-I) study (2005-2006, 5 weeks, n = 95) and the LAMDA-II study (2008-2009, 13 weeks, n = 97). The primary efficacy measure was the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale-observer rated, short version (CAARS:O-SV). Predictors of CAARS:O-SV change were assessed using a random-intercepts model with demographic and disease-related parameters as independent variables. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using the CAARS self-report (CAARS:S-S) and a categorical response criterion (improvement of > 30% in CAARS:O-SV), and in subjects who completed the study. RESULTS: In LAMDA-I, mean ± SD change in CAARS:O-SV was -7.6 ± 9.9 with placebo and -11.9 ± 10.6 with OROS methylphenidate. Higher baseline CAARS score (P = .007) and lower educational achievement (P = .014) were significantly associated with greater improvement in placebo-treated subjects. In LAMDA-II, mean ± SD change in CAARS:O-SV was -10.4 ± 11.0 and -14.1 ± 10.7 in subjects receiving placebo and OROS methylphenidate, respectively. Variables significantly associated with greater placebo response were higher baseline CAARS:O-SV (P = .019), shorter time since ADHD diagnosis (P < .045), and younger age (P = .014). None of the sensitivity analyses challenged the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Possible predictors of placebo response in adults with ADHD include higher severity of ADHD symptoms, younger age, shorter time since diagnosis, and lower educational level.

The negative impact of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder on occupational health in adults and adolescents.

PURPOSE: To review the negative effects of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adolescence and adulthood on work productivity and occupational health. METHODS: A review of the MEDLINE database was carried out to identify direct and indirect effects of ADHD on work, employment and occupational health. RESULTS: ADHD is associated with higher levels of unemployment versus controls. Adults with ADHD who are employed experience workplace impairment and reduced productivity, as well as behavioural issues such as irritability and low frustration tolerance. Adults with ADHD are also at increased risk of accidents, trauma and workplace injuries, particularly traffic accidents. Indirect effects of ADHD on occupational health include reduced educational achievement and increased rates of substance abuse and criminality. Overall, ADHD in adults has a substantial economic impact as a result of absenteeism and lost productivity. Psychoeducation, combined with stimulant medications if necessary, is recommended as first-line treatment for adults with ADHD. Limited data available suggest that stimulant treatment can improve work productivity and efficacy, and reduce the risks associated with driving, although further studies are necessary. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD can affect the ability to gain and maintain employment and to work safely and productively. As ADHD is a treatable condition, patients, employers and physicians have a role to play in ensuring optimal occupational health.

The economic impact of galantamine vs placebo: an analysis based on functional capacity in a Swedish cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the economic impact of galantamine, based on basic activities of daily living (ADL). METHODS: Data were derived from Swedish patients enrolled in a 6-month placebo-controlled trial of galantamine (GAL-INT-1; n=80), and from the Kungsholmen-Nordanstig Project, a longitudinal study of 919 elderly persons in Sweden. Basic ADL were assessed using the Katz' Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (number of ADL lost [dependency in 0, 1-2, 3-4, or 5-6 ADL]). Costs were appraised based on regression analysis and on costs directly linked to ADL. Six-month costs for galantamine and placebo were calculated. RESULTS: In the regression analyses, each increase in a Katz stage was associated with an annual cost increase of SEK 81,415-83,683 (∼€8000). Results were similar using stage-specific costs. Overall, there was a small, non-significant numerical cost benefit for galantamine indicating cost neutrality. LIMITATIONS: The small number of Swedish patients in the GAL-INT-1 study, which was not powered for economic outcomes, limits the statistical power of the analysis. In addition, long-term outcomes are difficult to assess in persons with dementia because of practical and logistical problems. CONCLUSIONS: The benefits of galantamine in patients with AD can be achieved with no increase in cost. Combined with positive effects in terms of outcome, treatment with galantamine can be regarded as cost-effective using a cost-consequence approach.

Long-term efficacy and safety outcomes with OROS-MPH in adults with ADHD.

Methylphenidate (MPH) is widely prescribed for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but data on long-term treatment and maintenance of effect are lacking. Osmotic release oral system-methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) was evaluated in a 52-wk open-label study in subjects who had previously completed a short-term placebo-controlled trial and short-term open-label extension. Efficacy was assessed using the investigator- and subject-rated Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS:O-SV and CAARS:S-S), and the Clinical Global Impression - Severity (CGI-S), Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q). Subjects completing ≥52 wk of treatment were eligible for a 4-wk randomized, placebo-controlled withdrawal phase in which loss of treatment effect was assessed using CAARS:O-SV and CGI-S. In the open-label phase (n=156), mean CAARS:O-SV score decreased from baseline by 1.9±7.8 (p<0.01), and small, statistically significant improvements from baseline were observed for CAARS:S-S, CGI-S and SDS. In the double-blind phase (OROS-MPH, n=23; placebo, n=22), CAARS:O-SV increased from double-blind baseline in the OROS-MPH and placebo arms (4.0±7.6 vs. 6.5±7.8, not statistically significant). Long-term OROS-MPH treatment was well tolerated, and there was no evidence of withdrawal or rebound after discontinuation. In conclusion, the short-term benefits of OROS-MPH continue during long-term open-label treatment. Maintenance of efficacy in a placebo-controlled withdrawal design remains to be confirmed in larger patient populations.

Effect of transitioning from extended-release methylphenidate onto osmotic, controlled-release methylphenidate in children/adolescents with ADHD: results of a 3-month non-interventional study.

BACKGROUND: To explore the clinical outcomes of children/adolescents with ADHD who transitioned from extended-release methylphenidate (ER MPH, Medikinet Retard) to osmotic release oral system (OROS) MPH (Concerta). Medikinet Retard is a registered trade name of Medice, Bad Iserlohn, Germany. Concerta is a registered trade name of Janssen-Cilag GmbH, Neuss, Germany. METHODS: This prospective, non-interventional study included patients aged 6 to 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD who experienced insufficient clinical response and/or poor tolerability on ER MPH. Patients transitioned onto OROS MPH and were followed for 12 weeks. Symptoms, functional outcome, health-related quality of life, safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: 180 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean ER MPH dose before switching was 28.2 mg/day; mean OROS MPH starting dose was 38.1 mg/day, increasing to 41.2 mg/day at the final visit. Mean treatment duration was 79.49 ± 24.22 days (median 85; range 7-136). Several symptomatic and functional outcomes under OROS MPH treatment changed from baseline and included the Conners' Parent Rating Scale (CPRS; -11.7 ± 11.3; p < 0.0001), C-GAS (12.3 ± 15.2; p < 0.0001) and ILC-LQ0-28 (parents' rating 2.9 ± 4.3 and patients' rating 2.8 ± 3.8; both p < 0.0001). Improvements in social interactions, playing with other children, doing household chores, or school homework, going to bed, and behavior towards visitors/at visits were noted (p < 0.0001). Approximately 40% of patients reported better sleep quality and appetite (p < 0.0001), and 72.8% expressed satisfaction with OROS MPH therapy compared to previous ER MPH. OROS MPH was well tolerated; the most common AEs after switching, with an incidence >2% and possibly related to therapy, were involuntary muscle contractions (tics; 8.9%), insomnia (7.2%) and anorexia (5.0%). No relevant changes in body weight or vital signs were observed. Three patients reported four serious AEs, but none were considered related to OROS MPH. Limitations included those associated with the uncontrolled, open-label design, possible inclusion bias and non-validation of the CPRS in a German population. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning onto OROS MPH improved functionality, symptom control and decreased burden of disease in patients with ADHD who had insufficient response to, and/or poor tolerability of ER MPH. Similarly, care givers benefited from patients' treatment and reported significant reduction in their burden of disease and improvement of their quality of life upon the child's transition onto OROS MPH.

Long-term assessment of topiramate for epilepsy: an open-label, single-arm, multicentre, prospective study in a naturalistic setting.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Most patients with epilepsy require long-term medical therapy. Newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) appear to be overall similarly effective to older agents but may be better tolerated. However, most of the clinical data available for newer AEDs derive from a number of short-term studies. The objective of this study was to explore long-term outcomes in patients with epilepsy treated with topiramate in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This was an open-label, multicentre, optional follow-up monotherapy study that included adolescents and adults with epilepsy who completed two similarly designed 28- or 30-week studies and agreed to participate for an additional 52 weeks. Seizure types and frequency, topiramate dose, vital signs and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) after 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks were documented. Post hoc analyses to explore differences between males and females were conducted. RESULTS: 114 patients (49.0% women, mean ± SD age 43 ± 17.5 years) with a mean ± SD disease duration of 61 ± 118 months (men 54 ± 96 vs women 68 ± 138 months) were followed up for a median of 18.5 months. Seventy-eight percent of patients completed the study. Reasons for premature discontinuation were: loss to follow-up (10.5%), TEAE (5.3%), lack of efficacy (2.6%), non-adherence (0.9%) and other reasons (4.4%). Seizure frequency per 4 weeks decreased from a mean ± SD 5.0 ± 28.3 at baseline to 0.6 ± 2.1 during the whole observation period. Fifty-four patients (52.9%) were seizure free during the whole observation period. In addition, 69 of 95 patients (72.6%) whose topiramate therapy was stable within a range of ±50 mg/day for a period of at least 12 months (maintenance phase) were seizure free while treated with a median topiramate dose of 100 mg/day. The most frequently reported TEAEs were paraesthesias (13.2% of patients), dizziness (7.0%) and seizure-related events (7.0%). No significant differences between males and females were found for treatment response or retention. CONCLUSION: Topiramate is an effective and well tolerated long-term treatment option for adolescents and adults with epilepsy.

Long-term effects of galantamine on cognitive function in Alzheimer's disease: a large-scale international retrospective study.

In Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to consider long-term effects, not only in patients receiving treatment, but also in subjects in whom therapy has been discontinued. The present analysis evaluates the long-term effects of galantamine on cognitive function in AD in terms of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores for up to 7 years, using both clinical data and epidemiological modeling. Consideration is given not only to patients continuing to receive galantamine therapy, but also to those who stop this treatment. In a retrospective review of medical notes, re-contacted study investigators obtained data from 258 patients originally recruited into three previously described randomized clinical trials involving galantamine: two placebo-controlled trials in mild-to-moderate AD (of 3 and 6 months' duration, followed by open-label extensions) and the galantamine-treatment arm of a 12-month comparative study with donepezil in moderate AD. Information relating to disease progression was collated (up to five MMSE scores, separated by at least 3 months, for each patient). Changes in MMSE scores over time were evaluated using observed data. In the absence of long-term placebo, the rate of cognitive decline without treatment was projected using a previously described epidemiological model. A new, exploratory statistical model was also developed. Results showed that patients with mild-to-moderate AD who received long-term galantamine treatment exhibited attenuated decline in cognitive function, as assessed by MMSE, compared with decline predicted in the absence of treatment. Furthermore, patients who stopped treatment experienced subsequent cognitive decline at a rate similar to that predicted for untreated patients.

Exploring the impact of once-daily OROS® methylphenidate (MPH) on symptoms and quality of life in children and adolescents with ADHD transitioning from immediate-release MPH.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in children/adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who required a therapy switch from immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate (MPH) and were initiated on Osmotic Release Oral System (OROS(®)) MPH. METHODS: Prospective, noninterventional study including patients (aged 6-18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD who transitioned from IR MPH to OROS(®) MPH based on medical needs. Patients were transitioned to OROS(®) MPH and were followed for 12 weeks. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, functional outcomes, HRQoL, and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: 598 patients entered the intention-to-treat analysis. The mean OROS(®) MPH starting dose was 29.5 ± 12.0 mg/day, increasing slightly to 33.5 ± 13.2 mg/day at final visit. Compared with baseline, there were significant (all P < 0.0001) symptomatic, functional, and HRQoL improvements after transitioning from IR MPH to OROS(®) MPH as assessed by the Conners' Parent Rating Scale (from 29.0 ± 10.5 to 19.5 ± 11.1), Children's Global Assessment Scale (by 11.0 ± 13.3), and Inventory for Assessing Quality of Life (ILC) LQ0-28 scores (parents' rating from 17.2 ± 3.9 to 19.4 ± 4.0; patients' rating from 18.7 ± 4.0 to 20.5 ± 3.9). Overall, no significant changes in quality of sleep or appetite were observed. More than 70% of parents and physicians rated the effectiveness of OROS(®) MPH as at least "good" and were at least "satisfied" with OROS(®) MPH. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were insomnia and anorexia. No clinically relevant changes in body weight or vital signs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this naturalistic setting, transitioning from IR MPH to OROS(®) MPH, in patients who showed previously insufficient response and/or poor tolerability, was successful. Patients' and parents' HRQoL as well as burden of disease showed a clinically relevant improvement. OROS(®) MPH was generally safe and well tolerated.

Improved functionality, health related quality of life and decreased burden of disease in patients with ADHD treated with OROS® MPH: is treatment response different between children and adolescents?

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes between children and adolescents with ADHD treated with OROS® MPH, using data from two large similarly-designed multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-arm, non-interventional studies. METHODS: Pooled analysis (42603ATT4037, 42603 - ATT - 4001) including patients (6 to 18 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD. Patients were treated with OROS® MPH for 12 weeks; ADHD symptoms, functioning, HRQoL, safety and tolerability parameters were assessed. RESULTS: 822 patients (583 children [6-12 years], 239 adolescents [13-18 years]) were included in the pooled analysis. Mean daily OROS® MPH starting doses in the child and adolescent subgroups were 29.0 ± 11.7 and 37.6 ± 15.6 mg, respectively (p < 0.001). At study end (week 12), the overall mean daily dose was 35.5 ± 14.0 mg, with children and adolescents receiving 32.8 ± 12.7 and 42.0 ± 15.1 mg/day, respectively (p < 0.001). Significant (p < 0.0001: overall population, children, adolescents) symptomatic, functional and HRQoL improvements were observed from baseline to study end using the Conners' Parents Rating Scale (overall: 29.2 ± 10.7 [baseline] to 19.3 ± 11.3 [endpoint]), Children's Global Assessment Scale (overall: 58.5 ± 14.5 [baseline] to 69.6 ± 16.1 [endpoint]), and ILC-LQ0-28. At week 12, between-age group differences were seen in the individual ILC-LQ0-28 parameters: school performance (p = 0.001 [parents' assessment], p = 0.032 [childrens' assessment]), global QoL (p = 0.012 [parents']) and interests and hobbies (p = 0.023 [childrens']). Treating physician's planned continued use of OROS® MPH in 76.9%, 86.0% and 79.3% of children, adolescents and the total population, respectively, at study end (p = 0.029 between-age subgroups). 195 of 822 patients (23.7%) experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event; most commonly reported AEs in the total group (≥4%) were insomnia (7.2%), anorexia (4.3%) and involuntary muscle contractions (4.1%). No clinically relevant changes in body weight or vital signs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically relevant differences between children and adolescents with ADHD are present. Adolescents appeared to have a lower health related quality of life and functioning compared to children at baseline, however, they were able to reach comparable ratings at endpoint for most items. Similarly, burden of disease decreased in patients and their carers. OROS MPH was generally safe and well tolerated.

Reliability of seizure semiology in patients with 2 seizure foci.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether seizure semiology is reliable in localizing and distinguishing seizures at 2 independent brain foci in the same patient. DESIGN: Two masked reviewers localized seizures from 2 foci by their clinical semiology and intracranial electroencephalograms (EEGs). SETTING: Epilepsy monitoring unit of referral comprehensive epilepsy program. PATIENTS: Seventeen consecutive patients (51 seizures) with sufficient video and intracranial EEG data were identified by reviewing medical records of 366 patients older than 10 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were interobserver agreement between the 2 masked reviewers; the proportion of seizures localized by semiology; the proportion of localized seizures concordant with intracranial EEG localization; and comparison between concordant and nonconcordant seizures in latency of intracranial EEG seizure spread. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement was 41% (κ score, 0.16). Only 30 of 51 seizures (59%) were localized by seizure semiology. The focus localized by semiology was concordant with the location of intracranial EEG seizure onset in 16 of 30 seizures (53%). No significant difference was observed between concordant and nonconcordant seizures in relation to the speed with which the EEG discharge spread from the location of seizure onset to another lobar region (P = .09, Wilcoxon rank sum test). CONCLUSION: Clinical seizure semiology is not as useful as intracranial EEG in localizing seizure onset in patients with dual seizure foci.

Cessation versus continuation of galantamine treatment after 12 months of therapy in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled withdrawal trial.

Galantamine improved symptoms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients after 5 to 6 months of treatment. To examine long-term outcomes, this study assessed if continuing of galantamine treatment beyond 12 months delayed further cognitive deterioration. It consisted of two phases: an open label (OL) phase (12 months), followed by a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled withdrawal phase (up to 24 months). Subjects with mild to moderate AD were included in the study and titrated up to 16 mg/day of galantamine. Subjects were eligible to enter the double blind phase if a cognitive decline of <4 points on AD Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog)/11 was recorded at the end of the OL phase. The differences between galantamine and placebo in time to dropout were estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model. 47.4% of galantamine and 31.7% of placebo subjects completed the double blind phase. Placebo subjects were more likely to discontinue prematurely than galantamine subjects for any reason (hazard ratio [HR] 1.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-2.81, p = 0.02), or lack of efficacy (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.02-3.18, p = 0.04); no statistically significant difference was seen for a change in ADAS-cog ≥ 4 between treatment groups (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.78-3.54, p = 0.19). Subjects who responded to 12 months of galantamine treatment benefited from continued drug therapy for up to 36 months. Galantamine was effective in delaying time to cognitive deterioration in subjects with mild to moderate AD. Treatment was generally safe and well tolerated.