An open-label, multicenter observational study for patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with memantine in the clinical practice.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this post-marketing observational study, the safety and effectiveness of memantine were evaluated in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: In a 6-month, observational, open-label study at 202 specialist sites in Greece, the effectiveness of memantine was evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months. Discontinuation rates and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were also recorded to evaluate the safety profile of memantine. RESULTS: 2,570 patients participated in the study. Three and 6 months after baseline, MMSE and IADL scores were significantly improved compared to baseline. At the end of the study, 67% of the patients had improved their MMSE score; 7.1% of the patients reported ≥1 ADRs, and treatment was discontinued due to ADR in 0.7%. CONCLUSION: Memantine was well tolerated and had a positive effect on the patient's cognitive and functional ability in real-life clinical practice, in agreement with randomized, controlled trials.

Memantine in everyday clinical practice: a comparison of studies in Germany and Greece.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Results from German and Greek non-interventional studies were compared to investigate possible differences concerning efficacy, tolerability and compliance between both countries. METHODS: In two open-label, multicentre, non-interventional studies, 4,305 patients with mild to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) were treated with daily doses of 20 mg memantine for 6 months. Efficacy was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) scales. Safety and tolerability were recorded. RESULTS: After 6 months, the patients showed an improvement of their cognitive performance by 2 MMSE points compared to baseline (p < 0.001). MMSE values were improved in 67.4% of the patients, while 15.1% remained stable, and MMSE deteriorated in 17.5% only. The ability to perform IADL increased, as is indicated by lower values (baseline: 70.5; after 6 months: 66.6 points). Improvement of cognition and IADL was nearly identical in both countries. Treatment discontinuation was significantly more frequent in the Greek population, mainly due to non-adherence (9.4% of the safety population). 345 adverse events were recorded in 245 patients (6.3%), and they were significantly associated with country and age. CONCLUSION: The results correspond to those of clinical trials and support the efficacy and good tolerability of memantine in a realistic setting. Differences between the countries were observed regarding the baseline characteristics of patients (more female, older and more severe patients in Germany as well as less pretreatment with cholinesterase inhibitors) and regarding premature discontinuation and reported adverse drug reactions, which were both higher in Greece.

Escitalopram in clinical practice in Greece: treatment response and tolerability in depressed patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of escitalopram (10-20 mg/day) in adult outpatients suffering from major depressive disorder in naturalistic settings. METHODS: An open-label, 3-month, surveillance study was conducted in 434 investigative sites in Greece enrolling 5175 patients. Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scale and patient-rated Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) were used as efficacy measurements and treatment discontinuation rates due to adverse events was used to assess tolerability. RESULTS: Clinically significant improvement in CGI-S scores was recorded after 3 months. At baseline, patients reported marked or extreme disability for work (38%), social life (41%) and family life (37%), whereas after 3 months of treatment, 80.6%, 79.5% and 83.5% of patients indicated either no or mild disability, respectively. Escitalopram had good tolerability, demonstrated by a very low rate of discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: In this large naturalistic study, escitalopram was well tolerated and improved both depressive symptoms and function.

Increased remission rates with venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine in hospitalized patients with major depression and melancholia.

This was a 6-week, double-blind, randomized trial of the efficacy and tolerability of venlafaxine and fluoxetine in 109 patients with major depression and melancholia. Hospitalized and day care patients with DSM-IV major depression and melancholia and a baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score of > or = 25 were eligible. The doses were venlafaxine 75 mg/day or fluoxetine 20 mg/day from days 1-4, venlafaxine 150 mg/day or fluoxetine 40 mg/day from days 5-10, and venlafaxine 225 mg/day or fluoxetine 60 mg/day from days 11-42. The intention-to-treat analyses included 55 patients on venlafaxine and 54 on fluoxetine. At the final evaluation, 70% of patients with venlafaxine and 66% with fluoxetine had > or = 50% reduction in the MADRS score, and 70% with venlafaxine and 62% with fluoxetine had a Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score of 1 or 2. A CGI improvement score of 1 was observed in 51% of patients with venlafaxine and 32% with fluoxetine (P = 0.018). A final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score < 7 was attained in 41% of venlafaxine-treated and 36% of fluoxetine-treated patients. Overall, 22% of patients in each group discontinued therapy, but only 5% on venlafaxine and 9% on fluoxetine discontinued for adverse events. Nausea was reported in 5.5% of venlafaxine-treated patients and 14.8% of fluoxetine-treated patients. Venlafaxine was effective and well tolerated for treating inpatients with major depression and melancholia. Based on remission criteria (HAM-D < 7 or CGI of 1), venlafaxine was superior to fluoxetine.