Cognitive Efficacy (SIB) of 13.3 Versus 4.6 mg/24 h Rivastigmine Patch in Severe Alzheimer's Disease.

Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) data from the 24-week, randomized, double-blind ACTivities of daily living and cognitION (ACTION) study suggest that patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) benefit from treatment with 13.3 versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch. The objective of this retrospective analysis was to further examine the cognitive efficacy of 13.3 versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch on individual SIB items, and SIB domains derived using factor analysis of these items. Change from baseline at Week 24 on 9 new factor-defined domains and individual items was calculated and compared using effect sizes (Cohen's d). Numerically less decline was observed with 13.3 versus 4.6 mg/24 h patch on all domains and the majority of individual items. Largest least squares mean treatment differences were observed on "visuospatial reasoning," "object naming," "recognition," "design copying," "social agency," "ideational praxis," and "comprehension" domains. These findings suggest 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch demonstrates broad cognitive efficacy across a range of SIB items and domains in patients with severe AD.

A practical algorithm for managing Alzheimer's disease: what, when, and why?

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and its prevalence is increasing. Recent developments in AD management provide improved ways of supporting patients and their caregivers throughout the disease continuum. Managing cardiovascular risk factors, maintaining an active lifestyle (with regular physical, mental and social activity) and following a Mediterranean diet appear to reduce AD risk and may slow cognitive decline. Pharmacologic therapy for AD should be initiated upon diagnosis. All of the currently available cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs; donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine) are indicated for mild-to-moderate AD. Donepezil (10 and 23 mg/day) and rivastigmine transdermal patch (13.3 mg/24 h) are indicated for moderate-to-severe AD. Memantine, an N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist, is approved for moderate-to-severe AD. ChEIs have been shown to improve cognitive function, global clinical status and patients' ability to perform activities of daily living. There is also evidence for reduction in emergence of behavioral symptoms with ChEI therapy. Treatment choice (e.g., oral vs. transdermal) should be based on patient or caregiver preference, ease of use, tolerability, and cost. Treatment should be individualized; patients can be switched from one ChEI to another if the initial agent is poorly tolerated or ineffective. Memantine may be introduced in moderate-to-severe disease stages. Clinicians will regularly monitor symptoms and behaviors, manage comorbidities, assess function, educate and help caregivers access information and support, evaluate patients' fitness to drive or own firearms, and provide advice about the need for legal and financial planning. Review of caregiver well-being and prompt referral for support is vital.

Evaluating Response to High-Dose 13.3 mg/24 h Rivastigmine Patch in Patients with Severe Alzheimer's Disease.

AIMS: To identify factors predicting improvement/stabilization on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) and investigate whether early treatment responses can predict long-term outcomes, during a trial of 13.3 mg/24 h versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Logistic regression was used to relate Week 24 ADCS-CGIC score to potential baseline predictors. Additional analyses based on receiver-operating characteristic curves were performed using Week 8/16 ADCS-CGIC scores to predict response (13.3 mg/24 h patch) at Week 24. ADCS-CGIC score of (1) 1-3 = "improvement," (2) 1-4 = "improvement or no change". RESULTS: "Treatment" (13.3 mg/24 h patch) and increased age were significant predictors of "improvement" (P = 0.01 and P = 0.003, respectively), and "treatment" (P = 0.001), increased age (P = 0.002), and prior AD treatment (P = 0.03) for "improvement or no change". At Week 8 and 16, ADCS-CGIC scores of 4 and 5 were optimal thresholds in predicting "improvement," and "improvement or no change," respectively, at Week 24. CONCLUSIONS: A significant therapeutic effect of high-dose rivastigmine patch on ADCS-CGIC response was observed. The 13.3 mg/24 h patch was identified as a predictor of "improvement" or "improvement or no change". Patients with minimal worsening/improvement/no change after treatment initiation may be more likely to respond following long-term therapy.

A 24-Week, Open-Label Extension Study to Investigate the Long-term Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of 13.3 mg/24 h Rivastigmine Patch in Patients With Severe Alzheimer Disease.

The long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of high-dose 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch in severe Alzheimer disease was evaluated in a 24-week, open-label extension to the double-blind ACTION study. Safety and tolerability, and efficacy on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale-Severe Impairment Version (ADCS-ADL-SIV), Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), and ADCS-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) were assessed. Overall, 197 patients continued on 13.3 mg/24 h patch; 199 uptitrated from 4.6 mg/24 h to 13.3 mg/24 h patch. The incidence of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs was similar in patients who continued on, and patients who uptitrated to, 13.3 mg/24 h patch (AEs: 57.9% and 59.8%; serious AEs: 16.2% and 16.1%; discontinuations: 11.2% and 12.1%, respectively). Larger mean changes from double-blind baseline were observed in patients uptitrated on the ADCS-ADL-SIV (-4.6; SD=8.7) and SIB (-7.0; SD=16.6), than those who continued on 13.3 mg/24 h patch (-3.9; SD=8.0 and -4.7; SD=16.8, respectively). ADCS-CGIC scores were comparable. There were no clinically relevant between-group differences in safety and tolerability. Greater decline was observed in patients with delayed uptitration to high-dose 13.3 mg/24 h patch than patients who continued on high-dose patch.

Evaluating high-dose rivastigmine patch in severe Alzheimer's disease: analyses with concomitant memantine usage as a factor.

BACKGROUND: ACTION, a 24-week, prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), demonstrated significant efficacy of 13.3 mg/24 h versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch on the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) and Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living scale-Severe Impairment Version (ADCS-ADL-SIV). Overall, 61% of the study population received at least 1 dose of concomitant memantine, regardless of dose or duration. This retrospective analysis investigated the effects of concomitant memantine on the efficacy, safety and tolerability of 13.3 mg/24 h versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch. METHODS: Patients were stratified according to whether or not they received at least one dose of concomitant memantine during the double-blind phase. Changes from baseline on the SIB and ADCS-ADL-SIV were compared using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with treatment, pooled center, memantine usage and treatment-by-memantine as factors, and baseline as a covariate. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Memantine-treated patients were younger than those not receiving memantine (mean 75.9 and 78.8 years, respectively), with a lower screening Mini-Mental State Examination (8.6 and 9.2, respectively). ANCOVA confirmed there was no significant interaction (p>0.1) between study treatment and memantine use on the SIB or ADCS-ADL-SIV. The incidence of adverse events was: 71.4%, 13.3 mg/24 h patch with memantine; 79.7%, 13.3 mg/24 h patch alone; 74.7%, 4.6 mg/24 h patch with memantine; and 71.1%, 4.6 mg/24 h patch alone. CONCLUSION: These data suggest benefit of 13.3 mg/24 h versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch, regardless of concomitant memantine use. The incidence of adverse events with highdose patch was similar in memantine-treated patients and those not receiving memantine.

Rivastigmine from capsules to patch: therapeutic advances in the management of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia.

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the pharmacology, mechanism of action, and chemical properties of the cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) rivastigmine; to provide a rationale for transdermal delivery and supportive clinical data, along with practical guidance on rivastigmine patch use in Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease dementia. DATA SOURCES: Pivotal studies of rivastigmine capsules and patch were identified using PubMed and the rivastigmine US prescribing information. PubMed searches were performed in 2013 using rivastigmine as a keyword. STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles related to rivastigmine considered of relevance to primary care physicians were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pharmacologic differences exist between rivastigmine and ChEIs. Clinical studies demonstrate symptomatic efficacy of oral rivastigmine across all stages of Alzheimer's disease and mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease dementia. However, gastrointestinal adverse events limit access to optimal therapeutic doses. Strategies that lower maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) and prolong time to Cmax, ie, transdermal delivery, may improve tolerability. Clinical registration studies have demonstrated improved tolerability of rivastigmine 9.5-mg/24-h patch versus 6-mg twice-daily capsules in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, and a positive benefit-risk profile of 13.3-mg/24-h versus 9.5-mg/24-h patch in patients needing enhanced efficacy. Clinical data comparing 13.3-mg/24-h versus 4.6-mg/24-h patch in severe Alzheimer's disease demonstrated efficacy on cognition and activities of daily living. These data led to approval of rivastigmine patch in severe Alzheimer's disease. Transdermal delivery also has practical advantages, including simple, once-daily administration and a visual indicator of compliance. Potential application site reactions can be minimized and need not be a barrier to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to practical advantages, rivastigmine patch may improve clinical outcomes throughout the course of Alzheimer's disease by providing access to high-dose efficacy without compromising tolerability.

Efficacy of 13.3 mg/24 h versus 4.6 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch on activities of daily living in severe Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate efficacy of 13.3 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease on Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale-Severe Impairment Version items and domains. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the 24-week, randomized, double-blind ACTivities of daily living and cognitION (ACTION) study, using factor analysis to establish "best fit" for Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale-Severe Impairment Version items into domains. Treatment differences (13.3 vs 4.6 mg/24 h patch) on items and domains were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 632 patients provided Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale-Severe Impairment Version data. Factor analysis yielded four domains. The 13.3 versus 4.6 mg/24 h patch demonstrated significantly greater efficacy on "Daily function" (p = 0.038), supported by greatest effect sizes on items within this domain, and trend toward greater efficacy on "Communication" (p = 0.052). No significant between-group differences were observed on "Independence" (p = 0.600) or "Environment" (p = 0.261). CONCLUSION: The 13.3 mg/24 h patch was superior to 4.6 mg/24 h patch on "Daily function" in severe Alzheimer's disease.

Youth suicide risk and preventive interventions: a review of the past 10 years.

OBJECTIVE: To review critically the past 10 years of research on youth suicide. METHOD: Research literature on youth suicide was reviewed following a systematic search of PsycINFO and Medline. The search for school-based suicide prevention programs was expanded using two education databases: ERIC and Education Full Text. Finally, manual reviews of articles' reference lists identified additional studies. The review focuses on epidemiology, risk factors, prevention strategies, and treatment protocols. RESULTS: There has been a dramatic decrease in the youth suicide rate during the past decade. Although a number of factors have been posited for the decline, one of the more plausible ones appears to be the increase in antidepressants being prescribed for adolescents during this period. Youth psychiatric disorder, a family history of suicide and psychopathology, stressful life events, and access to firearms are key risk factors for youth suicide. Exciting new findings have emerged on the biology of suicide in adults, but, while encouraging, these are yet to be replicated in youths. Promising prevention strategies, including school-based skills training for students, screening for at-risk youths, education of primary care physicians, media education, and lethal-means restriction, need continuing evaluation studies. Dialectical behavior therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and treatment with antidepressants have been identified as promising treatments but have not yet been tested in a randomized clinical trial of youth suicide. CONCLUSIONS: While tremendous strides have been made in our understanding of who is at risk for suicide, it is incumbent upon future research efforts to focus on the development and evaluation of empirically based suicide prevention and treatment protocols.