Donepezil treatment in severe Alzheimer's disease: a pooled analysis of three clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Individual clinical trials have demonstrated benefits of donepezil in patients with severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Data were pooled from three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of donepezil for severe AD to further evaluate treatment effects and overall tolerability/safety. METHODS: Total scores and sub-scores were analyzed for measures of cognition, global function, function, and behavior. Additional analyses were performed to investigate (1) relationships between cognitive, functional, and behavioral changes, and (2) patterns of combined domain response. RESULTS: Using pooled total scores, significant treatment differences at endpoint in favor of donepezil were observed for cognition, global function (both p < 0.0001), and function (p = 0.03), with an effect size (Cohen's d) of 0.51, 0.26, and 0.17, respectively. There was no significant treatment difference for behavior. However, donepezil-treated patients with stabilized/improved cognition tended to show significant improvements in function and behavior over placebo-treated patients. Patients treated with donepezil were 2-3 times more likely to achieve a combined domain response than placebo-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Adverse events were as expected for cholinergic therapy, and mortality rates were similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest measurable donepezil-mediated symptomatic benefits in cognition, global function, and daily living activities in patients with severe AD. The treatment effects support the importance of cholinesterase inhibition as a clinically relevant therapeutic option across the spectrum of AD.

Rates of cognitive change in Alzheimer disease: observations across a decade of placebo-controlled clinical trials with donepezil.

Treatment success in Alzheimer disease (AD) trials is generally based on benefits over placebo-treated controls. Consequently, variation in rates of decline among placebo-treated patients could impact outcomes from AD trials. In the present analyses, individual patient data [baseline Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): 10 to 26] were pooled from randomized, placebo-controlled studies of donepezil for AD conducted during the 1990s, and grouped by initiation year-group 1: 1990 to 1994; group 2: 1996 to 1999. Changes in MMSE and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) were compared between groups 1 and 2 for placebo, and then between donepezil and placebo. Data were available from 3403 patients in 13 trials. Group 2 (post-1995) included patients with lower baseline MMSE scores, older patients, fewer males, more comorbidity, and more concomitant medications. MMSE decline by week 24 was significantly greater among group 1 (pre-1995) placebo patients versus group 2; a similar trend was observed with the ADAS-cog. Nevertheless, donepezil-mediated treatment effects were consistent over the decade of enrollment. These analyses suggest that patients are showing slower rates of cognitive decline in more recent trials compared with older trials, although having more comorbidities. This finding may have important potential implications for future clinical trial design.

Predictors of migraine headache recurrence: a pooled analysis from the eletriptan database.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical variables associated with risk of headache recurrence within 22 hours of initial successful treatment of a migraine attack (2-hour headache response), and to analyze the effect of eletriptan in reducing the incidence of recurrence. METHODS: Data were pooled from 10 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials evaluating eletriptan 40 mg (E40), eletriptan 80 mg (E80), and sumatriptan 100 mg (S100) for acute migraine treatment. Patients who achieved a headache response (improvement from moderate/severe pain at baseline to mild/no pain at 2 hours postdose) were evaluable. A multivariable logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors of headache recurrence (return to moderate/severe pain intensity within 22 hours of initial headache response). Treatment response was assessed in two high-risk subgroups, defined by the presence of significant recurrence predictors. RESULTS: Of 4312 patients responding to acute treatment within 2 hours postdose, 1232 (29%) experienced recurrence. Initial headache response within 2 hours was significantly higher for E40 (62.0%), E80 (67.4%), and S100 (57.9%) compared to placebo (25.1%; all P < .0001). Three clinical variables were significant predictors of recurrence: female gender, age > or = 35 years, and severe baseline headache pain. Among patients with all 3 risk factors (n = 742; 17% of total population), recurrence rates were lower with E40 (35.6%) and E80 (32.9%) than placebo (47.8% P < .01). The same result was observed in the subgroup of patients with 2 risk factors (female gender and age > or = 35 years; P < .0001 vs placebo). Sustained headache and pain-free response rates (a headache/pain-free response at 2 hours postdose with no headache recurrence and no rescue medication use in the subsequent 22 hours) were significantly higher with E40 and E80 than placebo in both high-risk subgroups (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Female gender, age > or = 35 years, and severe baseline headache pain are significant predictors of headache recurrence during a migraine attack. Eletriptan is effective at reducing the incidence of headache recurrence in high-risk subgroups.

Efficacy of eletriptan in migraine-related functional impairment: functional and work productivity outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a multidimensional assessment of the extent of functional impairment during an acute migraine attack, and of the improvement in functioning in response to treatment, using 4 concurrently administered scales: the 7-item work productivity questionnaire (PQ-7), the functional assessment in migraine (FAIM) activities and participation (FAIM-A&P) subscale, the FAIM-impact of migraine on mental functioning (FAIM-IMMF) subscale, and the traditional 4-point global functional impairment scale (FIS). METHODS: Outpatients with an International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnosis of migraine were randomized to double-blind treatment of a single attack with either oral eletriptan 20 mg (n = 192) once-daily, eletriptan 40 mg (N = 213) once-daily, or placebo (n = 208). Patients were encouraged to take study medication as soon as they were sure they were experiencing a typical migraine headache, after the aura phase (if present) had ended. Patients with moderate-to-severe functional impairment were identified on each of the 4 disability scales, and 2-hour functional response was compared between treatments. RESULTS: At baseline, the PQ-7 and FAIM-IMMF items that assessed ability to perform tasks requiring concentration, sustained work or attention, and ability to think quickly or spontaneously, were especially sensitive to the effects of mild headache pain, with 27% to 48% of patients (n = 92-112) reporting moderate-to-severe impairment. Only 11.3% of patients (n = 112) reported this level of impairment due to mild pain on the FIS. Functional response at 2 hours was significantly higher on eletriptan 40 mg versus placebo on the FAIM-A&P (63% vs 36%; n = 218; P < .0001); on the PQ-7 (56% vs 34%; n = 116; P= .0052); and on the FAIM-IMMF (50% vs 34%; n = 215; P= .017). These rates were all lower than the functional response rates on the FIS for eletriptan 40 mg (75%) and eletriptan 20 mg (70%) versus placebo (45%; P < .001). Conclusions.-In this exploratory analysis, use of multidimensional scales was found to provide a sensitive measure of headache-related functional impairment, especially for detecting clinically meaningful cognitive effects, and for detecting drug versus placebo differences.

Efficacy of eletriptan in triptan-naïve patients: results of a combined analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg in triptan-naïve patients (who have not previously used triptans) versus triptan-experienced patients (who have previously used triptans). METHODS: Efficacy and tolerability data for eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg were pooled from 10 similarly designed, randomized, parallel-group studies, and triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced patients were compared with placebo across the 3 triptan doses. The primary efficacy endpoint was headache response at 2 hours postdose. Secondary efficacy endpoints were 2-hour pain-free response, 2-hour absence of associated symptoms, 2-hour functional response, 24-hour sustained headache response, and 24-hour sustained pain-free response. RESULTS: For eletriptan 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg versus placebo, respectively, triptan-naïve patients showed significantly higher 2-hour headache response (54%, 61%, 66% vs. 31%; P < .0001), 2-hour pain-free response (20%, 28%, and 31% vs. 8%; P < .0001), and 24-hour sustained headache response (34%, 45%, and 51% vs. 20%; P < .0001). A similarly significant efficacy advantage was also observed in the triptan-experienced subgroup for 2-hour headache response (46%, 63%, 69% vs. 21%; P < .0001), 2-hour pain-free response (13%, 32%, and 38% vs. 4%; P < .0001), and 24-hour sustained headache response (29%, 41%, and 45% vs. 9%; P < .0001). Previous treatment status did not influence tolerability, and all 3 doses of eletriptan were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that eletriptan has comparable efficacy versus placebo among both triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced patients.

Eletriptan in migraine patients reporting unsatisfactory response to rizatriptan.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this open-label study was to evaluate the efficacy of switching patients who had a previous unsatisfactory response to rizatriptan to eletriptan 40 mg. Background.-The characteristics of individual migraine patients can vary tremendously and can have a significant impact on treatment outcomes. In addition, clinical experience has demonstrated that the triptans are not identical or interchangeable and that patients who respond poorly or who are dissatisfied with one agent can derive benefit by being switched to another agent within the triptan class. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they met International Headache Society criteria for migraine, with a frequency of 1 to 6 migraine attacks per month, and had documented "unsatisfactory treatment response" to rizatriptan within the past year (54% on the melt formulation; 46% on tablets). Reasons for dissatisfaction with rizatriptan (>1 could be cited) included inadequate (84%) or slow onset (50%) of pain relief, high recurrence rate (69%), and lack of improvement in associated symptoms (60%). One hundred twenty-three patients were eligible for treatment. Patients were instructed to take eletriptan 40 mg as soon as they were certain that their headache was a migraine, regardless of level of pain severity (8% treated headaches that were mild). RESULTS: Headache response at 2 hours (first-attack data) was 64%. Absence of nausea (from baseline to 2 hours) increased from 50% to 78%, absence of photophobia from 30% to 72%, and absence of phonophobia from 39% to 77%. Functional response at 2 hours was 63%, with 41% of patients reporting normal functioning. Treatment with eletriptan 40 mg was associated with a 27% to 40% reduction in migraine attack-related functional impairment, as measured by the PQ-7. Recurrence rates were 36.6%. Overall, 72% of patients rated eletriptan as a "good-to-excellent" treatment, and 78% reported overall satisfaction with the degree of headache relief. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that eletriptan is an efficacious treatment option for patients who are dissatisfied with their response to rizatriptan.

Efficacy and safety of a once-daily graded-release diltiazem formulation dosed at bedtime compared to placebo and to morning dosing in chronic stable angina pectoris.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a once-daily graded-release diltiazem hydrochloride (GRD) formulation dosed at 10 PM in doses of 180, 360, and 420 mg were compared with placebo and with GRD 360 mg dosed once daily at 8 AM in patients (n = 311) with chronic stable angina pectoris. METHODS: This was a 3-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial. Standard Bruce protocol treadmill stress test was performed at baseline and end point between 6 and 8 PM (trough for evening doses) and between 7 and 11 AM (trough for morning doses). RESULTS: All GRD evening doses showed a significant (P < or = .0201) increase in total duration of exercise at trough and a greater significant increase (P < or = .0002) at peak, compared with placebo. The GRD 360-mg evening dose showed the greatest increase at trough. In contrast, GRD 360-mg morning dose showed an increase in total duration of exercise at trough that was not significantly different (P = .0555) from placebo AM. GRD 360-mg evening dose showed a 4-fold placebo-adjusted improvement compared with GRD 360-mg morning dose between 7 and 11 AM. Significant increases (P < or = .0240) in time to onset of angina were obtained for all evening doses at trough and peak. All GRD doses were well tolerated, and incidence of adverse events for all GRD groups combined was less than that for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Bedtime GRD significantly increases exercise tolerance in patients with angina pectoris over the 24-hour dosing interval. A greater 4-fold placebo-adjusted improvement occurred between 7 and 11 AM compared with the same morning dose, coinciding with the period of increased cardiovascular risk. GRD was safe and well tolerated.

Effects of graded-release diltiazem versus ramipril, dosed at bedtime, on early morning blood pressure, heart rate, and the rate-pressure product.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic agents for the treatment of hypertension may differ in their efficacy during the early morning period, a time when both morbid and mortal cardiovascular events are increased compared to other times of the day. METHODS: We studied the effects of a graded-release delivery system of diltiazem (diltiazem HCL extended release tablets) versus ramipril, both dosed at bedtime, on blood pressure (BP), heart rate, and the heart rate-systolic BP product during the first 4 hours after awakening in a double-blind, titration-to-effect trial. There were 261 men and women enrolled in the trial with an untreated sitting diastolic BP of 90 to 109 mm Hg and ambulatory daytime diastolic BP of 85 to 109 mm Hg. Patients were randomized to either diltiazem extended release (ER) tablets each evening (240 mg titrated to 360 mg and to 540 mg) or ramipril each evening (5 mg titrated to 10 mg and to 20 mg). Early morning assessments of BP, heart rate, and the heart rate-systolic BP product were performed using 24-hour ambulatory recordings after 10 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: In each therapeutic group, 76% of patients were titrated to the highest possible dose. After 10 weeks of treatment, reductions in early morning BP by diltiazem ER tablets were significantly greater (-18/-15 mm Hg) than reductions by ramipril (-13/-8 mmHg, P <.005 for systolic BP and P <.001 for diastolic BP). Diltiazem ER tablets also led to greater reductions in morning heart rate and the heart rate-pressure product compared to ramipril. Reductions in mean 24-hour diastolic BP, heart rate, and the rate-pressure product were greater in patients treated with diltiazem ER tablets compared to ramipril, while reductions in 24-hour systolic BP were similar in each group. The observed adverse effects were not serious and incidences were similar for the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that bedtime administration of diltiazem ER, an agent designed to parallel the circadian rhythm of BP and heart rate, led to significantly greater early morning hemodynamic effects compared to the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril, also dosed in the evening.

Antihypertensive efficacy of night-time graded-release diltiazem versus morning amlodipine in African Americans.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a once daily night-time (10 pm) graded-release diltiazem (GRD) on early morning blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), and rate-pressure product (RPP) were compared with the effect of morning (8 am) amlodipine in 262 African American individuals with hypertension. METHODS: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-to-effect trial evaluated changes from baseline in BP, HR, and RPP (HR x systolic BP) by ambulatory BP monitoring during the first 4 h after awakening (diastolic BP = primary), between 6 am and 12 noon, and over a 24-h period. Patients were randomized to night-time GRD 360 mg (n = 132) or morning amlodipine 5 mg (n = 130) for 6 weeks, and were titrated to GRD 540 mg or amlodipine 10 mg after 6 weeks if clinic systolic BP/diastolic BP (SBP/DBP) was > or = 130/85 mm Hg. RESULTS: Compared with amlodipine, GRD showed significantly greater DBP reductions of 3.5 mm Hg (P < .0049) and 3.2 mm Hg (P < .0019) during the first 4 h after awakening and between 6 am and 12 noon respectively, as well as comparable reduction for the 24-h mean DBP. The SBP reductions during the morning periods were comparable, but the reduction in the 24-h mean SBP was 3.4 mm Hg greater (P < .0022) for amlodipine. Mean reductions in HR and RPP were significantly greater (P < or = .0008) for GRD during all intervals; amlodipine increased whereas diltiazem reduced HR with mean differences of 6.7 to 9.3 beats/min. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Night-time GRD was more effective than morning amlodipine in reducing early morning DBP, HR, and RPP, as well as 24-h HR and RPP in African American individuals with hypertension. Amlodipine was more effective in reducing SBP over the 24-h period.

Efficacy and safety of extended-release, once-daily tramadol in chronic pain: a randomized 12-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis of the knee.

The efficacy and safety of a once-daily extended-release formulation of tramadol hydrochloride (tramadol ER) was evaluated in patients with moderate to severe chronic pain of osteoarthritis (OA). This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 12-week study. Eligible patients with radiographically confirmed OA of the knee meeting the American College of Rheumatology diagnostic criteria, defined by knee pain and presence of osteophytes, plus at least age >50 years, morning stiffness <30 minutes in duration, and/or crepitus, entered a 2-7 day washout period during which all analgesics were discontinued. When pain at the index knee joint reached > or =40 mm (0-100 mm VAS), patients were randomized to tramadol ER or placebo. Tramadol ER was initiated at 100 mg QD and increased to 200 mg QD by the end of 1 week of treatment. After the first week, further increases to tramadol ER 300 mg or 400 mg QD were allowed. Outcome measures included Arthritis Pain Intensity Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Scale (WOMAC) Pain, Stiffness, Physical Function VAS subscales, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, Sleep, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, and adverse events. Two hundred forty-six patients were randomized (tramadol ER 124, placebo 122). There were no baseline differences between the two treatments. The mean age was 61 years, mean duration of OA 12.9 years, and the mean tramadol ER dose was 276 mg QD. All efficacy outcome measures favored tramadol ER over placebo. On the primary outcome variable of average change from baseline in Arthritis Pain Intensity VAS over 12 weeks, tramadol ER was superior to placebo (least squares mean change from baseline: 30.4 mm vs. 17.7 mm, P < 0.001). Significant differences from placebo were evident at week 1, the first post-treatment visit. Similarly, outcomes on the WOMAC Pain, Stiffness and Physical Function subscales, the WOMAC Composite Scale, dropouts due to insufficient therapeutic effect, Patient and Physician Global Assessment of Therapy, and Sleep were all significantly better with tramadol ER than placebo (P < 0.001 to < 0.05). Treatment with tramadol ER results in statistically significant and clinically important and sustained improvements in pain, stiffness, physical function, global status, and sleep in patients with chronic pain. A once-a-day formulation of tramadol has the potential to provide patients increased control over the management of their pain, fewer interruptions in sleep and improved compliance.

Pharmacokinetics of a novel diltiazem HCl extended-release tablet formulation for evening administration.

A novel diltiazem HCl extended-release (ER) tablet formulation was developed for evening administration in the management of angina and hypertension. Pharmacokinetics of the formulation were evaluated to identify variations in morning (7 a.m. or 8 a.m.) versus evening (10 p.m.) drug administration. Single-dose (360 mg) and multiple-dose (360 mg once daily for 7 days), open-label, randomized, two-way crossover studies of the new diltiazem HCl ER tablets were completed in 48 healthy volunteers. Serial plasma samples were collected via direct venipuncture up to 48 hours postdose and analyzed for diltiazem and its two major metabolites by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The primary parameters used to assess the data were AUC0- infinity, AUC0-tau, AUC6 a.m.-12 p.m., Cmax, and tmax. Statistical comparisons using ANOVA were evaluated after logarithmic transformation of dose-dependent parameters. Diltiazem HCl ER tablets administered in the evening exhibited 17% and 22% greater bioavailability compared to morning administration under single-dose and steady-state conditions, respectively. The two times of drug administration were bioinequivalent in both studies. The evening schedule also provided more than twofold higher plasma diltiazem levels in the critical morning hours, when both blood pressure and the incidence of cardiovascular events are the highest.

Efficacy and safety of a once daily graded-release diltiazem formulation in essential hypertension.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of a chronotherapeutic, graded-release diltiazem HCl extended-release (GRD) 120-, 240-, 360- and 540-mg dose administered once-daily at bedtime (10 PM) were evaluated in a 7-week randomized, double-blind comparison to placebo and to GRD 360 mg administered once-daily at 8 AM in 478 patients with moderate-to-severe essential hypertension. METHODS: We assessed the change from baseline to end point in trough diastolic blood pressure (DBP) at 6 PM to 10 PM and in mean DBP from 6 AM to 12 noon between GRD 360 mg PM and GRD 360 mg AM, measured by ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM). RESULTS: Bedtime doses of GRD showed dose-related mean reductions in trough DBP that were significant for GRD doses of 240 mg and higher. Bedtime GRD 360 mg was associated with a significantly greater reduction in mean DBP between 6 AM and 12 noon compared to morning GRD 360 mg with a least squares mean for treatment difference of -3.3 mm Hg (P =.0004). Similar dose-related and significant reductions in systolic BP (SBP) and heart rate (HR) were obtained. Incidence of adverse events (AEs) for all GRD groups (44.5%) was less than that obtained for the placebo group (49.3%). The 540-mg group showed an incidence of AEs (43.5%) similar to that observed for the 240-mg group (42.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The GRD dose-dependently significantly reduces BP and HR over the 24-h interval after once-daily bedtime dosing. Further greater reductions were obtained between 6 AM and 12 noon, when circadian BP is highest, compared to morning administration of the same dose. The 540-mg GRD was safe, well tolerated, and offers further therapeutic option for patients with severe hypertension who required additional BP control.