Der Nervenarzt

, Volume 78, Issue 5, pp 491–497

Ein Beitrag zur aktuellen Antidementivadiskussion in Deutschland

Aktuelles

Zusammenfassung

Als Folge des zunehmenden Kostendrucks im Gesundheitssystem wird seit einiger Zeit über die Wirksamkeit der Azetylcholinesterasehemmer zur Behandlung der Alzheimer-Demenz diskutiert. In diesem Artikel sollen einige Punkte, die nach Ansicht der Autoren bisher nicht ausreichend in die Diskussion eingeflossen sind, dargestellt werden. Sie umfassen die Abgrenzung zwischen statistischer und klinischer Signifikanz, Zielparameterdefinition, Untersuchungszeiträumen, Variabilität des Therapieansprechens und Kriterien des Therapieerfolgs. Die Autoren gehen davon aus, dass unter Berücksichtigung dieser Aspekte die differenzierte Beurteilung der Wirksamkeit von Azetylcholinesterasehemmern verbessert werden kann.

Schlüsselwörter

Alzheimer-Demenz Azetylcholinestasehemmer Wirksamkeit Therapieerfolg Klinische Studien 

A contribution to the current discussion on anti-dementia drugs in Germany

Abstract

In Germany, the role of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has become a topic of recent discussion. The present article addresses issues which, in the opinion of the authors, have not received sufficient attention. These include the distinction between statistical and clinical significance, outcome parameters, the duration of clinical trials, variability in treatment response and the definition of treatment responders. The authors argue that these issues need to be considered in an in-depth evaluation of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of AD.

Keywords

Alzheimer’s Disease Acetylcholinestase inhibitors Treatment response Therapeutic success  Clinical trials 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Birks J, Grimley Evans J, Iakovidou V et al. (2000) Rivastigmine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001191Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birks JS, Melzer D, Beppu H (2003) Donepezil for mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001190Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Courtney C, Farrell D, Gray R et al. (2004) Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 363: 2105–2115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csernansky JG, Wang L, Miller JP et al. (2005) Neuroanatomical predictors of response to donepezil therapy in patients with dementia. Arch Neurol 62: 1718–1722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis KL, Mohs RC, Marin D et al. (1999) Cholinergic markers in elderly patients with early signs of Alzheimer disease. JAMA 281: 1401–1406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emre M, Aarsland D, Albanese A et al. (2004) Rivastigmine for dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 351: 2509–2518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geldmacher DS, Provenzano G, McRae T et al. (2003) Donepezil is associated with delayed nursing home placement in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 51: 937–944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jessen F, Träber F, Freymann K et al. (2006) Treatment monitoring and response prediction with proton MR spectroscopy in AD. Neurology 67: 528–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP et al. (2005) Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 331: 321–327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kraemer HC, Morgan GA, Leech NL et al. (2003) Measures of clinical significance. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 42: 1524–1529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lanctot KL, Herrmann N, Yau KK et al. (2003) Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis. CMAJ 169: 557–564PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lingler JH, Martire LM, Schulz R (2005) Caregiver-specific outcomes in antidementia clinical drug trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 53: 983–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Loy C, Schneider L (2004) Galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001747Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riepe MW, Frölich L, Gertz HJ et al. (2005) Evidenzbasierte medikamentöse Therapie der Alzheimer-Erkrankung. Dtsch Ärztebl 51–52: 2543–2548Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rockwood K, Stolee P, Howard K et al. (1996) Use of Goal Attainment Scaling to measure treatment effects in an anti-dementia drug trial. Neuroepidemiology 15: 330-338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roman GC, Wilkinson DG, Doody RS et al. (2005) Donepezil in vascular dementia: combined analysis of two large-scale clinical trials. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 20: 338–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tanaka Y, Hanyu H, Sakurai H et al. (2003) Atrophy of the substantia innominata on magnetic resonance imaging predicts response to donepezil treatment in Alzheimer’s disease patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 16: 119–125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Whitehead A, Perdomo C, Pratt RD et al. (2004) Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 19: 624–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wimo A, Winblad B, Engedal K et al. (2003) An economic evaluation of donepezil in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease: results of a 1-year, double-blind, randomized trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 15: 44–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Winblad B, Engedal K, Soininen H et al. (2001) Donepezil Nordic Study Group. A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD. Neurology 57: 489–495PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Psychiatrie und PsychotherapieUniversität BonnBonnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations