Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 60, Issue 5, pp 1095–1122 | Cite as

Galantamine

A Review of its Use in Alzheimer’s Disease
  • Lesley J. Scott
  • Karen L. Goa
Adis Drug Evaluation

Summary

Abstract

Currently, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors are the most promising class of drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Galantamine is a reversible, competitive, tertiary alkaloid AChE inhibitor. The drug is selective for AChE rather than butyrylcholinesterase. In addition to inhibition of AChE galantamine interacts allosterically with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors to potentiate the action of agonists at these receptors.

Recipients of galantamine 16 or 24 mg/day achieved significant improvements in cognitive and global symptoms relative to placebo recipients in large (n = 285 to 978 patients with mild to moderate AD) well-designed trials of 3 to 6 months’ duration. Galantamine also improved activities of daily living in these patients and significantly reduced the requirement for caregiver assistance with activities of daily living. Moreover, galantamine recipients achieved significantly better outcomes on behavioural symptoms than placebo recipients.

In a long term study (12 months), galantamine 24 mg/day slowed the progression of symptoms of the disease and maintained cognitive function and activities of daily living in patients with mild to moderate AD.

Galantamine was generally well tolerated with the majority of adverse events being mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Predictably, adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally related to the gastrointestinal system. These effects were reduced in patients receiving the recommended dose escalation regimen. Galantamine had no clinically relevant effects on vital signs, haematological or biochemical laboratory parameters and, importantly, there were no reports of hepatotoxicity. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar between galantamine (8 to 32 mg/day) and placebo groups (6 to 16% of patients across all treatment groups).

Conclusions: Galantamine is an effective well tolerated symptomatic treatment for AD which improves cognition, function and activities of daily living in the short term (up to 6 months) in patients with mild to moderate AD. In addition, it delays the development of behavioural disturbances and psychiatric symptoms, and reduces caregiver burden (as measured by caregiver time). In the long term (up to 1 year), galantamine maintains cognition and activities of daily living. Adverse events associated with galantamine are mainly cholinergic, usually mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Galantamine has been evaluated in several large well-designed studies and, given the relative lack of established treatment options, it may be considered as one of the first-line pharmacological treatments in patients with mild to moderate AD.

Pharmacodynamic Profile

Galantamine, a tertiary alkaloid, is a selective, competitive inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE). The inhibitor affinity (Ki) of galantamine for AChE in rat striatal tissue was 0.015 μmol/L. In postmortem brain tissue from patients without evidence of psychiatric disorder and fresh cortical brain biopsies from patients undergoing neurosurgery, galantamine inhibited AChE activity in a concentration-dependent manner. In postmortem samples, the concentrations of drug required to inhibit AChE activity by 50% were 3.2 and 2.8 μmol/L for the frontal cortex and hippocampal region, respectively. Tacrine and physostigmine exhibited a higher degree of AChE inhibition than galantamine in these regions of the brain. Galantamine was 10-fold less potent at inhibiting AChE from fresh brain cortex biopsies than from erythrocytes, whereas tacrine exhibited similar enzymatic inhibition levels in tissue from both sources.

In 5 patients with possible or probable Alzheimer’s disease (AD) receiving oral galantamine 5mg 3 times daily for 2 to 3 months, erythrocyte AChE activity was inhibited by 21 to 41% 2 hours after the morning dose. Recovery of AChE activity occurred within ≈30 hours of the final dose of the drug. There was no detectable inhibition of butyrylcholinesterase in galantamine-treated patients for the duration of the study.

Galantamine selectively inhibited AChE rather than butyrylcholinesterase in human plasma and erythrocytes. The drug showed a 53-fold selectivity for AChE over butyrylcholinesterase.

In addition to inhibition of AChE, galantamine interacts directly with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) and potentiates their action. Galantamine binds allosterically to the α-subunit of nAChRs. In cultured cell lines expressing nAChRs, galantamine modulated ion channel activity and potentiated the actions of the receptors in the presence of agonists.

Galantamine attenuated drug- and lesion-induced cognitive deficits in animal models of learning and memory. The beneficial effects of galantamine on scopolamine-induced deficit in rats were similar to those observed with tacrine.

Pharmacokinetic Profile

Galantamine is rapidly absorbed following oral administration. Mean maximum plasma drug concentrations (Cmax) after a single oral (tablet) 10mg dose ranged considerably from 49.2 to 1150 μg/L and were reached in a mean of 0.88 or 2 hours in healthy volunteers in 2 studies. At steady state, mean Cmax and trough plasma concentrations (Cmin) of galantamine fluctuated between 42 to 137 μg/L and 29 to 97 μg/L, respectively, following 12 or 16mg twice daily doses. In clinical trials, Cmax values were 30 to 40% higher in patients with AD than those observed in healthy young volunteers. The mean absolute oral bioavailability of galantamine was 100% in healthy volunteers.

Galantamine has a large volume of distribution following oral administration, confirming the high non-specific absorption of this drug. Although intravenous administration of galantamine in mice resulted in a rapid accumulation of the drug in tissues, patients receiving 12 or 16mg twice daily showed no evidence of accumulation of the drug after 2 to 6 months of therapy. Plasma protein binding of galantamine is low (18%).

The major route of metabolism of galantamine is via cytochrome (CYP) P450 isoenzymes (mainly CYP2D6 and CYP3A4) in the liver, with ≈75% of a galantamine dose metabolised. After intravenous or oral administration 18 to 22% of the dose is excreted unchanged in the urine during the first 24 hours. Seven days after a single oral radiolabelled 4mg galantamine dose 90 to 97% of the radioactivity had been recovered in the urine compared with 2.2 to 6.3% in the faeces. Galantamine is metabolised to several compounds and although some of these metabolites inhibit AChE in vitro, their activity in vivo is not considered clinically relevant. In vitro studies have shown that galantamine has a low potential to inhibit the major forms of CYP isoenzymes.

Galantamine demonstrates biexponential elimination, with a mean plasma terminal elimination half-life (t½β) of 5.26 to 5.68 hours in healthy volunteers. In patients with AD the typical oral clearance is 12 L/h, with an interindividual variability in oral clearance of 30%. Renal clearance of galantamine in healthy volunteers after oral administration represented 20 to 25% of total plasma clearance.

Since galantamine acts by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, interactions with drugs that have an effect on the cholinergic system could be expected. When administered in combination with agents that significantly reduce the heart rate (e.g. digoxin and β-blockers), a pharmacodynamic interaction is possible. Furthermore, galantamine is likely to potentiate the action of succinylcholine on muscle relaxation during anaesthesia. In addition, potent inhibitors of CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 may potentiate the cholinergic effects of galantamine.

Clinical Efficacy

Galantamine has been evaluated in large (n = 285 to 978), well-designed trials of 3 to 6 months’ duration in patients with mild to moderate AD, as well as in several small nonblind studies. Galantamine 16 or 24 mg/day demonstrated efficacy at 3 to 6 months across all studies, with significant differences from placebo observed for all primary and most secondary efficacy assessment measures when intention-to-treat last observation carried forward (LOCF) analysis was performed at the end of the double-blind study period.

Galantamine-treated patients showed significant improvements in cognition, behavioural symptoms and activities of daily living compared with placebo recipients. These beneficial effects of galantamine therapy on cognition and activities of daily living were achieved regardless of the apolipoprotein E ε4 allele count [assessed using the cognitive (11 item) subscale of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog/11) and Disability Assessment in Dementia (DAD) scores]. The mean decrease (improvement) from baseline in the ADAS-cog/11 scores in these patients was 0.6 to 1.9 points compared with an increase (deterioration) of 0.6 to 2.2 points in the placebo group. Overall, Clinician Interview-Based Impression of Change with Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus) outcomes were significantly (p < 0.05 all comparisons) better in galantamine than placebo recipients. Clinically meaningful improvements of ≥4 points in ADAS-cog/11 scores were observed in more galantamine (16 to 32 mg/day) recipients (33.3 to 37% of patients) than placebo recipients (16.6 and 19.6%) in two 5- and 6-month studies (p < 0.01 all comparisons within each study). Activities of daily living outcomes were also significantly better in these galantamine-treated patients than in placebo recipients, with benefits in both basic and instrumental DAD cluster scores. Furthermore, galantamine recipients showed markedly better outcomes for behavioural symptoms than placebo recipients, as measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory, with galantamine treatment delaying the development of behavioural disturbances and psychiatric symptoms.

Long term evaluation indicated that galantamine 24 mg/day maintained cognition and activities of daily living in patients who had received this dose throughout a 12-month study period (6 months’ double-blind, then a 6-month extension where the investigators remained blinded to treatment in the double-blind phase). ADAS-cog/11 and DAD scores were maintained relative to baseline levels in these galantamine-treated patients. Patients from the other double-blind groups (galantamine 32 mg/day or placebo), who received galantamine 24 mg/day in the extension phase, experienced a deterioration in these scores. During the 6-month extension phase, a similar proportion of patients (54 to 61%) from each of the previous double-blind treatment groups remained stable or improved according to CIBIC-plus scores.

Galantamine reduced the requirement for caregiver input compared with placebo. In a 6-month study, galantamine 24 or 32 mg/day recipients showed no significant change from baseline in the requirement for caregiver supervision compared with an additional 2 hours of supervision per day required by placebo recipients at 6 months (p < 0.001 vs baseline). There was also a decrease in the time caregivers spent assisting galantamine recipients with activities of daily living (≤38 minutes/day) compared with a significant increase of 23 minutes/day from baseline in the placebo group. On-treatment analysis indicates that galantamine treatment reduces caregiver distress arising from the behavioural symptoms of the patient.

Tolerability

Galantamine was generally well tolerated in patients with AD. Adverse events were generally those expected from an AChE inhibitor. The overall incidence of adverse events appeared to be similar between galantamine 8, 16 or 24 mg/day and placebo groups (73.8 to 80.2% vs 72 to 78.9% of patients). Although a high proportion of galantamine recipients experienced at least 1 adverse event, these events were usually mild to moderate in severity, transient and generally occurred during the dose titration phase. Adverse effects were reduced in patients receiving the recommended dose escalation regimen. In general, a similar proportion of patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events in the galantamine and placebo groups in double-blind trials of 3 to 6 months’ duration.

The most common adverse events occurring at least 5% more frequently in galantamine (16 to 24 mg/day) than placebo recipients were nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and anorexia. The proportion of serious adverse events was similar between galantamine (8 to 32 mg/day) and placebo groups (6 to 16% of patients across treatment groups; nature of events not reported). Notably, the incidence of muscle weakness in galantamine recipients was similar to that observed in the placebo group (0.4 to 1.1% vs 1% of patients). According to the manufacturer’s summary of product information, there was no difference in the incidence of seizures in clinical trials in galantamine recipients compared with placebo recipients. Galantamine had no clinically relevant effects on vital signs or haemato-logical or biochemical laboratory parameters and, importantly, no hepatooxicity was observed.

Galantamine treatment is associated with a slight, but in one study significant, bodyweight loss. The mean decrease in bodyweight with galantamine 8, 16 and 24 mg/day was 0.5, 0.5 and 1.3kg, respectively, compared with a decrease of 0.1kg in the placebo group. Patients experiencing a decrease in mean bodyweight generally had higher baseline bodyweights (>50kg in women and >70kg in men).

Evaluation of 218 patients who completed 1 year of treatment with galantamine 24 mg/day indicated that the most common adverse events during the 6-month extension phase were nausea, vomiting, dizziness, diarrhoea, anorexia, abdominal pain and tremor. The overall incidence of adverse events during the extension phase was 85.3% compared with 78.9% during the double-blind phase, with 16% of patients withdrawing during the extension phase. During the extension phase, galantamine recipients appeared to recover some of the weight lost during the 6-month double-blind phase.

Dosage and Administration

In Europe, galantamine is recommended for use in adult patients with mild to moderate dementia of the AD type. The drug should be administered orally twice daily, preferably with morning and evening meals. The recommended starting dosage is 8 mg/day for 4 weeks. The initial maintenance dosage is 16 mg/day for at least 4 weeks. After this time, an increase to the recommended maintenance dosage of 24 mg/day should be considered on an individual basis after assessment of clinical benefit and tolerability.

Galantamine is contraindicated in patients with severe hepatic (Child Pugh score >9) and/or renal (creatinine clearance <0.54 L/h) impairment. In patients with moderate hepatic impairment, treatment should be initiated at a dosage of 4mg once daily (preferably taken with the morning meal). After 4 weeks, the dosage may be increased to 4mg twice daily with a minimum of 4 weeks at this dosage. After this time, the dosage may be increased further to a maximum dosage of 8mg twice daily. There is no requirement for dosage adjustment in patients with mild hepatic impairment or in those with a creatine clearance ≥0.54 L/h.

Agents that inhibit cholinesterase may augment the activity of succinylcholine and other muscle relaxants, have vagotonic effects on heart rate and may have the potential to cause generalised seizures. These agents, including galantamine, should be used with care in patients with a history of asthma or obstructive pulmonary disease, and monitoring is recommended when they are used in patients at risk of developing ulcers. Galantamine is not recommended in patients with a gastrointestinal or a urinary outflow obstruction or in those recovering from bladder or gastrointestinal surgery. In patients receiving concomitant CYP3A4 or CYP2D6 inhibitors dosage reductions of galantamine may be required.

Keywords

Placebo Recipient Rivastigmine Tacrine Galantamine AChE Inhibitor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Parnetti L, Senin U, Mecocci P. Cognitive enhancement therapy for Alzheimer’s disease. The way forward. Drugs 1997; 53(5): 752–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Geldmacher DS, Whitehouse Jr PJ. Differential diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1997 May; 48 Suppl. 6: S2–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cummings JL, Mendez MF. Alzheimer’s disease: Cognitive and behavioral pharmacotherapy. Connecticut Medicine 1997; 61(9): 543–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carr DB, Goate A, Phil D, et al. Current concepts in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Med 1997; 103(3A): 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evans DA, Churchill LA, Hillman KC, et al. Estimated prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Milbank Quarterly 1990; 68(2): 267–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steinberg M. Pharmacologic treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: an update on approved, unapproved therapies. Formulary 1999 Jan; 34: 32–44Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brinton RD, Yamazaki RS. Advances and challenges in the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Pharm Res 1998 Mar; 15: 386–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Flynn BL. Pharmacologic management of Alzheimer disease. Part I: hormonal and emerging investigational drug therapies. Ann Pharmacother 1999 Feb; 33: 178–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brodaty H. Realistic expectations for the management of Alzheimer’s disease. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1999 Apr; 9 Suppl. 2: S43–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Small GW, Rabins PV, Barry PP, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of Alzheimer disease and related disorders: consensus statement of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the American Geriatrics Society. JAMA 1997 Oct 22–29; 278: 1363–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meek PD, McKeithan EK, Schumock GT. Economic considerations in Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18 (Pt. 2): 68–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thal LJ, Carta A, Doody R, et al. Prevention protocols for Alzheimer Disease: position paper from the International Working Group on Harmonization of Dementia Drug Guidelines. Alz Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 3: 46–9Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richards SS, Hendrie HC. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of Alzheimer’ s disease: a guide for the internist. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 789–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ernst RL, Hay JW. The US economic and social costs of Alzheimer’s disease revisited. Am J Public Health 1994; 84(8): 1261–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molnar FJ, Dalziel WB. The pharmacoeconomics of dementia therapies: bringing the clinical, research and economic perspectives together. Drugs Aging 1997 Mar; 10: 219–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Max W. Drug treatments for Alzheimer’s disease: shifting the burden of care. CNS Drugs 1999 May; 11: 363–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Byrne GJA. Treatment of cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Aust J Hosp Pharm 1998; 28(4): 261–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guillozet AL, Smiley JF, Mash DC, et al. Butyrylcholinesterase in the life cycle of the amyloid plaques. Ann Neurol 1997; 42: 909–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gooch MD, Stennett DJ. Molecular basis of Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Health System Pharm 1996 Jul 1; 53: 1545–57Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fratiglioni L. Epidemiology of Alzheimer’s disease and current possibilities for prevention. Acta Neurol Scand 1996; 93 Suppl. 165: 33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Corder EH, Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, et al. Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and risk of Alzheimer’s disease in late onset families. Science 1993; 261: 921–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mayeux R, Stern Y, Ottman R, et al. The apolipoprotein ε4 allele in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Ann Neurol 1993; 34: 752–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saunders AM, Strittmatter WJ, Schmechel D, et al. Association of apolipoprotein E allele ε4 with late-onset familial and sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1993; 43: 1467–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farrer LA, Cupples LA, Haines JL, et al. Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1997; 278: 1349–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stephenson J. Researchers find evidence of a new gene for lateonset Alzheimer disease. JAMA 1997; 277(10): 775PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ladner CJ, Lee JM. Pharmacological drug treatment of Alzheimer disease: the cholinergic hypothesis revisited. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 1998 Aug; 57: 719–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cutler NR, Sramek JJ. The role of bridging studies in the development of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drugs 1998 Nov; 10: 355–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coyle JT, Price DL, DeLong MR. Alzheimer’s disease: a disorder of cortical cholinergic innervation. Science 1983; 219: 1184–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weinberger DR, Gibson R, Coppola R, et al. The distribution of cerebral muscarinic acetylcholine receptors in vivo in patients with dementia: a controlled study with 123IQNB and single proton emission computed tomography. Arch Neurol 1991; 48: 169–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Christie JE, Shering A, Ferguson J, et al. Physostigmine and arecoline: effects of intravenous infusions in Alzheimer presenile dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1981; 138: 46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Little A, Levy R, Chuaqui-Kidd P, et al. A double-blind, placebo controlled trial of high-dose lecithin in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1985; 48: 736–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newhouse PA, Kelton M. Nicotinic systems in central nervous system disease: degenerative disorders and beyond. Pharm Acta Helv 2000; 72: 91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Paterson D, Nordberg A. Neuronal nictonic receptors in the human brain. Prog Neurobiol 2000; 61: 75–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vidal C. Nicotinic receptors in the brain. Mol Chem Neuropathol 1996; 28: 3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Newhouse PA, Potter A, Levin ED. Nicotinic system involvement in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases: implications for therapeutics. Drugs Aging 1997 Sep; 11: 206–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gotti C, Fornasari D, Clementi F. Human neuronal nicotinic receptors. Prog Neurobiol 1997; 53: 199–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maelicke A, Albuquerque EX. Allosteric modulation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors as a treatment strategy for Alzheimer’s disease. Eur J Pharmacol 2000; 393: 165–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Maelicke A, Schrattenholz A, Samochocki M, et al. Allosterically potentiating ligands of nicotinic receptors as a treatment strategy for Alzheimer’s disease. Behav Brain Res 2000; 113: 199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maelicke A. Allosteric modulation of nicotinic receptors as a treatment strategy for Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia Geriatr Cogn Disord 2000; 11 Suppl. S1: 11–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Perry EK, Morris CM, Court JA, et al. Alteration in nicotinic binding sites in Parkinson’s disease, Lewy body dementia and Alzheimer’s diease: possible index of early neuropathology. Neuroscience 1995; 64: 385–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perry DC, Davila-Garcia MI, Stockmeier CA, et al. Increased nicotinic receptors in brains from smokers: membrane binding and autoradiography studies. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1999; 289: 1545–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Nordberg A, Lundqvist A, Hartvig P, et al. Kinetic analysis of regional (S)(−) 11C-nicotine binding in normal and Alzheimer brains: in vivo assessment using positron emission tomography. Alz Dis Assoc Disord 1995; 9: 21–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Proskurnina NF, Yakovleva AP. The alkaloids of Galanthus Woronowi. Journal of General Chemistry of the USSR 1952; 22(10): 1941–4Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bastida J, Viladomat F, Llabres JM, et al. Narcissus nivalis: a new source of galanthamine. Planta Med 1990; 56(1): 123–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Viladomat F, Bastida J, Codina C, et al. Narcissus alkaloids, XVII. Obesine, a novel alkaloid from Narcissus obesus. Journal of Natural Products 1992; 55(6): 804–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Moraes-Cerdeira RM, Bastos JK, Burandt Jr CL, et al. Alkaloid content of different bulb parts of Narcissus cv Ice Follies. Planta Med 1997; 62: 93–4Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Moraes-Cerdeira RM, Burandt Jr CL, Bastos JK, et al. Evaluation of four Narcissus cultivars as potential sources for galanthamine production [letter]. Planta Med 1997 Oct; 63: 472–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Szewczyk J, Wilson JW, Lewin AH, et al. Facile synthesis of (±)-, (+)-, and (−)-galanthamine. J Heterocyclic Chem 1995; 32(1): 195–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Szewczyk J, Lewin AH, Carroll FI. An improved synthesis of galanthamine. J Heterocyclic Chem 1988; 25(6): 1809–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Czollner L, Frantsits W, Küenburg B, et al. New kilogram-synthesis of the anti-Alzheimer drug (≡)-galanthamine. Tetrahedron Lett 1998 Apr 9; 39(15): 2087–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Han S-Y, Mayer SC, Schweiger EJ, et al. Synthesis and biological activity of galanthamine derivatives as acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors. Bioorganic Med Chem Lett 1991; 1(11): 579–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shieh W-C, Carlson JA. Asymmetric transformation of either enantiomer of narwedine via total spontaneous resolution process, a concise solution of the synthesis of (−)-galanthamine. J Org Chem 1994; 59(18): 5463–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Greenblatt HM, Kryger G, Lewis T, et al. Structure of acetylcholinesterase complexed with (−)-galanthamine at 2.3 Å resolution. FEBS Lett 1999 Dec 17; 463: 321–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bores GM, Huger FP, Petko W, et al. Pharmacological evaluation of novel Alzheimer’s disease therapeutics: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors related to galanthamine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996 May; 277: 728–38PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bickel U, Thomsen T, Fischer JP, et al. Galanthamine: pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution and cholinesterase inhibition in brain of mice. Neuropharmacology 1991 May; 30: 447–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sweeney JE, Puttfarcken PS, Coyle JT. Galanthamine, an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor: a time course of the effects on performance and neurochemical parameters in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1989 Sep; 34: 129–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Thomsen T, Kaden B, Fischer JP, et al. Inhibition of acetylcholinesterase activity in human brain tissue and erythrocytes by galanthamine, physostigmine and tacrine. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1991 Aug; 29: 487–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Thomsen T, Kewitz H. Selective inhibition of human acetylcholinesterase by galanthamine in vitro and in vivo. Life Sci 1990; 46: 1553–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thomsen T, Zendeh B, Fischer JP, et al. In vitro effects of various cholinesterase inhibitors on acetyl- and butyrylcholinesterase of healthy volunteers. Biochem Pharmacol 1991; 41(1): 139–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Thomsen T, Bickel U, Fischer JP, et al. Stereoselectivity of cholinesterase inhibition by galanthamine and tolerance in humans. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1990 Dec; 39: 603–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pereira EF, Reinhardt-Maelicke S, Schrattenholz A, et al. Identification and functional characterization of a new agonist site on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of cultured hippocampal neurons. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1993 Jun; 265: 1474–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Storch A, Schrattenholz A, Cooper JC, et al. Physostigmine, galanthamine and codeine act as ‘noncompetitive nicotinic receptor agonists’ on clonal rat pheochromocytoma cells. Eur J Pharmacol 1995 Aug 15; 290: 207–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pereira EF, Alkondon M, Reinhardt S, et al. Physostigmine and galanthamine: probes for a novel binding site on the alpha 4 beta 2 subtype of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors stably expressed in fibroblast cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994 Aug; 270: 768–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Schrattenholz A, Godovac-Zimmermann J, Schafer H-J, et al. Photoaffinity labeling of Torpedo acetylcholine receptors by physostigmine. Eur J Biochem 1993; 216: 671–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Schröder B, Reinhardt-Maelicke S, Schrattenholz A, et al. Monoclonal antibodies FK1 and WF6 define two neighbouring ligand binding sites on Torpedo acetylcholine receptor α-polypeptide. J Biol Chem 1994; 269: 10407–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Schrattenholz A, Pereira EFR, Roth U, et al. Agonist responses of neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are potentiated by a novel class of allosterically acting ligands. Mol Pharmacol 1996; 49(1): 1–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chopin P, Briley M. Effects of four non-cholinergic cognitive enhancers in comparison with tacrine and galanthamine on scopolamine-induced amnesia in rats. Psychopharmacology 1992 Jan; 106: 26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Fishkin RJ, Ince ES, Carlezon Jr WA, et al. d-Cycloserine attenuates scopolamine-induced learning and memory deficits in rats. Behav Neural Biol 1993 Mar; 59: 150–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Sweeney JE, Höhmann CF, Moran TH, et al. A long-acting cholinesterase inhibitor reverses spatial memory deficits in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1988 Sep; 31: 141–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sweeney JE, Bachman ES, Coyle JT. Effects of different doses of galanthamine, a long-acting acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, on memory in mice. Psychopharmacology Berl 1990; 102: 191–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Thomsen T, Kewitz H, Pleul O. Estimation of cholinesterase activity (EC 3.1.1.7; 3.1.1.8) in undiluted plasma and erythrocytes as a tool for measuring in vivo effects of reversible inhibitors. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1988; 26: 469–75PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bickel U, Thomsen T, Weber W, et al. Pharmacokinetics of galanthamine in humans and corresponding cholinesterase inhibition. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1991 Oct; 50: 420–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Riemann D, Hohagen F, Bahro M, et al. Cholinergic neurotransmission, REM sleep and depression. J Psychosom Res 1994; 38 Suppl. 1: 15–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Perry E, Walker M, Grace J, et al. Acetylcholine in mind: a neurotransmitter correlate of consciousness? Trends Neurosci 1999; 22: 273–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Riemann D, Gann H, Dressing H, et al. Influence of the cholinesterase inhibitor galanthamine hydrobromide on normal sleep. Psychiatry Res 1994 Mar; 51: 253–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Holl G, Straschill M, Thomsen T, et al. Effect of the cholinesterase inhibiting substance galanthamine on human EEG and visual evoked potentials. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1992 Jun; 82: 445–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Westra P, van-Thiel MJ, Vermeer GA, et al. Pharmacokinetics of galanthamine (a long-acting anticholinesterase drug) in anaesthetized patients. Br J Anaesth 1986 Nov; 58: 1303–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Mihailova D, Yamboliev I, Zhivkova Z, et al. Pharmacokinetics of galanthamine hydrobromide after single subcutaneous and oral dosage in humans. Pharmacology 1989; 39: 50–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bachus R, Bickel U, Thomsen T, et al. The O-demethylation of the antidementia drug galanthamine is catalysed by cytochrome P450 2D6. Pharmacogenetics 1999 Dec; 9: 661–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jones RW, Cooper DM, Haworth J, et al. The effect of food on the absorption of galanthamine in healthy elderly volunteers [abstract]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996 Nov; 42: 671PGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Wood DM, Ford JM, Wilcock GK, et al. Plasma protein binding of galanthamine; a potential agent for the treatment of Alzheimers’ disease [abstract]. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52 Suppl.: A161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Mihailova D, Yamboliev I. Pharmacokinetics of galanthamine hydrobromide (Nivalin) following single intravenous and oral administration in rats. Pharmacology 1986; 32: 301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Janssen. Reminyl tablets prescribing information. Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, 11 Jul 2000Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Raskind MA, Peskind ER, Wessel T, et al. Galantamine in AD: a 6-month randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a 6-month extension. Neurology 2000; 54(12): 2261–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Tariot PN, Solomon PR, Morris JC, et al. A 5-month randomized, placebo-controlled trial of galantamine in AD. Neurology 2000; 54(12): 2269–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Wilcock G, Lilienfeld S. Galantamine alleviates caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease: a 6-month placebo-controlled study [poster]. Seventh World Alzheimer Congress; 2000 Jul 9–18: Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Wilkinson D, Lilienfeld S, Truyen L. Galantamine improves activities of daily living in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a 3-month, placebo-controlled study [abstract/poster]. Sixth International Stockholm/Springfield Symposium on Advances in Alzheimer Therapy; 2000 Apr 5–8: Stockholm/SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kristensen M, Richardson A, Van OsselearN, et al. A European multicentre placebo-controlled trial to determine the safety and efficacy of galantamine hydrobromide 40 mg/day (32 mg/day GAL base, tid dose regimen) in patients diagnosed with Alzheimer-type dementia. Part 1: efficacy and safety. Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, 1999. report no.: N130852 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wilkinson D, Murray J. Galantamine: a randomised, double-blind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Shire Pharmaceuticals (Andover), 2000 (Data on file)Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dal-Bianco P, Maly J, Wöber C, et al. Galanthamine treatment in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm 1991; 33 Suppl.: 59–63Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rainer M, Mark T, Haushofer A. Galanthamine hydrobromide in the treatment of senile dementia of Alzheimer’s type. In: Kerwitz, Thomsen, Bickel, editors. Pharmacological interventions on central cholinergic mechanisms in senile dementia (Alzheimer’s disease). München: Zuckschwerdt Verlag, 1989: 233–7Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Traykov L, Nikolova G, Raychev I, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of galanthamine in Alzheimer’s disease — preliminary study [abstract]. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 52 Suppl.: A166Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Nikolova G, Yancheva S, Dobreva D, et al. Treatment with galanthamine in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [abstract]. Eur J Neurol 1998 Sep; 5 Suppl. 3: S37–38Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NNCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task force on Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Jann MW. Pharmacology and clinical efficcay of cholinesterase inhibitors. Am J Health System Pharm 1998; 55 Suppl. 2: S22–5Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ferris SH, Mackell JA, Mohs R, et al. A multicenter evaluation of new treatment efficacy instruments for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials: overview and general results. Alz Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 2: S1–12Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mohs RC, Ferris SH. Measuring response to treatment in Alzheimer’s disease: what constitutes meaningful change. Int J Ger Psychopharmacol 1998; 1 Suppl. 1: S7–14Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wood S, Cummings JL. Measuring outcomes in Alzheimer’s disease research: assessment of the effectiveness of interventions. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1999 Jan; 5: 1–12Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Schachter AS, Davis KL. Guidelines for the appropriate use of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drugs 1999 Apr; 11: 281–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rosen WG, Mohs RC, Davis KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 1356–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Knopman DS, Knapp MJ, Gracon SI, et al. The clinician interview-based impression (CIBI): a clinician’s global change rating scale in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1994; 44: 2315–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Cummings JL, Mega M, Gray K, et al. The neuropsychiatric inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology 1994; 44: 2308–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Gauthier S, Gélinas I, Gauthier L. Functional disability in Alzheimer’s disease. International Pyschogeriatrics 1997; 9 Suppl. 1: 163–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Gélinas I, Gauthier L, McIntyre M, et al. Development of a functional measure for persons with Alzheimer’s disease: the disability assessment for dementia. Am J Occup Ther 1999; 53: 471–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al. An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials of Alzheimer’s disease. Alz Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11 Suppl. 2: S33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Buysse DJ, Reynolds III CF, Monk TH, et al. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 1989; 28: 193–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    DeJong R, Osterlund OW, Roy GW. Measurement of quality-of-life changes in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Clin Ther 1989; 11: 545–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Lamy PP. The role of cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drugs 1994 Feb; 1: 146–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Farlow MR, Lahiri DK, Poirier J, et al. Treatment outcome of tacrine therapy depends on apolipoprotein genotype and gender of the subjects with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1998; 50: 669–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    MacGowan SH, Wilcock GK, Scott M. Effect of gender and apolipoprotein E genotype on response to anticholinesterase therapy in Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1998 Sep; 13: 625–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Aerssens J, Lilienfeld S, Raeymakers P, et al. APOE genotype: no influence on galantamine treatment efficacy nor on rate of decline in Alzheimer’s disease [poster]. 7th International World Alzheimer’s Congress; 2000 Jul 9–18; Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Wimo A, Gustafsson L, Mattson B. Predictive validity factors influencing the institutionalization of elderly people with pschyo-geriatric disorders. Scand J Prim Health care 1992; 10: 185–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Tariot P, Kershaw P, Yaun W. Galantamine postpones the emergence of behavioral symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease: a 5-month, randomised, placebo-controlled study [abstract/poster]. 7th International World Alzheimer’s Congress; 2000 Jul 9-18; Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Rockwood K, Kershaw P. Galantamine’s clinical benefits are not offset by sleep disturbance: a 3-month placebo-controlled study in patients with Alzheimer’s disease [poster]. 7th International World Alzheimer’s Congress; 2000 Jul 9–18; Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Wilcock G, Lilienfeld S, Kershaw P. Galantamine produces cognitive, functional and global benefits in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: pooled data from two 6-month studies. Sixth International Stockholm/Springfield Symposium on Advances in Alzheimer Therapy; 2000 Apr 5–8; Stockholm/SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Foster RH, Plosker GL. Donepezil: pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1999 Jul; 16: 99–114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Knapp M, Wilkinson D, Wigglesworth R. The economic consequences of Alzheimer’s disease in the context of new drug developments. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1998; 13(8): 531–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Max W. The cost of Alzheimer’s disease: will drug treatment ease the burden? Pharmacoeconomics 1996 Jan; 9: 5–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Leon J, Cheng C-K, Neumann PJ. Alzheimer’s disease care: costs and potential savings. Health Aff 1998 Nov–Dec; 17: 206–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Hauber AB, Gnanasakthy A, Snyder EH, et al. Potential savings in the cost of caring for Alzheimer’s disease: treatment with rivastigmine. Pharmacoeconomics 2000; 17(4): 351–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Giacobini E. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease therapy: from tacrine to future applications. Neurochem Int 1998 May–Jun; 32: 413–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Weinstock M. Selectivity of cholinesterase inhibition: clinical implications fro the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drugs 1999; 12(4): 307–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Nordberg A, Svensson A-L. Cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a comparison of tolerability and pharmacology. Drug Saf 1998 Dec; 19: 465–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Sramek JJ, Cutler NR. Recent developments in the drug treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs Aging 1999 May; 14: 359–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Flynn BL, Ranno AE. Pharmacologic management of Alzheimer disease. Part II: antioxidants, antihypertensives, and ergoloid derivatives. Ann Pharmacother 1999 Feb; 33: 188–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Simonson W. Promising agents for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998; 55 Suppl. 21: S11–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Small GW. Treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: current approaches and promising developments. Am J Med 1998 Apr 27; 104: 32S–8SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Burns A, Rossor M, Hecker J, et al. The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer’s disease-results from a multinational trial. Dementia Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10: 237–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Rogers SL, Friedhoff LT. Long-term efficacy and safety of donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: an interim analysis of the results of a US multicentre open label extension study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1998; 8: 67–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Dooley M, Lamb HM. Donepezil: a review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs Aging 2000; 16(3): 199–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Rosier M, Anand R, Cicin-Sain A, et al. Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: international randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 633–40Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Spencer CM, Noble S. Rivastigmine: a review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. Drugs Aging 1998 Nov; 13: 391–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Knapp MJ, Knopman DS, Solomon PR, et al. A 30-week randomised controlled trial of high-dose tacrine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1994; 271(13): 985–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Raskind MA, Cyrus PA, Ruzicka BB, et al. The effects of metrifonate on the cognitive functional performance of Alzheimer’s disease patients. J Clin Psychiatry 1999; 60: 318–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Ormrod D, Spencer C. Metrifonate: A review of its use in Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drugs 2000; 13(6): 443–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Becker RE, Giacobini E. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of acetylcholinesterase inhibition: can acetylcholine levels in the brain be improved in Alzheimer’s disease. Drug Dev Res 1988; 14: 235–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Maelicke A, Schrattenholz A, Storch A, et al. Noncompetitive agonism at nicotinic acetylcholine receptors; functional significance for CNS signal transduction. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 1995; 15(1–4): 333–53PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adis International LimitedAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations