Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Defining Treatment Response to Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease

Responder Analysis of Patient-Level Data from Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Studies

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Defining treatment success in progressive diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), can be challenging.

Objective: To explore the impact of employing different criteria to define a treatment ‘responder’ using analyses of patient-level data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies of donepezil in AD.

Methods: Trials were included in the analysis if they met several criteria, including the following: randomized, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil 10 mg/day in mild-to-moderate AD; cognition measured by the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE); and a 24-week endpoint and outcomes that included global assessments. Definitions of response were: improvements in cognition plus one other domain; improvement in cognition only; improvement or improvement/no change in global response; and improvement/stabilization/less than expected decline by ≤2 or ≤4 or ≤6 points on the ADAS-cog.

Results: Five studies identified from the literature search met the specified criteria for inclusion. The response to donepezil measured by ADAS-cog varied from 26% to 63% and that of placebo from 14% to 47%, depending on the definition of improvement used. For definitions that included a less than expected decline on ADAS-cog, the more modest the effect defined, the less the drug versus placebo difference and the higher the percentage of patients meeting this definition.

Conclusions: The definition of treatment ‘response’ in a progressive neurodegenerative disease can encompass a variety of outcomes, including short-term improvement, longer-term stabilization and a slowed decline in one or more clinically relevant symptoms or symptom domains. The ability to identify groups of people who respond to donepezil underscores the clinical utility of the medication and may contribute to more focused assessments of the cost effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferri CP, Prince M, Brayne C, et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 2005; 366: 2112–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Loy C, Schneider L. Galantamine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (4): CD001747

    Google Scholar 

  3. Birks J, Grimley EJ, Iakovidou V, et al. Rivastigmine for Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000; (4): CD001191

    Google Scholar 

  4. Birks JS, Harvey R. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (3): CD001190

    Google Scholar 

  5. McShane R, Areosa Sastre A, Minakaran N. Memantine for dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; (2): CD003154

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP, et al. Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2005; 331: 321–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Pelosi AJ, McNulty SV, Jackson GA. Role of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia care needs rethinking. BMJ 2006; 333: 491–3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Karlawish JH, Klocinski JL, Merz J, et al. Caregivers’ preferences for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 2000; 55: 1008–14

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Farlow MR, Hake A, Messina J, et al. Response of patients with Alzheimer disease to rivastigmine treatment is predicted by the rate of disease progression. Arch Neurol 2001; 58: 417–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Doraiswamy PM, Leon J, Cummings JL, et al. Prevalence and impact of medical comorbidity in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2002; 57: M173–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Butters MA, Lopez OL, Becker JT. Focal temporal lobe dysfunction in probable Alzheimer’s disease predicts a slow rate of cognitive decline. Neurology 1996; 46: 687–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Di Lazzaro V, Oliviero A, Pilato F, et al. Neurophysiological predictors of long term response to AChE inhibitors in AD patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76: 1064–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Adler G, Brassen S, Chwalek K, et al. Prediction of treatment response to rivastigmine in Alzheimer’s dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2004; 75: 292–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goodin DS, Frohman EM, Garmany Jr GP, et al. Disease modifying therapies in multiple sclerosis: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the MS Council for Clinical Practice Guidelines. Neurology 2002; 58: 169–78

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tuite P, Riss J. Recent developments in the pharmacological treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2003; 12: 1335–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Winblad B, Brodaty H, Gauthier S, et al. Pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer’s disease: is there a need to redefine treatment success? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 16: 653–66

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lopez OL, Becker JT, Saxton J, et al. Alteration of a clinically meaningful outcome in the natural history of Alzheimer’s disease by cholinesterase inhibition. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53: 83–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Winblad B, Engedal K, Soininen H, et al. A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD. Neurology 2001; 57: 489–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rogers SL, Friedhoff LT. The efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: results of a US multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Donepezil Study Group. Dementia 1996; 7: 293–303

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody RS, et al. A 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: Donepezil Study Group. Neurology 1998; 50: 136–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rogers SL, Doody RS, Mohs RC, et al. Donepezil improves cognition and global function in Alzheimer disease: a 15-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Donepezil Study Group. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1021–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Burns A, Rossor M, Hecker J, et al. The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer’s disease: results from a multinational trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999; 10: 237–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Greenberg SM, Tennis MK, Brown LB, et al. Donepezil therapy in clinical practice: a randomized crossover study. Arch Neurol 2000; 57: 94–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Homma A, Takeda M, Imai Y, et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil on cognitive and global function in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan. E2020 Study Group. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2000; 11: 299–313

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mohs RC, Doody RS, Morris JC, et al. A 1-year, placebo-controlled preservation of function survival study of donepezil in AD patients. Neurology 2001; 57: 481–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gauthier S, Feldman H, Hecker J, et al. Functional, cognitive and behavioral effects of donepezil in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Curr Med Res Opin 2002; 18: 347–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Krishnan KR, Charles HC, Doraiswamy PM, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of donepezil on neuronal markers and hippocampal volumes in Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 2003; 160: 2003–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Courtney C, Farrell D, Gray R, et al. Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2105–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Holmes C, Wilkinson D, Dean C, et al. The efficacy of donepezil in the treatment of neuropsychiatrie symptoms in Alzheimer disease. Neurology 2004; 63: 214–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Seltzer B, Zolnouni P, Nunez M, et al. Efficacy of donepezil in early-stage Alzheimer disease: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Arch Neurol 2004; 61: 1852–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All of the authors are employees of Eisai or Pfizer except Alistair Burns, who acted as a paid consultant in connection with the development of this manuscript and who carries out consultancy work for pharmaceutical companies, including Eisai and Pfizer, involved in the manufacture and distribution of drugs for Alzheimer’s disease. Co-authors from Eisai Europe Ltd and Pfizer Inc. funded and designed these analyses in response to specific requests from the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and other reimbursement authorities. The statistical analysis was carried out by Symbiance, and was funded by Eisai and Pfizer. These analyses were provided to the primary author for review, interpretation and development of this manuscript.

As the primary author, Alistair Burns would like to thank Eisai/Pfizer for providing the data enabling him to write this paper. The authors would also like to acknowledge the editorial administration support provided by L. Thomas, PhD, of PAREXEL, which was funded by Eisai Europe Ltd and Pfizer Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 2nd Floor, Education and Research Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, University of Manchester, Manchester, M23 9PL, UK

    Alistair Burns (Professor of Old Age Psychiatry)

  2. Eisai Europe Ltd, London, UK

    Andrew Yeates

  3. Eisai Corporation of North America, Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, USA

    Latif Akintade

  4. Pfizer Inc, New York, New York, USA

    Megan del Valle, Richard Y. Zhang & Elias M. Schwam

  5. Eisai Medical Research, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, USA

    Carlos A. Perdomo

Authors
  1. Alistair Burns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew Yeates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Latif Akintade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Megan del Valle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Y. Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elias M. Schwam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carlos A. Perdomo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alistair Burns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burns, A., Yeates, A., Akintade, L. et al. Defining Treatment Response to Donepezil in Alzheimer’s Disease. Drugs Aging 25, 707–714 (2008). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200825080-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200825080-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation