Search

Objective: To assess the safety of galantamine in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the ability of galantamine to benefit cognition and global functioning in subjects with MCI, and the ability of galantamine to delay conversion to dementia.Methods: In two studies, 2,048 subjects, 990 in Study 1 and 1,058 in Study 2, with a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) = 0.5, CDR memory score ≥0.5, without dementia were randomized to double-blind galantamine (16–24 mg/day) or placebo for 24 months. Primary efficacy endpoint at month 24 was number (%) of subjects who converted from MCI to dementia (CDR ≥ 1.0).Results: There were no differences between galantamine and placebo in 24-month conversion rates (Study 1: 22.9% [galantamine] vs 22.6% [placebo], p = 0.146; Study 2: 25.4% [galantamine] vs 31.2% [placebo], p = 0.619). Mean CDR-sum of boxes declined less with galantamine than placebo at 12 and 24 months in Study 1 (p = 0.024 [12 months] and p = 0.028 [24 months]), but not in Study 2 (p = 0.662 [12 months] and p = 0.056 [24 months]). Digit Symbol Substitution Test scores improved with galantamine in Study 1 at 12 months and in Study 2 at 24 months (Study 1: p = 0.009 [month 12] and p = 0.079 [Month 24]; Study 2: p = 0.154 [month 12] and p = 0.020 [month 24]). The most frequently reported adverse event was nausea (galantamine, 29%; placebo, 10%). Serious AEs occurred in 19% of each group. Mortality of the cohort after retrospectively determining the status of subjects (98.3%) at 24 months was 1.4% (galantamine) and 0.3% (placebo); RR (95% CI), 1.70 (1.00, 2.90).Conclusions: Galantamine failed to significantly influence conversion to dementia. Galantamine was generally well tolerated. Whereas recorded mortality was greater in the galantamine group than in the placebo group in the original per-protocol assessment, a post hoc analysis of the cohort was consistent with no increased risk.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) drug development is costly, time-consuming, and inefficient. Trial site functions, trial design, and patient recruitment for trials all require improvement. The Global Alzheimer Platform (GAP) was initiated in response to these challenges. Four GAP work streams evolved in the US to address different trial challenges: 1) registry-to-cohort web-based recruitment; 2) clinical trial site activation and site network construction (GAP-NET); 3) adaptive proof-of-concept clinical trial design; and 4) finance and fund raising. GAP-NET proposes to establish a standardized network of continuously funded trial sites that are highly qualified to perform trials (with established clinical, biomarker, imaging capability; certified raters; sophisticated management system. GAP-NET will conduct trials for academic and biopharma industry partners using standardized instrument versions and administration. Collaboration with the Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) European Prevention of Alzheimer’s Disease (EPAD) program, the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) and other similar international initiatives will allow conduct of global trials. GAP-NET aims to increase trial efficiency and quality, decrease trial redundancy, accelerate cohort development and trial recruitment, and decrease trial costs. The value proposition for sites includes stable funding and uniform training and trial execution; the value to trial sponsors is decreased trial costs, reduced time to execute trials, and enhanced data quality. The value for patients and society is the more rapid availability of new treatments for AD.

In clinical trials, short-term galantamine treatment produces consistent positive effects on global ratings, cognitive tests, and assessments of activities of daily living and behavior in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD), providing the rationale for longer-term, open-label treatment. In this continuation trial following enrollment in previous 12-month trials, patients received galantamine 24 mg/day for a total of 24 months (total exposure up to 36 months). Primary efficacy measures were the ADAS-cog/11 and DAD. Adverse events (AEs) were coded to WHO preferred terms, including AEs begun in previous trials. Initial improvement in cognitive function was followed by a gradual decline, as measured by increased ADAS-cog/11 scores. At 36 months, ADAS-cog/11 scores increased by a mean (SEM) of 12.4 (0.80) points (P < 0.001) versus a projected 22-point increase for untreated patients. Functional abilities, as measured by the DAD, had decreased significantly at each time point versus baseline (P < 0.001). The most common treatment-emergent AEs were agitation (16.1%), insomnia (12.4%), fall (11.2%), and urinary tract infection (10.2%). AEs were mainly mild to moderate, appropriate for an elderly population, with few judged treatment related. Galantamine 24 mg/day is safe and effective for long-term treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. Potential exists for prolonged benefit with galantamine therapy versus lack of treatment for the long-term.

Objective—To assess the eYcacy and safety of galantamine in Alzheimer’s disease at 3 months using flexible dose escalation. Methods—A randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial in 43 centres in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, South Africa,Australia,and New Zealand. Patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease (n=386; 171 women) with a score of 11‐24 on the mini mental state examination, and a score>12 on the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale (ADAS-cog) were randomised to placebo, or galantamine escalated over 4 weeks to a maintenance dose of 24 or 32 mg/day. The primary outcome measures were the change in ADAS-cog score and the clinician’s interview based impression of change plus caregiver input (CIBIC-plus) score. Activities of daily living (ADL) and behavioural symptoms were secondary outcomes. To compare the eVects of highest levels of dosing, an observed cases (OC) analysis was undertaken, with classic intention to treat (ITT) and ITT with last observation carried forward (LOCF) as confirmatory analyses. Results—At 3 months, galantamine (24‐32 mg/day) produced a significantly better outcome on cognitive function than placebo (treatment diVerence=1.9 points on ADAS-cog, p=0.002) and a significantly better global response than placebo, as measured by CIBIC-plus (deterioration in 21% of patients on galantamine v 37% on placebo; p

Objectives - To calculate age adjusted risks for multiple sclerosis in relatives of Flemish patients with multiple sclerosis. Methods - Lifetime risks were calculated using the maximum likelihood approach. Results - Vital information was obtained on 674 probands with multiple sclerosis in Flanders and a total of their 26 225 first, second, and third degree relatives. Full medical information to allow documentation of multiple sclerosis status was available for 21 351 (81.4%) relatives. The age adjusted risk for parents was 1.61 (SEM 0.35)%, for siblings 2.10 (SE 0.36)%, and for children 1.71 (SEM 0.70)%. For aunts and uncles, the risk was 0.66 (SEM 0.13)%. Conclusions - The risk for first degree relatives of patients with multiple sclerosis in Flanders is increased 10-fold to 12-fold; for second degree relatives, it is increased threefold. This information can be used for risk counselling in families and provides additional support for the role of more than one locus contributing to the susceptibility of multiple sclerosis.