Rivastigmine Transdermal Patch 13.3 mg/24 h: A Review of Its Use in the Management of Mild to Moderate Alzheimer’s Dementia

[Dementia with Lewy bodies: old and new knowledge-Part 2: treatment]

BACKGROUND

The treatment of patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is multifaceted, as motor symptoms, cognitive symptoms, behavioral and psychological symptoms can occur in different constellations. In addition, the use of certain medications is limited (e.g., neuroleptics).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the main recent findings on the treatment of DLB.

RESULTS

To date, there is no approved therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with DLB in Germany; moreover, the evidence base for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment is sparse. The currently consented treatment options are based on the treatment of motor symptoms in the same way as the treatment of Parkinson's disease and for behavioral symptoms based on the treatment for Alzheimer's disease.

DISCUSSION

The treatment of DLB with its various symptoms is difficult and often can only be adequately achieved for the patient in close cooperation with a specialist.

Development of long-acting rivastigmine drug-in-adhesive patch utilizing ion-pair strategy and characterization of controlled release mechanism

The purpose of present study was to develop a long-acting drug-in-adhesive patch of rivastigmine (RVS) to achieve controlled release under high drug loading. Formulation factors including ion-pair, pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA), drug-loading and permeation enhancers were investigated through in vitro skin permeation experiments. Optimized patch was evaluated by pharmacokinetic study. The mechanism of controlled release was studied by FTIR, Raman, DSC, rheology study and molecular modeling. The optimized patch composed of RVS-SA (equal to 30% RVS), 15% POCC as permeation enhancer and AAOH as PSA matrix. The RVS in optimized patch was basically permeated at a uniform rate, and the ratio of the skin permeation amount (2803.38 ± 153.85 μg/cm²) in 72 hours to that of the control group (1000.89 ± 62.45 μg/cm²) was 2.8. The plasma concentration of RVS was stable for 72 hours in vivo (AUC_optimized = 5721.30 ± 1994.87 h ng/mL, MRT_0-t = 29.55 ± 2.49 h), and C_max was significantly controlled. The results of the study on the controlled release mechanism showed that the addition of counter ion formed hydrogen bonds with RVS and PSA respectively, which reduced the fluidity and molecular mobility of PSA, and enhanced the interaction between RVS and PSA, thus achieving the purpose of long-acting effect. In conclusion, long-acting drug-in-adhesive patch of RVS was developed, and provided a new idea for the long term drug delivery of Alzheimer's disease.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for Alzheimer's disease: a network meta-analysis of 41 randomized controlled trials

Background

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have been approved for management of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but there has been no consensus about the choice of various types and doses of drugs at different stages. Hence, we compared and ranked the efficacy and tolerability of these available drugs.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from database inception to July 21, 2017. The primary outcomes were the mean overall changes in cognitive function and responders who had any adverse events. We conducted a random-effects network meta-analysis.

Results

Forty-one RCTs were included in this study. Compared with placebo, galantamine 32 mg daily (standardized mean difference – 0.51, 95% credible interval – 0.67 to − 0.35), galantamine 24 mg daily (− 0.50, − 0.61 to − 0.40), and donepezil 10 mg daily (− 0.40, − 0.51 to − 0.29) were probably the most effective agents on cognition for mild to moderate AD, and memantine 20 mg combined with donepezil 10 mg (0.76, 0.39 to 1.11) was recommended for moderate to severe patients. Memantine showed the best profile of acceptability. Rivastigmine transdermal 15-cm² patch was the best optional treatment both in function and global changes. None of the medicines was likely to improve neuropsychiatric symptoms through this analysis.

Conclusions

Pharmacological interventions have beneficial effects on cognition, function, and global changes, but not on neuropsychiatric symptoms, through current network meta-analysis. The choice of drugs may mainly depend on the disease severity and clinical symptoms.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13195-018-0457-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for treating dementia symptoms - a safety evaluation

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) continues to rise, while treatment options for cognitive impairment are limited. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) aim to provide symptomatic benefit for cognitive decline, however these drugs are not without adverse events (AEs). The safety profile of each drug must be taken carefully into consideration before being prescribed, as new dosages and formulations have recently been approved. Areas covered: Donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine are the three AChEIs approved for the treatment of varying stages of AD. Numerous clinical trials and post-marketing studies have evaluated the safety of these medications. This article will review the safety, efficacy and tolerability of these drugs in treating AD. Topics including pharmacovigilance databases, concomitant drug interactions, prescribing cascades, and treatment discontinuation are also covered. Expert opinion: AChEI use in those with mild, moderate or severe AD provide modest improvements in cognition, function and behavior. The pharmacological treatment of AD using AChEIs is associated with generally mild AEs. Differences in drug formulations should be taken into account when determining the most appropriate route of administration for each individual. Furthermore, discontinuation of AChEIs must be carefully monitored as it may be associated with worsening cognitive impairment.

Rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease is the commonest cause of dementia affecting older people. One of the therapeutic strategies aimed at ameliorating the clinical manifestations of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by the use of cholinesterase inhibitors to delay the breakdown of acetylcholine released into synaptic clefts. Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. Other cholinesterase inhibitors, including rivastigmine, with superior properties in terms of specificity of action and lower risk of adverse effects have since been introduced. Rivastigmine has received approval for use in 60 countries including all member states of the European Union and the USA.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of rivastigmine for patients with dementia of Alzheimer's type.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 2 March 2015 using the terms: Rivastigmine OR  exelon OR ENA OR "SDZ ENA 713". ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all unconfounded, double-blind, randomised, controlled trials in which treatment with rivastigmine was administered to patients with dementia of the Alzheimer's type for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two formulations of rivastigmine were compared.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (JSB) applied the study selection criteria, assessed the quality of studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 trials met the inclusion criteria of the review. The trials had a duration of between 12 and 52 weeks. The older trials tested a capsule form with a dose of up to 12 mg/day. Trials reported since 2007 have tested continuous dose transdermal patch formulations delivering 4.6, 9.5 and 17.7 mg/day.Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of rivastigmine 6 to 12 mg/day orally or 9.5 mg/day transdermally with placebo.Seven trials contributed data from 3450 patients to this analysis. Data from another two studies were not included because of a lack of information and methodological concerns. All the included trials were multicentre trials and recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease with a mean age of about 75 years. All had low risk of bias for randomisation and allocation but the risk of bias due to attrition was unclear in four studies, low in one study and high in two studies.After 26 weeks of treatment rivastigmine compared to placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) score (mean difference (MD) -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.21 to -1.37, n = 3232, 6 studies) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 0.74; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, n = 3205, 6 studies), activities of daily living (SMD 0.20; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.27, n = 3230, 6 studies) and clinician rated global impression of changes, with a smaller proportion of patients treated with rivastigmine experiencing no change or a deterioration (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80, n = 3338, 7 studies).Three studies reported behavioural change, and there were no differences compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.04; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06, n = 1529, 3 studies). Only one study measured the impact on caregivers using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Caregiver Distress (NPI-D) scale and this found no difference between the groups (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.91 to 1.11, n = 529, 1 study). Overall, participants who received rivastigmine were about twice as likely to withdraw from the trials (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.37, n = 3569, 7 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the trials (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.57, n = 3587, 7 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rivastigmine (6 to 12 mg daily orally or 9.5 mg daily transdermally) appears to be beneficial for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. In comparisons with placebo, better outcomes were observed for rate of decline of cognitive function and activities of daily living, although the effects were small and of uncertain clinical importance. There was also a benefit from rivastigmine on the outcome of clinician's global assessment. There were no differences between the rivastigmine group and placebo group in behavioural change or impact on carers. At these doses the transdermal patch may have fewer side effects than the capsules but has comparable efficacy. The quality of evidence is only moderate for all of the outcomes reviewed because of a risk of bias due to dropouts. All the studies with usable data were industry funded or sponsored. This review has not examined economic data.

Rivastigmine for Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

Alzheimer's disease is the commonest cause of dementia affecting older people. One of the therapeutic strategies aimed at ameliorating the clinical manifestations of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by the use of cholinesterase inhibitors to delay the breakdown of acetylcholine released into synaptic clefts. Tacrine, the first of the cholinesterase inhibitors to undergo extensive trials for this purpose, was associated with significant adverse effects including hepatotoxicity. Other cholinesterase inhibitors, including rivastigmine, with superior properties in terms of specificity of action and lower risk of adverse effects have since been introduced. Rivastigmine has received approval for use in 60 countries including all member states of the European Union and the USA.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of rivastigmine for patients with dementia of Alzheimer's type.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 2 March 2015 using the terms: Rivastigmine OR  exelon OR ENA OR "SDZ ENA 713". ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS), numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all unconfounded, double-blind, randomised, controlled trials in which treatment with rivastigmine was administered to patients with dementia of the Alzheimer's type for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two formulations of rivastigmine were compared.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (JSB) applied the study selection criteria, assessed the quality of studies and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 13 trials met the inclusion criteria of the review. The trials had a duration of between 12 and 52 weeks. The older trials tested a capsule form with a dose of up to 12 mg/day. Trials reported since 2007 have tested continuous dose transdermal patch formulations delivering 4.6, 9.5 and 17.7 mg/day.Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of rivastigmine 6 to 12 mg/day orally or 9.5 mg/day transdermally with placebo.Seven trials contributed data from 3450 patients to this analysis. Data from another two studies were not included because of a lack of information and methodological concerns. All the included trials were multicentre trials and recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease with a mean age of about 75 years. All had low risk of bias for randomisation and allocation but the risk of bias due to attrition was unclear in four studies, low in one study and high in two studies.After 26 weeks of treatment rivastigmine compared to placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog) score (mean difference (MD) -1.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.21 to -1.37, n = 3232, 6 studies) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 0.74; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, n = 3205, 6 studies), activities of daily living (SMD 0.20; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.27, n = 3230, 6 studies) and clinician rated global impression of changes, with a smaller proportion of patients treated with rivastigmine experiencing no change or a deterioration (OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80, n = 3338, 7 studies).Three studies reported behavioural change, and there were no differences compared to placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.04; 95% CI -0.14 to 0.06, n = 1529, 3 studies). Only one study measured the impact on caregivers using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Caregiver Distress (NPI-D) scale and this found no difference between the groups (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.91 to 1.11, n = 529, 1 study). Overall, participants who received rivastigmine were about twice as likely to withdraw from the trials (odds ratio (OR) 2.01, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.37, n = 3569, 7 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the trials (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.57, n = 3587, 7 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Rivastigmine (6 to 12 mg daily orally or 9.5 mg daily transdermally) appears to be beneficial for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. In comparisons with placebo, better outcomes were observed for rate of decline of cognitive function and activities of daily living, although the effects were small and of uncertain clinical importance. There was also a benefit from rivastigmine on the outcome of clinician's global assessment. There were no differences between the rivastigmine group and placebo group in behavioural change or impact on carers. At these doses the transdermal patch may have fewer side effects than the capsules but has comparable efficacy. The quality of evidence is only moderate for all of the outcomes reviewed because of a risk of bias due to dropouts. All the studies with usable data were industry funded or sponsored. This review has not examined economic data.