Response to rivastigmine transdermal patch or memantine plus rivastigmine patch is affected by apolipoprotein E genotype in Alzheimer patients

Alzheimer's disease phenotype based upon the carrier status of the apolipoprotein E ɛ4 allele

The apolipoprotein E ɛ4 allele (APOE4) is universally acknowledged as the most potent genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease (AD). APOE4 promotes the initiation and progression of AD. Although the underlying mechanisms are unclearly understood, differences in lipid-bound affinity among the three APOE isoforms may constitute the basis. The protein APOE4 isoform has a high affinity with triglycerides and cholesterol. A distinction in lipid metabolism extensively impacts neurons, microglia, and astrocytes. APOE4 carriers exhibit phenotypic differences from non-carriers in clinical examinations and respond differently to multiple treatments. Therefore, we hypothesized that phenotypic classification of AD patients according to the status of APOE4 carrier will help specify research and promote its use in diagnosing and treating AD. Recent reviews have mainly evaluated the differences between APOE4 allele carriers and non-carriers from gene to protein structures, clinical features, neuroimaging, pathology, the neural network, and the response to various treatments, and have provided the feasibility of phenotypic group classification based on APOE4 carrier status. This review will facilitate the application of APOE phenomics concept in clinical practice and promote further medical research on AD.

Pharmacogenomics of Dementia: Personalizing the Treatment of Cognitive and Neuropsychiatric Symptoms

Dementia is a syndrome of global and progressive deterioration of cognitive skills, especially memory, learning, abstract thinking, and orientation, usually affecting the elderly. The most common forms are Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia, and other (frontotemporal, Lewy body disease) dementias. The etiology of these multifactorial disorders involves complex interactions of various environmental and (epi)genetic factors and requires multiple forms of pharmacological intervention, including anti-dementia drugs for cognitive impairment, antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics and sedatives for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, and other drugs for comorbid disorders. The pharmacotherapy of dementia patients has been characterized by a significant interindividual variability in drug response and the development of adverse drug effects. The therapeutic response to currently available drugs is partially effective in only some individuals, with side effects, drug interactions, intolerance, and non-compliance occurring in the majority of dementia patients. Therefore, understanding the genetic basis of a patient's response to pharmacotherapy might help clinicians select the most effective treatment for dementia while minimizing the likelihood of adverse reactions and drug interactions. Recent advances in pharmacogenomics may contribute to the individualization and optimization of dementia pharmacotherapy by increasing its efficacy and safety via a prediction of clinical outcomes. Thus, it can significantly improve the quality of life in dementia patients.

Role of Pharmacogenomics in Individualizing Treatment for Alzheimer's Disease

The development of Alzheimer's disease therapeutics has been challenging, with 99% of clinical trials failing to find a significant difference between drug and placebo. While the quest continues for more effective treatments, there is emerging evidence that pharmacogenetic considerations are important factors in regard to metabolism, efficacy, and toxicity of drugs. Currently, there are five US Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease; three acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, memantine, and aducanumab. Introducing a limited genetic panel consisting of APOE4, CYP2D6*10, and BChE*K would optimize acetylcholinesterase inhibitor therapy, facilitate immunotherapy risk assessment, and inform an amyloid-related imaging abnormality surveillance schedule. In view of the genetic heterogeneity of Alzheimer's disease identified in genome-wide association studies, pharmacogenetics is expected to play an increasing role in mechanism-specific treatment strategies and personalized medicine.

Genistein and Galantamine Combinations Decrease β-Amyloid Peptide (1-42)-Induced Genotoxicity and Cell Death in SH-SY5Y Cell Line: an In Vitro and In Silico Approach for Mimic of Alzheimer's Disease

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the primary dementia-causing disease worldwide, involving a multifactorial combination of environmental, genetic, and epigenetic factors, with essential participation of age and sex. Biochemically, AD is characterized by the presence of abnormal deposition of beta amyloid peptide (Aβ_(1-42)), which in the brain is strongly correlated with oxidative stress, inflammation, DNA damage, and cholinergic impairment. The multiple mechanisms involved in its etiology create significant difficulty in producing an effective treatment. Neuroprotective properties of genistein and galantamine have been widely demonstrated through different mechanisms; however, it is unknown a possible synergistic neuroprotective effect against Aβ_(1-42). In order to understand how genistein and galantamine combinations regulate the mechanisms of neuroprotection, we conducted a set of bioassays in vitro to evaluate cell viability, clonogenic survival, cell death, and anti-genotoxicity. Through molecular docking and therapeutic viability assays, we analyzed the inhibitory activity exerted by genistein on three major protein targets (AChE, BChE, and NMDA) involved in AD. The results showed that genistein and galantamine afforded significant protection at higher concentrations; however, combinations of sub-effective concentrations of both compounds provided marked neuroprotection when they were combined. In silico approaches showed that genistein has higher scores than the positive controls and low toxicity levels; nevertheless, the therapeutic viability indicated that unlike galantamine, genistein cannot undergo the action by P glycoprotein (PGP) and probably may be unable to cross the blood-brain barrier. In conclusion, our results show that genistein and galantamine exert neuroprotective by decreasing genotoxicity and cell death. In silico analysis, suggest that genistein modulates positively the expression of AChE, BChE, and NMDA. In this context, a combination of two or more drugs could inspire an attractive therapeutic strategy.

Memantine for dementia

BACKGROUND

Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.

MAIN RESULTS

Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.

Memantine for the Treatment of Dementia: A Review on its Current and Future Applications

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the presence in the brain of extracellular amyloid-β protein (Aβ) and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyperphosphorylated tau protein. The N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDAR), ionotropic glutamate receptor, are essential for processes like learning and memory. An excessive activation of NMDARs has been associated with neuronal loss. The discovery of extrasynaptic NMDARs provided a rational and physiological explanation between physiological and excitotoxic actions of glutamate. Memantine (MEM), an antagonist of extrasynaptic NMDAR, is currently used for the treatment of AD jointly with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. It has been demonstrated that MEM preferentially prevents the excessive continuous extrasynaptic NMDAR disease activation and therefore prevents neuronal cell death induced by excitotoxicity without disrupting physiological synaptic activity. The problem is that MEM has shown no clear positive effects in clinical applications while, in preclinical stages, had very promising results. The data in preclinical studies suggests that MEM has a positive impact on improving AD brain neuropathology, as well as in preventing Aβ production, aggregation, or downstream neurotoxic consequences, in part through the blockade of extrasynaptic NMDAR. Thus, the focus of this review is primarily to discuss the efficacy of MEM in preclinical models of AD, consider possible combinations of this drug with others, and then evaluate possible reasons for its lack of efficacy in clinical trials. Finally, applications in other pathologies are also considered.

Clinical Benefits of Rivastigmine in the Real World Dementia Clinics of the Okayama Rivastigmine Study (ORS)

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is one of the most important diseases in an aging society, but the clinical effects of rivastigmine have not been fully examined in real world domestic clinics.

METHODS

We performed the "Okayama Rivastigmine Study (ORS)" to retrospectively analyze the clinical effects of rivastigmine (n = 75) or donepezil (n = 71) on AD patients with seven dementia assessment batteries at the baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. In addition, we divided the rivastigmine group into two subgroups at the baseline: the mild behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) group (Abe's BPSD score (ABS) <6) and the severe BPSD group (6≤ABS). In these two subgroups, baseline scores and changes were also retrospectively analyzed until 12 months.

RESULTS

Rivastigmine significantly improved the Mini-Mental State Examination score at 3 months (*p <  0.05 versus baseline) and at 6 months (*p <  0.05), the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB) at 6 months (*p <  0.05), and ABS at 3 months (**p <  0.01) while donepezil only stabilized the three cognitive scores. On the other hand, the Geriatric Depression Scale and the Apathy Scale were stable until 12 months in both groups. Baseline BPSD severity-dependent analysis showed a small improvement of FAB at 6 months in the mild BPSD subgroup (*p <  0.05) and a great improvement of ABS at 3 months in the severe BPSD subgroup (**p <  0.01) in the rivastigmine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our present study showed that rivastigmine improved both cognitive and affective functions at 3 and 6 months, and suggested an advantage at 3 and 6 months compared to donepezil in real world dementia clinics.

Apolipoprotein E*4 (APOE*4) Genotype Is Associated with Altered Levels of Glutamate Signaling Proteins and Synaptic Coexpression Networks in the Prefrontal Cortex in Mild to Moderate Alzheimer Disease

It has been hypothesized that Alzheimer disease (AD) is primarily a disorder of the synapse. However, assessment of the synaptic proteome in AD subjects has been limited to a small number of proteins and often included subjects with end-stage pathology. Protein from prefrontal cortex gray matter of 59 AD subjects with mild to moderate dementia and 12 normal elderly subjects was assayed using targeted mass spectrometry to quantify 191 synaptically expressed proteins. The profile of synaptic protein expression clustered AD subjects into two groups. One of these was characterized by reduced expression of glutamate receptor proteins, significantly increased synaptic protein network coexpression, and associated withApolipoprotein E*4 (APOE*4) carrier status. The second group, by contrast, showed few differences from control subjects. A subset of AD subjects had altered prefrontal cortex synaptic proteostasis for glutamate receptors and their signaling partners. Efforts to therapeutically target glutamate receptors in AD may have outcomes dependent on APOE*4 genotype.

Benefits and risks of add-on therapies for Alzheimer's disease

Despite three decades of intensive research, the efforts of scientific society and industry and the expenditures, numerous attempts to develop effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease have failed. Currently, approved and widely used medications to treat cognitive deficits in Alzheimer's disease are symptomatic only and show at best modest efficacy. In this context, the need to develop a successful, disease-modifying treatment is loudly expressed. One way to achieve this goal is the use of add-on therapies or various combinations of existing ‘conventional’ drugs. Results of several clinical studies and post hoc analyses of combination therapy with all cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine are published. Moreover, there is a need for studies on long-term efficacy of combination therapy in Alzheimer's.

Apolipoprotein E ε-4 as a genetic determinant of Alzheimer's disease heterogeneity

Alzheimer's disease (AD) displays a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of its etiology, presentation, prognosis, and treatment response. This can partly be explained by high-penetrance mutations in the amyloid precursor protein, presenilin 1 and presenilin 2 genes causing amyloid beta aggregation, which is a major pathogenic mechanism in the development of early-onset AD in a small subgroup of patients. Late-onset AD is considered a polygenic disorder in which cumulative risk resulting from interaction with modifiable environmental risk factors may be responsible for the majority of cases. The ε-4 allele of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene has emerged as the most significant genetic risk factor for late-onset AD, influencing nearly every pathogenic domain affected in AD. It is a major risk factor for cerebral amyloid angiopathy, recognized as a common pathological finding in an AD subtype associated with white matter dysfunction. The APOE ε-4 allele is also a known risk factor for ischemic stroke, which can result in vascular dementia or contribute to subcortical vascular dysfunction. In this review, we evaluate the clinical relevance of APOE genotyping in relation to cholesterol metabolism and available evidence on risk reduction strategies applicable to AD.

Effect of rivastigmine or memantine add-on therapy is affected by butyrylcholinesterase genotype in patients with probable Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

The K variant of butyrylcholinesterase (BCHE-K) exhibits a reduced acetylcholine-hydrolyzing capacity; so the clinical response to rivastigmine may differ in Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with the BCHE-K gene.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical response to rivastigmine transdermal patch monotherapy or memantine plus rivastigmine transdermal patch therapy in AD patients based on the BCHE-K gene.

METHODS

A total of 146 probable AD patients consented to genetic testing for butyrylcholinesterase and underwent the final efficacy evaluations. Responders were defined as patients with an equal or better score on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) at 16 weeks compared to their baseline score.

RESULTS

BCHE-K carriers showed a lower responder rate on the ADAS-cog than non-carriers (38.2 vs. 61.7%, p = 0.02), and this trend was evident in AD patients with apolipoprotein E ε 4 (35 vs. 60.7%, p = 0.001). The presence of the BCHE-K allele predicted a worse response on the ADAS-cog (odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.87), after adjusting for demographic and baseline cognitive and functional variables.

CONCLUSION

The BCHE-K genotype may be related to a poor cognitive response to rivastigmine patch or memantine add-on therapy, especially in the presence of apolipoprotein E ε 4.

Differentiation renders susceptibility to excitotoxicity in HT22 neurons

HT22 is an immortalized mouse hippocampal neuronal cell line that does not express cholinergic and glutamate receptors like mature hippocampal neurons in vivo. This in part prevents its use as a model for mature hippocampal neurons in memory-related studies. We now report that HT22 cells were appropriately induced to differentiate and possess properties similar to those of mature hippocampal neurons in vivo, such as becoming more glutamate-receptive and excitatory. Results showed that sensitivity of HT22 cells to glutamate-induced toxicity changed dramatically when comparing undifferentiated with differentiated cells, with the half-effective concentration for differentiated cells reducing approximately two orders of magnitude. Moreover, glutamate-induced toxicity in differentiated cells, but not undifferentiated cells, was inhibited by the N-methyl-D- aspartate receptor antagonists MK-801 and memantine. Evidently, differentiated HT22 cells expressed N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors, while undifferentiated cells did not. Our experimental findings indicated that differentiation is important for immortalized cell lines to render post-mitotic neuronal properties, and that differentiated HT22 neurons represent a better model of hippocampal neurons than undifferentiated cells.