Effectiveness of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine for Treating Dementia: Evidence Review for a Clinical Practice Guideline

Dementias have become a major public health concern because of their increasing prevalence, chronicity, caregiver burden, and high personal and financial costs of care. Currently, there are no cures for most dementias. For the most common types (Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, and mixed dementias), clinicians often prescribe pharmacotherapy to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression. The pharmacotherapeutic agents available to treat problems associated with dementias (for example, psychosis) have varying levels of evidence to support their efficacy and have been reviewed elsewhere (1). Some drugs, although not approved, are being used in populations with mild cognitive impairment; in such patients, the rate of conversion to dementias is 0.3 to 2.3 per 100 person-years (2). Currently, 5 drugs have U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for managing dementias. The cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and tacrine) degrade acetylcholinesterase, allowing levels of acetylcholine (a neurotransmitter critical to the neurons involved in cognition) to increase. Memantine partially blocks the N-methyl-d-aspartic acid receptor and prevents excess stimulation of the glutamate system, which influences memory and learning. Although FDA approval specifies use of these 5 drugs for Alzheimer disease, in clinical practice the drugs are also prescribed for other dementias. This review systematically evaluates the evidence for the effectiveness of these 5 drugs in improving outcomes in cognition, global function, behavior, and quality of life among patients with dementia. Methods Search and Selection We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, AgeLine, and PsycINFO for relevant evidence published in English from January 1986 through November 2006. We also reviewed the bibliographies of retrieved papers. All populations with major dementias (including Alzheimer disease, vascular dementia, and Parkinson dementia) and mild cognitive impairment were included. Only parallel randomized, controlled trials that compared a cholinesterase inhibitor or memantine with placebo or another drug were eligible. We excluded crossover trials because of potential bias due to period effects or period-by-treatment interaction. Our content-expert panel reached consensus and established that eligible studies also had to have a minimum modified Jadad score of 3 of 5 (original scale), indicating moderate study quality. Study outcomes primarily encompassed 4 broad domains: cognition, global function, behavior, and quality of life (including activities of daily living [ADLs] and caregiver burden). We classified most clinical outcomes within these 4 domains; other outcomes were rate of institutionalization, mortality, or adverse events. Two independent reviewers evaluated each study for eligibility. Appendix Table 1 describes the eligibility criteria in detail. Appendix Table 1. Detailed Eligibility Criteria for Systematic Review This systematic review was done in the context of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Qualityfunded review that evaluated 92 pharmacologic agents for dementias (1). Data Abstraction and Quality Assessment Two independent reviewers abstracted data from and assessed the quality of all studies that met the eligibility criteria. The modified Jadad scale (which includes additional domains that concern collection of adverse events, description of statistical analysis, and reporting of eligibility criteria) (3) and a checklist for the quality of reporting of adverse events were used to evaluate methodological quality; the latter measures included questions on frequency of reporting harms, withdrawals, and method of collection (1). Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis Evaluation of benefit was based on reported changes in the principal outcome within the domains of interest. Although we did not restrict studies by the type of outcome, we did anticipate that some outcomes would be more commonly used in these drug studies. We searched the literature to establish the magnitude of change considered to be clinically important in key outcomes. Specifically, within the domain of cognition, we considered the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)consisting of the cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), noncognitive subscale (ADAS-noncog), and total ADAS score (ADAS-tot)the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (or the standardized MMSE version), and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) to be commonly used measures that have established properties and are scored by a trained evaluator or clinician. The ADAS-cog is a validated psychometric assessment scale for the domains of attention, memory, orientation, language ability, and praxis in Alzheimer disease (4). Scores range from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater impairment. A change of 4 points is considered clinically significant for patients with mild to moderate dementia, but the ADAS-cog is not uniformly sensitive to change over the course of the disease (5). The ADAS-noncog evaluates behavioral changes. The MMSE is a widely used measure of cognitive function validated in dementia populations (6). Scores range from 0 to 30, with lower scores indicating greater impairment. The MMSE measures orientation, attention, recall, and language, but it does not evaluate mood or disordered forms of thinking. The SIB is a validated measure of cognitive function for moderate to severe dementias in the areas of orientation, attention, language, and praxis (7). Scores on the SIB range from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating greater deficits. There are no established clinically important differences for the MMSE or SIB. For the domain of global function, a commonly used outcome is the clinician-based impression of change (CIBIC), with caregiver input (CIBIC-plus) and other modified versions (New York UniversityCIBIC-plus, clinician's global impression of change [CGIC], Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study CGIC, and clinician interviewbased impression). The CIBIC-plus is a validated measure of change that requires a clinician to judge global patient function in 4 areas: general, cognitive, behavioral, and ADLs (8). This measure is scored on a 7-point scale, with 1 reflecting marked improvement, 4 indicating no change, and 7 denoting marked worsening. Because the CIBIC-plus is a global rating by clinicians, any change in score is considered clinically significant. Most other measures commonly used in clinical settings do not have established effect sizes that reflect clinically important differences. To evaluate adverse effects, we used a standardized instrument that assessed rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects, the method (active vs. passive and standardized vs. nonstandardized approaches) and frequency of collection of harms, and the definition and collection of serious and severe harms. A priori, we selected specific events (nausea, diarrhea, dizziness, accidental injury, agitation, urinary disorder, serious adverse events) and expressed these as a percentage for each study. Where 2 or more studies provided sufficient information, we calculated the summary estimate for the specific adverse event evaluated. We used standard meta-analytic techniques to estimate effect sizes for each drug in studies with the same outcomes. The effect measure selected varied according to the manner in which the outcome was reported and included change scores or, for dichotomous data, relative risks (RRs). Reasonableness of pooling was assessed on clinical and biological grounds in terms of clinical heterogeneity (drugs, similarity of populations, and outcomes); therefore, meta-analysis was not appropriate for all outcomes. We did not include summary estimates when studies provided only end point scores. Similarly, we excluded studies that did not provide a measure of variance for outcomes when computing summary estimates. When meta-analyses were undertaken, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was selected as the pooled estimate instead of the standardized mean difference. When only the proportions of patients whose condition improved or worsened were reported, the RR was used as a measure of the summary effect size. In all meta-analyses, a random-effects model was used; tests for statistical heterogeneity were based on the chi-square statistic and the I 2 statistic. In some cases (912), estimates of mean changes in the study outcomes used for the meta-analyses were based on best estimates derived from figures in the citations. Results Figure 1 shows the process of study selection. Of the papers in the larger review, 127 evaluated donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, tacrine, and memantine. We excluded 22 of these that scored less than 3 on the Jadad scale, 8 that were crossover trials, and 1 that administered tacrine to both study groups. The Appendix lists all excluded studies. The remaining 96 reports included 59 unique study cohorts. Seventy-five different outcomes were measured across the domains of interest. Cognition and global function were the domains from which efficacy was most frequently determined. Figure 1. Study flow diagram. The term companion refers to multiple reports from a single study. The authors considered the first published study as the main paper and referred to all associated reports as companion papers. DSM = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; NINCDS = National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke. Donepezil versus Placebo Twenty-four unique studies (9, 10, 1233) from 34 different reports evaluating donepezil versus placebo (or vitamin E) were eligible for this systematic review. Three additional studies (4 reports) directly compared donepezil with galantamine (34, 35) and rivastigmine (36, 37) and are discussed in the section on compara