Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T02:16:59.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Linopirdine in the Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

Kenneth Rockwood ,
B. Lynn Beattie ,
M. Robin Eastwood ,
Howard Feldman ,
Erich Mohr ,
William Pryse-Phillips  and
Serge Gauthier
Kenneth Rockwood*
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine and Department of Community Health & Epidemiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax
B. Lynn Beattie
Affiliation:
Division of Geriatric Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
M. Robin Eastwood
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry and Preventive Medicine & Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Toronto
Howard Feldman
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Erich Mohr
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa
William Pryse-Phillips
Affiliation:
Division of Neurology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's
Serge Gauthier
Affiliation:
McGill Centre for Studies on Aging, McGill University, Montreal
*
Centre for Health Care of the Elderly, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, 5955 Jubilee Road, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 2E1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

We tested the efficacy and safety of linopirdine, a novel phenylindolinone, in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

Methods:

A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial of linopirdine (30 mg three times per day or placebo). Patients (n = 382, 55% male, 98% Caucasian, age range 51-95 years) with mild or moderate Alzheimer's disease, of whom 375 received at least one treatment dose were analysed. There were no important differences between the groups at baseline.

Results:

No difference was seen in Clinical Global Impression scores between patients receiving placebo and those receiving linopirdine (n = 189). Small differences in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) scores were seen throughout the study favouring linopirdine; at 6 months the ADAS-Cog scores were 20.2 (linopirdine) and 22.1 (placebo) p = 0.01.

Conclusions:

This trial did not detect clinically meaningful differences in patients receiving linopirdine for 6 months, despite evidence of a small degree of improved cognitive function. Further studies may benefit from more sensitive tests of treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , May 1997 , pp. 140 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation 1997

References

REFERENCES

1.Canadian Study of Health and Aging Working Group. Canadian Study of Health and Aging: methods and prevalence of dementia. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 150: 899–914.Google Scholar
2.Rockwood, K, Stadnyk, K. the prevalence of dementia in the elderly: a review. Can J Psychiatry 1994; 39: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Hay, JW, Ernst, RL. The economic cost of Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Ostbye, T, Crosse, E. Net economic cost of dementia in Canada. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 151: 1457–1564.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Knapp, MJ, Knopman, DS, Solomon, PR, et al. A 30-week randomized controlled trial of high-dose tacrine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA 1994; 268: 2546–2565.Google Scholar
6.Farlow, M, Gracon, SJ, Hershey, LA, et al. A controlled trial of tacrine in Alzheimer–s disease. JAMA 1991; 268: 2564–2565.Google Scholar
7.Davis, KL, Thal, LJ, Gamzu, ER, et al. A double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre study of tacrine for Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 1992; 327: 1253–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Eagger, SA, Levy, R, Sahakiar, RJ. Tacrine in Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet 1991; 337: 989–992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Chatellier, G, Lacomble, ZL. Tacrine and lecithin in senile dementia of the Alzheimer type: a multicentre trial. Br Med J 1990; 300: 495–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Guathier, S, Bouchard, R, Lamontagne, A, et al. Tetrahydroaminoacradine-lecithin combination treatment in patients with intermediate-stage Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 1990; 322: 1272–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Mohr, E, Schlegel, J, labbrini, G, et al. Clonidine treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol 1989; 46: 376–378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Parnetti, L, Senin, U, Carosi, M, Baasch, HMental deterioration inold age: results of two multicentre, clinical trials with nimodipine. Clin Ther 1993; 15: 394–406.Google Scholar
13.Saletu, B, Paulus, E, Linzmayer, L, et al. Nicergoline in senile dementia of Alzheimer type and multi-infarct dementia: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical and EEG/ERP mapping study. Psychopharmacol (Berl) 1995; 117: 385–395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Cutler, NR, Havby, J, Kay, AD, et al. Evaluation of zimeldine in Alzheimer’s disease: cognitive and biochemical markers. Arch Neurol 1985; 42: 744–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Schneider, LS, Olin, JT. Overview of clinical trials of hydergine in dementia. Arch Neurol 1994; 51: 787–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Cook, L, Nickolson, VJ, Steinfels, GF, et al. Cognition enhancement by the actelycholine releaser DUP 996. Drug Develop Res 1990; 19: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Nickolson, VJ, Tam, SW, Myers, MJ, Cook, L. DuP 996 (3,3-Bis(4-Pyrindinylmethyl)-l-Pheylindolin-2-One) enchances the stimulus-induced release of acetylcholine from rat brain in vitro and in vivo. Drug Develop Res 1990; 19: 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.DeNoble, VJ, DeNoble, KF, Spencer, KR, et al. Comparison of DuP 996, with physostigmine, THA and 3,4-DAP on hypoxia-induced amnesia in rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 1990; 36: 957–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Rosen, WG, Mohs, RC, Davis, KL. A new rating scale for Alzheimer’s disease. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 149: 1356–1364.Google Scholar
20.Kraemer, HC, Thiemann, S. How many subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987.Google Scholar
21.Erzigkeit, H. The SKT - a short cognitive performance test as an instrument for the assessment of clinical efficacy of cognitive enhancers.In: Bergner, W, Reisberg, B, eds. Diagnosis and Treatment of Senile Dementia. Heidelberg: Springer, 1989.Google Scholar
22.Folstein, MF, Folstein, SE, McHugh, PR. Mini-Mental State: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatry Res 1975; 12: 189–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Lawton, MP, Brody, EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist 1969; 9: 176–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Baumgarten, M, Becker, R, Gauthier, S. Validity and reliability of the dementia Behaviour Disturbance Scale. J Am Geriatric Soc 1990; 38: 221–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 3rd ed., Revised. Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 1987.Google Scholar
26.McKhann, G, Drachman, D, Folstein, M, et al. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRADA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984; 34: 939–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Hachinski, VC, Iliff, LD, Zilhka, E, et al. Cerebral blood flow in dementia. Arch Neurol 1975; 32; 632–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT Ser’s Guide, Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc, 1989.Google Scholar
29.Mohr, E, Feldman, H, Gauthier, S. Canadian guidelines for the development of antidementia therapies: a conceptual summary. Can J Neurol Sci 1995; 22: 62–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Rockwood, K. Use of global assessment measures in dementia drug trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 101–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Gill, TM, Feinstein, AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Howard, K, Rockwood, K. Quality of life in Alzheimer’s disease. Dementia 1995; 6: 113–116.Google ScholarPubMed
33.Rockwood, K, Stolee, P, Howard, K, Mallery, L. The use of Goal Attainment Scaling in an anti-dementia drug trial. Neuroepidemiology 1996;15: 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Davis, KL, Powchik, P. Tacrine. Lancet 1995; 345: 625–630.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Pomponi, M, Giocobini, E, Brufani, M. Present state and future development of the therapy of Alzheimer disease. Aging 1990; 2: 125–153.Google ScholarPubMed
36.O’Connor, DW, Pollitt, PA, Hyde, JB, et al. The reliability and validity of the Mini-Mental State in a British community survey. J Psychiat Res 1989; 23: 87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Brayne, C, Calloway, P. The association of education and socioeconomic status with the Mini-Mental State Examination and the clinical diagnosis of dementia in elderly people. Age Ageing 1990; 19: 91–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Gagnon, M, Letenneur, L, Dartigues, J-F, et al. Validity of the Mini-Mental State Examination as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment and dementia in French elderly community residents. Neuroepidemiology 1990; 9: 143–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Uhlmann, FR, Larson, EB. Effect of education on the Mini-Mental State Examination as a screening test for dementia. J Am Geriartr Soc 1991; 41: 1886–1892.Google Scholar
40.Jagger, C, Clarke, M, Anderson, J. Screening for dementia - a comparison of two tests using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1992; 7: 659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Ritchie, K, Fuhrer, R. A comparitive study of the performance of screening tests for senile dementia using receiver operating characteristics analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 627–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.Kaufmann, L, Rousseeuw, PFinding Groups in Data. An Introduction to Cluster Analysis. New York: Wiley, 1990.Google Scholar