Transdermal Blood Sampling for C-Peptide Is a Minimally Invasive, Reliable Alternative to Venous Sampling in Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: C-peptide and islet autoantibodies are key type 1 diabetes biomarkers, typically requiring venous sampling, which limits their utility. We assessed transdermal capillary blood (TCB) collection as a practical alternative. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-one individuals (71 with type 1 diabetes, 20 control; individuals with type 1 diabetes: aged median 14.8 years [interquartile range (IQR) 9.1-17.1], diabetes duration 4.0 years [1.5-7.7]; control individuals: 42.2 years [38.0-52.1]) underwent contemporaneous venous and TCB sampling for measurement of plasma C-peptide. Participants with type 1 diabetes also provided venous serum and plasma, and TCB plasma for measurement of autoantibodies to glutamate decarboxylase, islet antigen-2, and zinc transporter 8. The ability of TCB plasma to detect significant endogenous insulin secretion (venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L) was compared along with agreement in levels, using Bland-Altman. Venous serum was compared with venous and TCB plasma for detection of autoantibodies, using established thresholds. Acceptability was assessed by age-appropriate questionnaire. RESULTS: Transdermal sampling took a mean of 2.35 min (SD 1.49). Median sample volume was 50 µL (IQR 40-50) with 3 of 91 (3.3%) failures, and 13 of 88 (14.7%) <35 µL. TCB C-peptide showed good agreement with venous plasma (mean venous ln[C-peptide] - TCB ln[C-peptide] = 0.008, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], with 100% [36 of 36] sensitivity/100% [50 of 50] specificity to detect venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L). Where venous serum in multiple autoantibody positive TCB plasma agreed in 22 of 32 (sensitivity 69%), comparative specificity was 35 of 36 (97%). TCB was preferred to venous sampling (type 1 diabetes: 63% vs. 7%; 30% undecided). CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal capillary testing for C-peptide is a sensitive, specific, and acceptable alternative to venous sampling; TCB sampling for islet autoantibodies needs further assessment.

Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by blocking the action of the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This can be done by a group of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor.This review is an updated version of a review first published in 1998. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of donepezil; and to assess the effect of donepezil on healthcare resource use and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and a number of other sources on 20 May 2017 to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. In addition, we contacted members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was administered to people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two different doses of donepezil were compared. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One reviewer (JSB) extracted data on cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioural symptoms, global clinical state, quality of life, adverse events, deaths and healthcare resource costs. Where appropriate and possible, we estimated pooled treatment effects. We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies involving 8257 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review, of which 28 studies reported results in sufficient detail for the meta-analyses. Most studies were of six months' duration or less. Only one small trial lasted 52 weeks. The studies tested mainly donepezil capsules at a dose of 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day. Two studies tested a slow-release oral formulation that delivered 23 mg/day. Participants in 21 studies had mild to moderate disease, in five studies moderate to severe, and in four severe disease. Seventeen studies were industry funded or sponsored, four studies were funded independently of industry and for nine studies there was no information on source of funding.Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of donepezil 10 mg/day with placebo at 24 to 26 weeks of treatment. Thirteen studies contributed data from 3396 participants to this analysis. Eleven of these studies were multicentre studies. Seven studies recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, two with moderate to severe, and four with severe Alzheimer's disease, with a mean age of about 75 years. Almost all evidence was of moderate quality, downgraded due to study limitations.After 26 weeks of treatment, donepezil compared with placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog, range 0 to 70) (mean difference (MD) -2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -2.02, 1130 participants, 5 studies), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37, 1757 participants, 7 studies) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB, range 0 to 100) (MD 5.92, 95% CI 4.53 to 7.31, 1348 participants, 5 studies). Donepezil was also associated with better function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living score for severe Alzheimer's disease (ADCS-ADL-sev) (MD 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.85, 733 participants, 3 studies). A higher proportion of participants treated with donepezil experienced improvement on the clinician-rated global impression of change scale (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.39, 1674 participants, 6 studies). There was no difference between donepezil and placebo for behavioural symptoms measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.43 to 0.19, 1035 participants, 4 studies) or by the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) scale (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.08, 194 participants, 1 study). There was also no difference between donepezil and placebo for Quality of Life (QoL) (MD -2.79, 95% CI -8.15 to 2.56, 815 participants, 2 studies).Participants receiving donepezil were more likely to withdraw from the studies before the end of treatment (24% versus 20%, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50, 2846 participants, 12 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the studies (72% vs 65%, OR 1.59, 95% 1.31 to 1.95, 2500 participants, 10 studies).There was no evidence of a difference between donepezil and placebo for patient total healthcare resource utilisation.Three studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 5 mg/day over 26 weeks. The 5 mg dose was associated with slightly worse cognitive function on the ADAS-Cog, but not on the MMSE or SIB, with slightly better QoL and with fewer adverse events and withdrawals from treatment. Two studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 23 mg/day. There were no differences on efficacy outcomes, but fewer participants on 10 mg/day experienced adverse events or withdrew from treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12 or 24 weeks with donepezil experience small benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and clinician-rated global clinical state. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total healthcare resource costs. Benefits on 23 mg/day were no greater than on 10 mg/day, and benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose, but the rates of withdrawal and of adverse events before end of treatment were higher the higher the dose.

Arterial Effects of Canakinumab in Patients With Atherosclerosis and Type 2 Diabetes or Glucose Intolerance.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that interleukin (IL)-1ß is important in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and its complications and that inhibiting IL-1ß may favorably affect vascular disease progression. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effects of IL-1ß inhibition with canakinumab versus placebo on arterial structure and function, determined by magnetic resonance imaging. METHODS: Patients (N = 189) with atherosclerotic disease and either type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance were randomized to receive placebo (n = 94) or canakinumab 150 mg monthly (n = 95) for 12 months. They underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the carotid arteries and aorta. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between canakinumab compared with placebo in the primary efficacy and safety endpoints. There was no statistically significant change in mean carotid wall area and no effect on aortic distensibility, measured at 3 separate anatomic sites. The change in mean carotid artery wall area was -3.37 mm2 after 12 months with canakinumab versus placebo. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein was significantly reduced by canakinumab compared with placebo at 3 months (geometric mean ratio [GMR]: 0.568; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.436 to 0.740; p < 0.0001) and 12 months (GMR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.414 to 0.758; p = 0.0002). Lipoprotein(a) levels were reduced by canakinumab compared with placebo (-4.30 mg/dl [range: -8.5 to -0.55 mg/dl]; p = 0.025] at 12 months), but triglyceride levels increased (GMR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.046 to 1.380; p = 0.01). In these patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance, canakinumab had no effect compared with placebo on any of the measures assessed by using a standard oral glucose tolerance test. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically significant effects of canakinumab on measures of vascular structure or function. Canakinumab reduced markers of inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and interleukin-6), and there were modest increases in levels of total cholesterol and triglycerides. (Safety & Effectiveness on Vascular Structure and Function of ACZ885 in Atherosclerosis and Either T2DM or IGT Patients; NCT00995930).

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.