Effect of galantamine hydrobromide in chronic fatigue syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: There is no established pharmacological treatment for the core symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Galantamine hydrobromide, an acetyl cholesterone inhibitor, has pharmacological properties that might benefit patients with CFS. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of galantamine hydrobromide in patients with CFS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, double-blind trial conducted June 1997 through July 1999 at 35 outpatient centers in the United Kingdom (n = 17), United States (n = 14), the Netherlands (n = 2), Sweden (n = 1), and Belgium (n = 1) involving 434 patients with a clinical diagnosis of CFS (modified US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria). INTERVENTIONS: A total of 89 patients were randomly assigned to receive 2.5 mg of galantamine hydrobromide; 86 patients, 5.0 mg; 91 patients, 7.5 mg; and 86 patients, 10 mg (these patients received medicine in the tablet form 3 times per day); a total of 82 patients received matching placebo tablets 3 times per day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy variable was the global change on the Clinician Global Impression Scale after 4, 8, 12, and 16 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes were changes in core symptoms of CFS on the Chalder Fatigue Rating Scale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index; changes in quality of life on the Nottingham Health Profile; and assessment of plasma-free cortisol levels and cognitive performance on a computer-based battery of tests. RESULTS: After 16 weeks, there were no statistically significant differences between any of the galantamine or placebo groups in clinical condition on the Clinician Global Impression Scale, or for any of the secondary end points. Exploratory regression analysis failed to detect any consistent prognostic factor that might have influenced the primary or any secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: This trial did not demonstrate any benefit of galantamine over placebo in the treatment of patients with CFS.

A long-term comparison of galantamine and donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of galantamine 24 mg/day and donepezil 10 mg/day in patients with Alzheimer's disease. PATIENTS AND STUDY DESIGN: This was a rater-blinded, randomised, parallel-group multicentre study (18 outpatient clinics) in the UK. 182 patients (69 male, 113 female) with Alzheimer's disease were randomised to galantamine (n = 94) or donepezil (n = 88) for 52 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effects of galantamine and donepezil on function using the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BrADL); cognition using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog/11); behaviour using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI); caregiver burden using the Screen for Caregiver Burden; and safety were assessed. RESULTS: BrADL total scores showed no significant difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline to week 52. In the total population, in terms of cognition, galantamine patients' scores on the MMSE at week 52 did not differ significantly from baseline (-0.52 +/- 0.39, p < 0.5 vs baseline), whereas donepezil patients' scores deteriorated significantly from baseline (-1.58 +/- 0.42, p < 0.0005 vs baseline). The between-group difference in MMSE change, which showed a trend for superiority of galantamine, did not reach statistical significance (p < or = 0.1). In the ADAS-cog/11 analysis, between-group differences for the total population were not significant, whereas galantamine-treated patients with MMSE scores of 12-18 demonstrated an increase (worsening) in the ADAS-cog/11 score of 1.61 +/- 0.80 versus baseline, compared with an increase of 4.08 +/- 0.84 for patients treated with donepezil, with a significant between-group difference in favour of galantamine (p < or = 0.05). More caregivers of patients receiving galantamine reported reductions in burden compared with donepezil. Changes from baseline in NPI were similar for both treatments. Both treatments were well tolerated; most adverse events were transient and of mild-to-moderate intensity, and were consistent with the findings of previous clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: Significant advantages were found in the treatment response to galantamine (versus donepezil) on cognition as measured by response rates on the MMSE and ADAS-cog/11.