Donepezil Plus Solifenacin (CPC-201) Treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease
Available cholinergic drugs for treating Alzheimer’s disease (AD) provide modest symptomatic benefit. We hypothesized that co-administration of a peripheral anticholinergic to reduce dose-limiting adverse effects (AEs) would enable the safe/tolerable use of higher cholinesterase inhibitor doses and thus improve their antidementia efficacy. A modified single-blind, ascending-dose, phase IIa study of donepezil plus solifenacin (CPC-201) lasting 26 weeks was conducted in 41 patients with probable AD of moderate severity. Entry criteria included the use of donepezil at a dose of 10 mg/day during the preceding 3 months. The primary outcome measure was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of donepezil achieved (to protocol limit of 40 mg/day) when administered with the anticholinergic solifenacin 15 mg/day. Secondary measures included assessments of cognitive and global function, as well as of AEs. The mean ± SD donepezil MTD increased to 38 ± 0.74 mg/day (median 40 mg/day; p < 0.001); 88% of the study population safely attained this dose at the end of titration. Markedly reduced donepezil AE frequency, especially gastrointestinal, allowed this dose increase. There were no drug-related serious AEs or clinically significant laboratory abnormalities. At 26 weeks, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Component scores in the efficacy evaluable population improved by 0.35 ± 0.85 points over baseline (p < 0.05), an estimated 2.5 ± 0.84 points above 10 mg/day donepezil and 5.4 ± 0.84 points above historic placebo (both p < 0.05). Clinical Global Impression of Improvement scores improved by 0.94 ± 0.20 to 3.1 ± 0.20 points (p < 0.001). The findings suggest that limiting donepezil AEs by co-administration of solifenacin allows the safe administration of substantially higher cholinesterase inhibitors doses that may augment cognitive and global benefits in patients with AD.
Key WordsDementia clinical trial donepezil solifenacin cholinesterase inhibitor anticholinergic.
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder afflicting mainly the elderly . Its cause remains obscure and no treatment has yet been shown to prevent onset or delay progression. Since clinical decline is associated with a profound loss of cholinergic neurons arising in the medial forebrain nuclei and an associated reduction in acetylcholine-mediated neurotransmission , drugs tending to normalize acetylcholine transmitter levels, such as donepezil and related cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs), have for over 2 decades served as the mainstay of symptomatic therapy . Unfortunately, none has proven more that modestly effective: even at maximum tolerated doses (MTD), most patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) achieve only marginal clinical benefits [4, 5].
A major factor contributing to this limited efficacy is the marginal 25% to 30% inhibition of cortical ChE activity achieved with standard of care 5 or 10 mg/day donepezil doses [6, 7]. Higher dosing can achieve greater levels of ChE inhibition , but dosing is limited in most patients by adverse events (AEs), especially nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea . Indeed, a 23-mg donepezil formulation, introduced in 2010 , gained relatively limited acceptance due mainly to gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance . This is regrettable as both animal model [12, 13, 14] and AD patient [10, 15, 16, 17, 18] studies suggest that, over a broad range, larger ChEI doses potentially confer greater cognitive benefit.
The foregoing observations led us to hypothesize that ChEI doses well above those currently approved, but rendered safe and tolerable by the co-administration of a second drug capable of inhibiting peripherally mediated cholinergic AEs, might achieve substantially greater symptomatic benefit and cognitive stabilization to those suffering from AD. Initial support for this view derived from multiple phase I studies showing that the addition of a peripheral anticholinergic to donepezil or other ChEI allows substantial increases in the MTD and associated plasma concentrations . This first-in-patient study was thus designed to evaluate whether the MTD of a ChEI could be substantially raised in patients with AD by the co-administration of a peripheral anticholinergic, and, secondarily, whether this additional agent might improve cognitive function. The ChEI donepezil and the antimuscarinic solifenacin were selected as an optimal drug combination to test this hypothesis.
Donepezil hydrochloride is a selective, reversible ChEI known to enhance cholinergic function both centrally and peripherally . Initially approved for US marketing in 1996 for the treatment of AD, it has been sold generically since 2010 at daily doses of 5, 10, and, most recently, 23 mg. Peak plasma concentrations of donepezil, which is 100% orally bioavailable, are achieved in approximately 3 h and the biological half-life is about 70 h.
Solifenacin is a competitive cholinergic receptor antagonist, relatively selective for the M3 receptor subtype . It has been approved for the treatment of overactive bladder disorder since 2004. At recommended doses of 5 and 10 mg/day, peak plasma levels of solifenacin are attained within 3 to 8 h. Solifenacin is primarily metabolized in liver by the cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP3A4 and excreted by the kidneys with an elimination half-life of 45 to 68 h. It binds to hERG (human Ether-a-go-go-Related Gene) channels in the heart and may prolong the QT interval, although rarely to a clinically relevant degree . Multiple preclinical and clinical studies indicate that solifenacin does not penetrate the blood–brain barrier sufficiently to have a meaningful effect on cognition at doses given in this trial .
Patients and Methods
Objectives and Study Design
The primary goal of this clinical trial was to determine the MTD of donepezil that could be safely given to patients with moderate AD when administered in combination with solifenacin as CPC-201. AS all those admitted to this study had been chronically treated with stable doses of donepezil for at least 3 months at their putative MTD of 10 mg/day, the donepezil dose increment enabled by the addition of a peripheral anticholinergic could be estimated. Secondarily, this study explored the potential effects of higher-dose donepezil to provide signals suggesting additional cognitive and global benefit.
In pursuit of this goal, a modified placebo-controlled, dose-escalation, crossover study was conducted at 7 sites in the USA from 19 August 2014 to 3 March 2016. The outpatient study used a modified single-blind design: patients and their caregivers, as well as cognitive measure raters and other study personnel, remained masked to treatment status, with the exception of the coordinator and a physician at each site who controlled dosing. Both the protocol and informed consent were approved by the independent ethics committee/institutional review board for each independent site and conformed to the principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and all local regulations. The study design was also reviewed and deemed appropriate by the US Food and Drug Administration (Investigational New Drug Application 114776).
Patients eligible for this trial ranged in age from 50 to 89 years and had a diagnosis of probable dementia of the Alzheimer’s type, as defined in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders , and based on National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Diseases and Stroke, Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria ; had a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score  of 10 to 20 (moderate impairment); were ambulatory and free of any medical condition that would adversely affect the safety or informative value of this study; and had clinical laboratory values within normal limits, or, if abnormal, considered by the investigator and sponsor to be not clinically significant.
All participants had been treated with donepezil 10 mg/day for at least 12 weeks prior to study entry. Patients taking memantine, at stable doses of either 20 mg/day immediate release or 28 mg/day extended release for at least 8 weeks before screening, were allowed to continue at that dose throughout the trial. All patients were required to have caregivers who either lived with or had daily contact with the patient and were not considered by the investigator to be cognitively impaired to a degree compromising their evaluations regarding safety/tolerability and global functioning.
Patients were excluded if they had a history or presence of seizures; myasthenia gravis; peptic ulcer; GI obstructive disorder or reduced GI motility; narrow-angle glaucoma; urinary retention; unexplained syncope; family history of sudden death; myocardial infarction or hospitalization for congestive heart failure within the prior 6 months; history of implanted cardiac pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator; electrocardiogram (ECG) findings of prolonged QT interval, complete left bundle branch block, ventricular pacing, second-degree or third-degree atrioventricular block, atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, heart rate <45 or >100 beats per min; PR > 220 ms, or QTcF >450 ms in males or >470 ms in females; patients treated with the following medications within 8 weeks of screening: AD treatments (other than donepezil and memantine), peripherally acting anticholinergics (e.g., drugs for the treatment of overactive bladder disorder), psychoactive medications (including antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, or sedative hypnotics) having significant anticholinergic effects, and/or believed to affect alertness or cognitive function.
Prior to initiating study procedures, investigators obtained written informed consent from each patient, if possible, or from the patient’s legal authorized representative. If a patient was unable to provide written consent, he or she was required to provide verbal assent to participate in the study. Additionally, the caregiver or legal authorized representative was required separately to provide written informed consent for his or her own participation in the study.
Study Drug Administration
The CPC-201 trial consisted of 4 phases (baseline, solifenacin titration, donepezil titration, and MTD maintenance), nominally lasting 2 days, 2 weeks, 12 weeks, and 12 weeks, respectively, for a total of approximately 26 weeks. Study medications were taken together, once daily in the morning throughout the trial. The blind was maintained by means of a double-dummy system. At every clinic visit patients received daily packs of 6 tablets; 2 similarly appearing tablets contained either active or placebo solifenacin, and 4 similarly appearing tablets contained either active or placebo donepezil.
Upon study admission, patients switched from their ongoing 10 mg/day dose of donepezil to the constant 6 tablet/day regimen. Initially, 1 donepezil tablet contained 10 mg, while all other tablets were inactive. Subsequently, in accordance with the protocol titration schedule, placebo solifenacin was replaced by active solifenacin at a dose of 10 mg/day and increased after 1 week to 15 mg/day. Donepezil was then increased by weekly 5-mg increments to 25 mg and thereafter at every-other-week intervals to each patient’s first intolerable dose or the protocol maximum of 40 mg/day. Patients attaining their first intolerable dose were immediately reduced to their previous MTD. Upon titration phase completion, all patients entered a MTD maintenance phase lasting 3 months. Study drug dosing was always permissive, consistent with patient needs and investigator discretion. Compliance, evaluated by counting unused tablets from each patient at every clinic visit, as well as by periodic measurements of peak and trough plasma levels of both study medications, was >98%. At the end of the study, all patients were given, at the investigators’ discretion, the option of entering a 6-month open-label extension or exiting after returning to their previous treatment regimen and receiving a final safety check.
Safety and Efficacy Assessments
The primary outcome measure for this exploratory phase IIa study was the difference in the highest stably tolerated dose of donepezil when administered alone and when given together with solifenacin (15 mg/day). Secondary measures included safety–tolerability and initial efficacy assessments, conducted at regular intervals, as well as by standard laboratory tests. Patients returned to the clinic for evaluation at each dose adjustment or else at weekly intervals during dose titration (up to the week-14 visit) and at monthly intervals during MTD maintenance (at the week 18, 22, and 26 visits). Regular telephone contact between site staff and patient/caregivers maintained interim surveillance.
Safety assessments included clinical laboratory testing (hematology, biochemistry, and urinalysis panels analyzed by a central laboratory that met regulatory certification requirements), 12-lead ECG read centrally by a cardiologist with advanced training, and physical and neurologic examinations, including vital sign measurements, at all clinic visits. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured in the supine position. Temperature, respiratory rate, and weight were also determined at all clinic visits. Height was recorded at screening. In addition, possible deleterious effects of solifenacin on cognitive function were assessed by means of the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Component (ADAS-cog) scale at baseline and usually 2 weeks later when a dose of 15 mg/day had been achieved, both time points where the donepezil dose remained at 10 mg/day.
Treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) listings derived from spontaneous reports from patients and/or caregivers, as well as open-ended questioning, throughout the study. The severity of each TEAE (mild, moderate, or severe) and its relation to study medications (unrelated, possibly, probably, or definitely related) were determined by the investigators and reviewed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) and the sponsor.
Secondary outcome measures also included the 11-item ADAS-cog to evaluate safety, as well as a potential indicator of efficacy after completion of donepezil titration (at the week-12 visit) and again after 1, 2, and 3 months of MTD maintenance. In addition, the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale was performed at study completion during the week-26 visit.
The ADAS-cog is an 11-item instrument commonly used in AD trials to assess cognitive function . Disturbances in such core symptoms of AD as memory, language, praxis, and attention are evaluated. Total scores range from 0 (most impaired) to 70 (least impaired). Blinded, trained raters after fulfilling qualification standards and demonstrating satisfactory performance on tests of rating proficiency performed the ADAS-cog assessments. With few exceptions, patients were evaluated by the same rater throughout the trial.
The CGI-I is a semistructured tool that provides an overall assessment of how much a patient's illness has changed, whether or not entirely due to study medications, relative to their baseline state at the beginning of the intervention . Patients were rated once at the end of the study independently by both the investigator and the caregiver on a 7-point scale (1 = marked improvement; 2 = moderate improvement; 3 = minimal improvement; 4 = no change; 5 = minimal worsening; 6 = moderate worsening; 7 = marked worsening). Raters were asked to rate overall change, taking into account all available information, compared with the patients’ condition at baseline . For both the ADAS-cog and CGI-I measures, a negative change indicates improvement.
The MMSE is a 30-item test of cognitive function, with total scores ranging from 0 (most impaired) to 30 (least impaired) . It was employed as a screening tool to determine admission eligibility. The same rater generally administered the ADAS-cog and then the MMSE.
The pharmacokinetics of donepezil alone (at baseline) and with solifenacin (at all subsequent times) were assessed at both trough (15 min before daily drug administration) and nominal peak drug levels (4 h later) at time points including baseline, end of solifenacin titration, end of donepezil titration, end of each month of MTD donepezil maintenance, and at study conclusion.
A sample size of 34 evaluable patients was planned to provide an overall power of ≥80% to observe a significant difference in the putative MTD of donepezil, prior to study entry when given alone at 10 mg/day and at the end of donepezil titration when given with solifenacin 15 mg/day as CPC-20.
Safety and tolerability were analyzed in the safety population (all those who received at least 1 dose of study medication). Efficacy analyses were performed on both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and the efficacy evaluable populations. The ITT was defined as all randomized patients who had at least 1 postbaseline assessment. The efficacy evaluable population was defined as all those who received study drugs, attended all study visits, and participated in all study procedures leading to the determinations. The primary efficacy endpoint (change in donepezil dose) was analyzed in the ITT population. The secondary efficacy measures (cognitive and global change) were assessed in the efficacy evaluable population. Post-hoc analyses of the impact of patient age, sex, baseline symptom severity, and concomitant medications on the response to treatment were conducted.
Since this initial phase II trial did not include a placebo arm, adjustment of ADAS-cog differences from baseline to changes from 10 mg donepezil and from placebo was based on an independently performed meta-analysis of the published literature . Prior to breaking the blind, selection of randomized controlled trials for inclusion in this analysis relied on quality (internal validity) of search strategies and selection criteria developed by the Cochrane Collaboration  followed by comparability criteria devised a priori for this study, including such factors as disease severity, donepezil dose, treatment duration, and outcome measures [3, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37]. Similarly, the slope of cognitive decline during placebo or 10 mg/day donepezil treatment was estimated to be 0.0119 ADAS-cog points per day. Finally, a mean effect of 10 mg donepezil of 2.9 ADAS-cog points above placebo also derived from meta-analyses of data from multiple trials [31, 38, 39, 40].
The present study, the first phase II evaluation of CPC-201, was intended to be hypothesis raising rather than hypothesis testing; it was thus not powered to yield reliably statistically significant conclusions with respect to neurobehavioral efficacy. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics (including means and SEs to reveal possible trends that might help guide the design of future, more definitive, clinical trials). An analysis of covariance model with terms for baseline score and treatment was used as the primary model for testing treatment effects on ADAS-cog scores ± SEM values used to compare treatment groups. For the categorical endpoint, CGI-I score at the 26-week visit a nonparametric analysis of covariance method combined with a Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test component was used. All statistical tests, 2-sided at a significance level of 0.05, were conducted using SAS version 8.0 or higher  by Amarex LLC . An independent safety monitoring board (DSMB) determined that the study could proceed as planned.
Patient Baseline Characteristics and Disposition
Summary of baseline demographics of Alzheimer’s disease patients entering CPC-201 trial
Mean ± SD age (y)
Age range (y)
Mean ± SD weight (kg)
76.4 ± 18.0
Weight range (kg)
Mean ± SD (median) duration of Alzheimer’s disease (y)
3.4 ± 2.7 (3.0)
Mean ± SD duration of donepezil treatment prior to study entry (d)
833.8 ± 718.3
Mean ± SD baseline ADAS-cog
28.5 ± 8.3
Mean ± SD baseline MMSE
16.5 ± 3.10
Solifenacin was given orally at a daily dose of 10 mg for 1 week and then increased to 15 mg for the remainder of the trial. The peripheral anticholinergic produced no untoward clinical or laboratory effects in the 41-patient safety population. Specifically, there were no symptoms of neuropsychological dysfunction reported, and cognition measured by the ADAS-cog after 2 weeks of solifenacin treatment did not change [mean ± SEM of 26.9 ± 1.25 at baseline (donepezil 10 mg/day only) vs 26.9 ± 1.28 after treatment (donepezil 10 mg/day plus solifenacin 15 mg/day) for a difference of 0.012 ± 0.76 (n = 26; p = nonsignificant)]. At no later time during the study were centrally mediated untoward effects of solifenacin detected or a need for a downward dose adjustment recognized.
Maximum Tolerated Dose of Donepezil
Patients admitted to this study had been treated with standard donepezil (10 mg/day) for at least 3 months. Clinically, all were considered by their investigator to be responding satisfactorily. Once a solifenacin dose of 15 mg/day had been achieved, the amount of donepezil was gradually increased to the protocol maximum of 40 mg/day or to each patient’s first intolerable dose (then reduced to the next lower dose). Donepezil titration took an average of 9.6 ± 0.62 weeks, prolonged by efforts to accommodate to such matters such as scheduling convenience, as well as drug tolerability.
This phase IIa study mainly conducted to determine the size of its primary efficacy outcome measure. It was neither designed nor powered to provide statistical assessments of secondary measures of safety or efficacy, but rather to suggest data trends suitable for possible future evaluation.
Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in more than 1 patient, by treatment period, and preferred term, by descending order of frequency during donepezil titration period
TEAE preferred term
Number (%) of patients
Solifenacin upward dose titration
Donepezil upward dose titration
Donepezil dose maintenance
(n = 41)
(n = 38)
(n = 33)
Number of patients with any TEAE
Electrocardiogram QT prolonged
Most TEAEs, drug related or not, were mild (68% of patients) or moderate (54%) in severity. During this trial, severe AEs occurred in 7 (17%) patients. All were unique and none was considered related to treatment. Serious TEAEs occurred in 8 patients (20%); all were considered unrelated to treatment. Only 1 patient prematurely withdrew from the study due to a TEAE: bilateral plantar dermatitis judged unrelated to CPC-201 treatment. The death of 1 patient (from pneumonia 2 weeks after stopping study medications) was also not considered related to the treatment.
During the entirety of this trial, there were no clinically meaningful changes in clinical, vital signs (blood pressure, heart rate, or heart rhythm), or standard laboratory assessments. Although no significant change in mean body weight occurred, decreased weight as an AE was reported in 1 patient (2%). Compared with baseline, 2 patients (5%) had a weight decrease of ≥7% at the end of the study. QTcF intervals, read centrally from routine paper ECGs obtained 4 h postdrug intake and at each dose increase and at monthly intervals during maintenance, averaged (mean ± SD) 421 ± 22.2 ms at baseline (10 mg/day donepezil monotherapy; n = 41), 436 ± 23.7 ms at solifenacin steady state (n = 35), and 436 ± 22.6 ms at the end of the 12-week maintenance (n = 30). There was no correlation between QTcF change and plasma donepezil or solifenacin concentrations and all QTcF increments remained <60 ms from baseline, except for 1 individual who had brief, transient increases to 78 ms.
Effect of CPC-201 treatment on cognitive function in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease measured by Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Component (ADAS-cog) changes from baseline and estimated from 10 mg donepezil and from placebo response
Mean treatment weeks
Median donepezil dose (mg/kg)
Number of patients
ADAS-cog difference from:
Aricept 10 mg†
−0.55 ± 0.92
−1.6 ± 0.88
−4.5 ± 0.88‡
−1.1 ± 1.1
−2.5 ± 1.1‡
−5.4 ± 1.1‡
−0.61 ± 1.1
−2.4 ± 1.1‡
−5.3 ± 1.1‡
−0.35 ± 0.85
−2.5 ± 0.84‡
−5.4 ± 0.84‡
Responder analysis of the completed trial results showed that 14 (61%) of the efficacy evaluable population had ADAS-cog change scores of 0 to −7 and were thus regarded as CPC-201 responders, while 9 (39%) had change scores <0 and were considered nonresponders. At the end of the 26-week trial, ADAS-cog increments for responders averaged −2.9 ± 0.77 points above baseline and −7.9 ± 0.77 points above placebo (both p < 0.05 for n =14). Indeed, all 14 of the responding individuals had estimated ADAS-cog benefit above placebo of at least 4 points.
Domain analysis of the ADAS-cog results at trial conclusion revealed that Memory [sum of items 4 (Word recall), 6 (Orientation), and 10 (Word recognition)] responded substantially better than Language [Sum of Item 1 (spoken language ability), Item 2 (Comprehension), Item 3 (Word finding difficulty), Item 5 (Naming objects and fingers), and Item 11 (Remembering test instructions)] or Praxis [Sum of Items 7 (commands), 8 (ideational praxis), and 9 (constructional praxis)]. Moreover, mean baseline scores for the 3 items comprising the memory domain averaged substantially worse (7.01) than those for the remaining 8 ADAS-cog items (0.85). The severity of memory dysfunction thus might serve as a possible predictor of the response to strong cholinomimetic stimulation.
Effect of 26 weeks of CPC-201 treatment on global function in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease as measured by the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale
CGI-I score (mean ± SEM)
Change from baseline (mean ± SEM)
3.3 ± 0.19
−0.75 ± 0.19*
2.9 ± 0.27
−1.1 ± 0.27*
3.1 ± 0.20
−0.94 ± 0.20*
Predictors of Treatment Response
None of the demographic or other patient characteristics measured at baseline in this study were found on post hoc analysis to relate significantly to changes in overall cognitive or global function. More specifically, neither age, sex, baseline dementia severity, nor concomitant memantine appeared to affect the CPC-201 response as measured by the ADAS-cog or CGI-I in this small patient sample. However, patients continuing to receive their previous dose of memantine tended to have a larger ADAS-cog response above baseline than those not receiving memantine, although this difference did not attain statistical significance (p > 0.05).
This small, first-in-patient clinical trial found that solifenacin co-administration enabled the dose of donepezil to be safely increased to 40 mg/day in 88% of patients with moderate AD. Treatment with high-dose CPC-201, which combines the ChEI with the peripheral anticholinergic, resulted in a more than 4-fold increment in circulating donepezil concentrations and thus brain exposure to the therapeutic agent. Solifenacin administration, in amounts that failed to produce any detrimental effects on cognition, allowed this dose increase by diminishing all TEAEs of donepezil, especially those involving the GI system. At trial conclusion, measures of both cognitive and global function suggested significant improvement with high-dose donepezil-containing CPC-201 over standard 10 mg donepezil in patients with moderate AD.
The present results with solifenacin co-administration support the hypothesis that the dose-limiting AEs of donepezil-like ChEIs reflect peripheral, not central, muscarinic receptor stimulation . They are also consistent with the view that profound under dosage contributes to the meager antidementia efficacy of currently approved donepezil treatments [7, 10, 19]. Finally, the findings of this study add strength to the view that higher ChEI doses, within the range evaluated here, may bring greater cognitive benefit to patients with AD [3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18].
All 33 efficacy evaluable patients completing the drug titration phase tolerated CPC-201 containing at least 25 mg/day of donepezil (thus exceeding the highest currently approved donepezil dose) and nearly all (88%) reached the per-protocol maximal allowable dose of 40 mg/day. Plasma donepezil concentrations in the 4 (12%) individuals who did not attain MTDs of at least 40 mg/day averaged well above those expected from the dose they received. An ongoing extension study suggests that donepezil doses up to at least 60 mg/day (combined with solifenacin 15 or 20 mg/day) are well tolerated by most patients with AD. By contrast, repeated doses of donepezil monotherapy in the 45 to 180 mg/day range (plasma concentrations extending from 55 to 546 ng/ml) are reported only in the toxicology literature, usually in association with unintentional overdose and severe adverse effects [42, 43]. Pharmacokinetic results, notwithstanding relatively wide scatter, confirm that higher donepezil doses bring proportionally greater plasma levels.
No medically significant safety issues emerged during the course of this trial. High donepezil doses failed to slow significantly heart rate or reduce blood pressure. The well-known tendency of solifenacin to prolong the QT interval was observed , but when co-administered with 40 mg/day donepezil this effect failed to worsen to a clinically significant degree. Similarly, no deleterious cognitive consequences attended solifenacin administration.
AE frequency during the high-dose donepezil containing CPC-201 maintenance phase decreased by about 80% of that observed in comparable randomized control trials of 10 mg/day donepezil . High-dose CPC-201 appeared especially superior to currently available donepezil dosage forms in relation to GI tolerance. Indeed, the most frequent AEs during CPC-201 maintenance were injuries due to accidental falls in 4 individuals, 3 of whom had a history of frequent falls. The dearth of solifenacin-related AEs in this study suggests that the cholinomimetic and anticholinergic components of CPC-201 tend to mutually antagonize the peripherally mediated effects of the other.
This exploratory trial was neither designed nor powered to detect reliably improvement in secondary behavioral outcomes measures such as the ADAS-cog or CGI-I. These scales were primarily intended to detect possible centrally mediated adverse effects of high-dose solifenacin. Nevertheless, ADAS-cog scores remained consistently above baseline throughout the administration of high-dose CPC-201. At study end, both the ADAS cog and CGI-I results were significantly improved compared with their baseline values (p < 0.05). Indeed, the estimated 5.4-point ADAS-cog increment over placebo, as well as the 0.94-point CGI-I benefit above baseline, appear to exceed that reported for any currently approved AD medication [10, 31, 38, 39, 40]. For the 61% of the efficacy evaluable patients considered to be CPC-201 responders, all enjoyed a clinically meaningful cognitive improvement of at least 4 ADAS-cog points.
Some animal model studies suggest that the response to ChEIs such as donepezil assumes an inverted U-shaped dose response at high doses . While true at excessive (barely subtoxic) amounts , the present results appear to provide no support for this view in patients with AD receiving up to 40 mg/day of donepezil. Indeed, comparison of 40 mg/day donepezil-containing CPC-201 results with those for 5, 10, and 23 mg/day suggest an essentially dose-proportional increase in the range studied [10, 31]. The ADAS-cog response to the 40 mg/day donepezil-containing CPC-201 appeared nearly double (occurring with the standard 10 mg/day donepezil formulation) [31, 38, 39, 40]. These preliminary observations thus lend support to the view that donepezil doses above those currently approved may actually confer greater antidementia efficacy.
A diagnosis of AD was required for inclusion in this trial. However, a possibly better target for cholinomimetic interventions like CPC-201 might be those suffering from a hypocholinergic dementia, whether or not they satisfy AD diagnostic criteria. Unfortunately, as yet, there is no clinical means to identify reliably those with a cognitively significant loss of cerebral cholinergic transmission. In the present study, individuals with the greatest deficit in ADAS-cog items making up the memory domain tended to be those having the greatest memory item and overall cognitive response to CPC-201 . Going forward, it may be important to find dependable ways to identify optimal ChEI responders to better focus therapeutic interventions and improve the cost-effectiveness of symptomatic antidementia therapies .
Both the degree of improvement in CGI-I scores and the proportion of patients improving appeared larger than reported from earlier trials of 10 mg/day donepezil using the similar CIBIC+ scale [32, 33, 35]. Indeed, the 23-mg donepezil study in patients with severe AD reported no apparent global improvement between 10 and 23 mg doses . In contrast, all but a single individual in the present trial were judged unchanged or improved on the CGI-I scale. Conceivably, there may be neurobehavioral domains benefitted by CPC-201 not captured on the ADAS-cog, since, as commonly reported, only about 60% of patients responded to this scale . Assuming only those having a cholinergic deficit that substantially contributes to their dementia will significantly benefit from cholinomimetic therapy, the present results could suggest that brain hypocholinergia contributes to the memory loss occurring in almost two-thirds of patients diagnosed with mid-stage AD and especially to the various associated disturbances (as assessed by broader CGI type psychometric measures) that manifest in a considerably larger proportion of these individuals.
Conclusions regarding a potentially improved efficacy of high-dose donepezil in CPC-201 in those with mid-stage AD based on the findings of the present exploratory study must be regarded with caution. Nevertheless, the results encourage further evaluation of this possibility in a fully powered, randomized, and controlled clinical trial.
Chase Pharmaceuticals Corporation sponsored the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of this clinical trial. We are grateful for the assistance of the clinical investigators (Drs. Agronin, Crowell, De La Gandara, Murphy, Porter, Sadowsky) and their staffs, as well as to the patients and caregivers who volunteered their time and effort for this study. We especially wish to acknowledge the efforts of Minako Koga as Project Manager.
Required Author Forms
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.
- 1.Raskin J, Cummings J, Hardy J, Schuh K, Dean RA. Neurobiology of Alzheimer's disease: integrated molecular, physiological, anatomical, biomarker, and cognitive dimensions. Curr Alzheimer Res 2015;12:712–722.Google Scholar
- 2.Francis PT, Palmer AM, Snape M, Wilcock GK. The cholinergic hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease: a review of progress. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999;66:137–147.Google Scholar
- 3.Wilkinson DG, Francis PT, Schwam E, Payne-Parrish J. Cholinesterase inhibitors used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: the relationship between pharmacological effects and clinical efficacy. Drugs Aging 2004;21:453–478.Google Scholar
- 4.Birks J, Harvey RJ. Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; CD001190.Google Scholar
- 5.Noetzli M, Eap CB. Pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic aspects of drugs used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Clin Pharmacokinet 2013;52:225–241.Google Scholar
- 6.Kuhl DE, Minoshima S, Frey KA, et al. Limited donepezil inhibition of acetylcholinesterase measured with positron emission tomography in living Alzheimer cerebral cortex. Ann Neurol 2000;48:391–395.Google Scholar
- 7.Bohnen NI, Kaufer DI, Hendrickson R, et al. Degree of inhibition of cortical acetylcholinesterase activity and cognitive effects by donepezil treatment in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:315–319.Google Scholar
- 8.Sugimoto H, Ogura H, Arai Y, Limura Y, Yamanishi Y. Research and development of donepezil hydrochloride, a new type of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. Jpn J Pharmacol 2002;89:7–20.Google Scholar
- 9.Aricept (donepezil hydrochloride) prescribing information.. Revised: July 2015. Eisai Inc.Google Scholar
- 10.Farlow MR, Salloway S, Tariot PN, et al. Effectiveness and tolerability of high-dose (23 mg/d) versus standard-dose (10 mg/d) donepezil in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind study. Clin Ther 2010;32:1234–1251.Google Scholar
- 11.ARICEPT 23: An Unusual Dose Means More Dollars for Drug Companies. Dan C. Bolton, Mesh Medical Device Newsdesk. Feb 28, 2015.Google Scholar
- 12.Bontempi B, Whelan KT, Risbrough VB, Lloyd GK, Menzaghi F. Cognitive enhancing properties and tolerability of cholinergic agents in mice: a comparative study of nicotine, donepezil, and SIB-1553A, a subtype-selective ligand for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Neuropsychopharmacology 2003;28:1235–1246.Google Scholar
- 13.Yuede CM, Dong H, Csernansky JG. Anti-dementia drugs and hippocampal-dependent memory in rodents. Behav Pharmacol 2007;18:347–363.Google Scholar
- 14.Rupniak NM, Tye SJ, Field MJ. Enhanced performance of spatial and visual recognition memory tasks by the selective acetylcholinesterase inhibitor E2020 in rhesus monkeys. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1997;131:406–410.Google Scholar
- 15.Jann MW, Shirley KL, Small GW. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cholinesterase inhibitors. Clin Pharmacokinet 2002;41:719–739.Google Scholar
- 16.Ritchie CW, Ames D, Clayton T, Lai R. Metaanalysis of randomized trials of the efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine for the treatment of Alzheimer disease. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004;12:358–369.Google Scholar
- 17.Whitehead A, Perdomo C, Pratt RD, Birks J, Wilcock GK, Evans JG. Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. .Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004;19:624–633.Google Scholar
- 18.Darreh-Shori T, Meurling L, Pettersson T, et al. Changes in the activity and protein levels of CSF acetylcholinesterases in relation to cognitive function of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease following chronic donepezil treatment. J Neural Transm 2006;113:1791–1801.Google Scholar
- 19.Chase TN, Clarence-Smith K. High dose cholinesterase inhibitor treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. AAIC Abstract #2729l, 2015.Google Scholar
- 20.Prvulovic D, Schneider B. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of donepezil for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2014;10:1039–1050.Google Scholar
- 21.Maniscalco M, Singh-Franco D, Wolowich WR, Torres-Colón R. Solifenacin succinate for the treatment of symptoms of overactive bladder. Clin Ther 2006;28:1247–1272.Google Scholar
- 22.Dmochowski R, Staskin DR. The Q-T interval and antimuscarinic drugs. Curr Urol Rep 2005;6:405–409.Google Scholar
- 23.Pagoria D, O'Connor RC, Guralnick ML. Antimuscarinic drugs: review of the cognitive impact when used to treat overactive bladder in elderly patients. Curr Urol Rep 2011;12;351–357.Google Scholar
- 24.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition. Washington, DC; American Psychiatric Association, 2013.Google Scholar
- 25.McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, et al. The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011;7:263–269.Google Scholar
- 26.Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975;12:189–198.Google Scholar
- 27.Mohs RC, Rosen WG, Davis KL. The Alzheimer's disease assessment scale: an instrument for assessing treatment efficacy. Psychopharmacol Bull 1983;19:448–450.Google Scholar
- 28.Guy W. ECDEU Assessment manual for psychopharmacology—revised (DHEW Publ. No. ADM 76–338). Rockville, MD, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, NIMH Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs, 1976, pp. 218–222.Google Scholar
- 29.Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2007;4:28–37.Google Scholar
- 30.Amarex Clinical Research, LLC, 20201 Century Boulevard, Germantown, MD 20874.Google Scholar
- 31.Birks J. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;CD005593.Google Scholar
- 32.Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody RS, Mohs R, Friedhoff LT. A 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of donepezil in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Donepezil Study Group. Neurology 1998;50:136–145.Google Scholar
- 33.Burns A, Rossor M, Hecker J, et al. The effects of donepezil in Alzheimer's disease—results from a multinational trial. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 1999;10:237–244.Google Scholar
- 34.Krishnan KR, Charles HC, Doraiswamy PM, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of donepezil on neuronal markers and hippocampal volumes in Alzheimer's disease. Am J Psychiatry 2003;160:2003–2011.Google Scholar
- 35.Feldman HH, Doody RS, Kivipelto M, et al. LEADe Investigators. Randomized controlled trial of atorvastatin in mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: LEADe. Neurology 2010;74:956–964.Google Scholar
- 36.Harrington C, Sawchak S, Chiang C, et al. Rosiglitazone does not improve cognition or global function when used as adjunctive therapy to AChE inhibitors in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease: two Phase 3 studies. Curr Alzheimer Res 2011;8:592–606.Google Scholar
- 37.Gauthier S, Rountree S, Finn B, LaPlante B, Weber E, Oltersdorf T. Effects of the acetylcholine release agent ST101 with donepezil in Alzheimer's disease: a randomized phase 2 study. J Alzheimers Dis 2015;48:473–481.Google Scholar
- 38.Clegg A, Bryant J, Nicholson T, et al. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for Alzheimer's disease: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2001;5:1–137.Google Scholar
- 39.Takeda A, Loveman E, Clegg A, et al. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine on cognition, quality of life and adverse events in Alzheimer's disease. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006;21:17–28.Google Scholar
- 40.Raina P, Santaguida P, Ismaila A, et al. Effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for treating dementia: evidence review for a clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:379–397.Google Scholar
- 41.SAS Institute Inc., 100 SAS Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513–2414.Google Scholar
- 42.Nakao H, Munakata R, Takagi Y, Isono O, Mon Y. Acute aggravation of parkinsonism by donepezil overdose. A case report. Neurol Med 2006;64:422–425.Google Scholar
- 43.Yano H, Fukuhara Y, Wada K, Kowa H, Nakashima K. A case of acute cholinergic adverse effects induced by donepezil overdose: a follow-up of clinical course and plasma concentration of donepezil. Rinsho Shinkeigaku.2003;43:482–486.Google Scholar
- 44.Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP, van den Bussche H. Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer's disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 2005;331:321–327.Google Scholar
- 45.Braida, D, Paladini, E, Griffini P, Lamperti M, Maggi A, Sala M. An inverted U-shaped curve for heptylphysostigmine on radial maze performance in rats: comparison with other cholinesterase inhibitors. Eur J Pharmacol 1996; 30:13–20.Google Scholar
- 46.Dawson GR, Iversen SD. The effects of novel cholinesterase inhibitors and selective muscarinic receptor agonists in tests of reference and working memory. Behav Brain Res 1993;57:143–153.Google Scholar
- 47.Yang YH, Chen CH, Chou MC, Li CH, Liu CK, Chen SH. Concentration of donepezil to the cognitive response in Alzheimer disease. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2013;33:351–355.Google Scholar
- 48.Versijpt J. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the pharmacological treatment of Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 2014;42(Suppl. 3):S19-S25.Google Scholar
- 49.Burns A, Yeates A, Akintade L, et al. Defining treatment response to donepezil in Alzheimer's disease: responder analysis of patient-level data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Drugs Aging 2008;25:707–714.Google Scholar
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.