Treatment Options for Dementia with Lewy Bodies: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials

• Main Authors: Amir A. Tahami Monfared, Mitesh Desai, Robert Hughes, Stefano Lucherini, Yunni Yi, Richard Perry
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Adis, Springer Healthcare 2020-06-01
• Series: Neurology and Therapy
• Subjects: Dementia with Lewy bodies; Donepezil; Memantine; Mini-Mental State Examination; Network meta-analysis; Neuropsychiatric Inventory
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40120-020-00198-0

Abstract Introduction Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is the third most common type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia. Treatment is targeted at specific disease manifestations/symptoms. While donepezil is approved for the treatment of DLB in Japan, to date no other treatment has been approved for this indication anywhere in the world. Notwithstanding, many of the medications that are approved for AD are widely used in the treatment of DLB with varying degrees of success. Consequently, clinical evidence is limited, and there is a need to understand the comparative efficacy and safety of currently used therapies for DLB. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the outcomes of the available treatment options based on currently used trial endpoints. Methods Using data from a previously published systematic review, we conducted an NMA to investigate the efficacy and safety of treatments in patients with DLB. Networks were based on change from baseline of efficacy endpoints (Mini-Mental State Examination; Neuropsychiatric Inventory; Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale) and rate of safety events (overall adverse events [AEs]; discontinuations; discontinuations due to AEs; psychiatric events). Results Focused around a common treatment option of placebo, the NMA comprised studies on donepezil, rivastigmine, memantine and quetiapine. Donepezil 3 mg, 5 mg and 10 mg doses were compared against each other and placebo. Overall, donepezil consistently performed better than the alternative treatments when compared to placebo for all efficacy and safety endpoints. However, the small sample size and/or heterogeneity of the studies led to uncertainty, resulting in no statistically significant differences favouring any treatment above another or placebo. Conclusion Despite the lack of statistical significance, when assessing the efficacy and safety outcomes for each drug in the evidence network, donepezil appeared to have a more favourable overall benefit/risk profile for patients with DLB. Further comparative trials are required to improve understanding of the true difference between existing and potential future treatment options.