This review describes the preclinical mechanisms that may underlie the increased therapeutic benefit of combination therapy—with the N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist, memantine, and an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI)—for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Memantine, and the AChEIs target two different aspects of AD pathology. Both drug types have shown significant efficacy as monotherapies for the treatment of AD. Furthermore, clinical observations indicate that their complementary mechanisms offer superior benefit as combination therapy. Based on the available literature, the authors have considered the preclinical mechanisms that could underlie such a combined approach. Memantine addresses dysfunction in glutamatergic transmission, while the AChEIs serve to increase pathologically lowered levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. In addition, preclinical studies have shown that memantine has neuroprotective effects, acting to prevent glutamatergic over-stimulation and the resulting neurotoxicity. Interrelations between the glutamatergic and cholinergic pathways in regions of the brain that control learning and memory mean that combination treatment has the potential for a complex influence on disease pathology. Moreover, studies in animal models have shown that the combined use of memantine and the AChEIs can produce greater improvements in measures of memory than either treatment alone. As an effective approach in the clinical setting, combination therapy with memantine and an AChEI has been a welcome advance for the treatment of patients with AD. Preclinical data have shown how these drugs act via two different, but interconnected, pathological pathways, and that their complementary activity may produce greater effects than either drug individually.

Introduction: Memantine and cholinesterase inhibitors potentially offer additional benefits in Alzheimer's disease (AD) when used together. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of combination treatment with memantine added to stable donepezil in patients with moderate to severe AD, and in a subset with moderate AD. Methods: Post hoc meta-analyses of data combined from two 24-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of memantine 20 mg/day versus placebo, added to a stable cholinesterase inhibitor, were conducted. Data were included for all patients receiving donepezil 10 mg/day with Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores < 20 (n = 510). Efficacy was assessed using measures of cognition, function, and global status. Furthermore, marked clinical worsening, defined as concurrent deterioration from baseline in the three main efficacy domains, and safety, measured by treatment-emergent adverse events, were assessed. Analyses were performed for patients with moderate to severe AD (MMSE 5-19; MOD-SEV subgroup), and also for patients with moderate AD (MMSE 10-19; MOD subgroup; n = 367). Results: At week 24, in the MOD-SEV subgroup, patients receiving memantine added to donepezil significantly outperformed those receiving placebo added to donepezil in measures of cognition (P < 0.0001), function (P = 0.02), and global status (P = 0.010), with standardised mean differences (SMDs) of 0.36, 0.21, and 0.23, respectively (all last observation carried forward). Similarly, in the MOD subgroup, significant benefits were observed for cognition (P = 0.008), function (P = 0.04) and global status (P = 0.008), with SMDs of 0.28, 0.21, and 0.28, respectively. Significantly fewer patients receiving memantine added to donepezil showed marked clinical worsening than those receiving placebo added to donepezil, in both subgroups (MOD-SEV: 8.7% versus 20.4%, P = 0.0002; MOD: 5.9% versus 15.0%, P = 0.006). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: These results support and extend previous evidence that combination treatment with memantine added to stable donepezil in patients with moderate AD, and in those with moderate to severe AD, is associated with significant benefits in reducing 24-week decline in cognition, function and global status. Combination treatment produces substantially reduced rates of marked clinical worsening, has good safety and tolerability, and generates effect sizes that are both statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

A strong correlation has been reported between patient-reported quality of life (QoL) and the investigator-rated Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) in patients with spasticity. The current analysis evaluates the effect of incobotulinumtoxinA on QoL-related outcomes (limb position abnormality, as well as dressing- and hygiene-related disability, measured with the DAS) in adults with upper limb spasticity, using pooled data from six studies. Separate analyses for each DAS domain were performed using data from patients with disabilities for that domain (DAS score ≥1). Results showed that a significantly greater proportion of incobotulinumtoxinA-treated compared with placebo-treated patients achieved a ≥1-point reduction from baseline in each of the DAS domains (improvement) 4 weeks after the first injection. The benefits of incobotulinumtoxinA were observed regardless of the baseline severity of DAS impairment and of the time elapsed since stroke. The effects of incobotulinumtoxinA 4 weeks after injection were maintained or enhanced over multiple injection cycles for all three DAS domains, supporting the use of repeated injection cycles to provide sustained QoL benefit. IncobotulinumtoxinA represents an important treatment option to achieve better QoL-related outcomes for patients with upper limb spasticity, irrespective of the duration of their condition.

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial (NCT04766723) investigated the efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin^®) in the treatment of essential tremor (ET) of the upper limb (UL). Adults with ET of the UL were randomized 2:1 (n = 78) and treated (n = 77) with intramuscular injections of incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo at semi-flexible doses into their motor-dominant arm. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 6 in maximum tremor amplitude at wrist level. Baseline characteristics of treated patients were well matched across treatment arms. The primary endpoint was not met; maximum tremor amplitude at the wrist decreased from baseline to week 6 in both groups, with changes numerically favoring placebo (least squares mean treatment difference 0.21, p = 0.28). At week 6, compared with the placebo group, the incobotulinumtoxinA group had improvement in The Essential Tremor Rating Assessment Scale (TETRAS) performance dominant UL score (p = 0.006) and Quality of Life in ET (QUEST) total score (p = 0.073). However, these secondary outcomes must be interpreted descriptively as exploratory findings. Although the p-value and the 95% confidence interval including zero did not support statistical significance, the observed numerical treatment difference in change from baseline in QUEST total score suggests that the treatment effect may be consistent with the minimal clinically important difference in favor of incobotulinumtoxinA. Improvement in TETRAS Activities of Daily Living UL score was similar in both groups at week 6 (p = 0.933). IncobotulinumtoxinA was generally well tolerated. Treatment of UL ET with incobotulinumtoxinA did not show superiority over placebo for the primary endpoint. Secondary and other efficacy endpoints should therefore be viewed as exploratory, generating hypotheses suggesting potential improvements in TETRAS UL performance score and quality of life that require confirmation in further research. IncobotulinumtoxinA demonstrated a favorable safety profile without any new or unexpected safety concerns.