4.7 Article

Caregiver preference for rivastigmine patches versus capsules for the treatment of Alzheimer disease

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 69, Issue -, Pages S23-S28

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000281848.25142.11

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alzheimer disease (AD) has a significant impact on caregivers. Administering and managing medications is one of their many daily tasks. More effective modes of drug administration may benefit patient and caregiver, and may improve compliance. A prospective outcome of the IDEAL (Investigation of TransDermal Exelon in ALzheimer's disease) trial was to evaluate caregiver preference for rivastigmine patches compared with capsules. The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo- and active-controlled IDEAL trial investigated once-daily rivastigmine patches vs twice-daily capsules in moderate AD patients. Caregivers rated patch adhesion throughout. The AD Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) assessed patch vs capsule from caregivers' perspective, based on expectations, preferences, and satisfaction with treatment. A total of 1,059 caregivers completed the ADCPQ while their respective patients were on study drug. More than 70% of caregivers preferred the patch to capsules overall. The patch was preferred to capsules with respect to ease of use (p < 0.0001) and ease of following the schedule (p < 0.0001). Caregivers indicated greater satisfaction overall (p < 0.0001) and less interference with daily life (p < 0.01) with the patch vs capsules. The preference substudy of the IDEAL trial demonstrated that caregivers of AD patients preferred patches to capsules for drug delivery. Preference for the patch may indicate reduced caregiver stress, substantiated by greater satisfaction and less interference with daily life. These benefits may lead to improved compliance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available