-
Lancet (London, England) Sep 2019Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparative efficacy and tolerability of 32 oral antipsychotics for the acute treatment of adults with multi-episode schizophrenia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Schizophrenia is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders in adults worldwide. Antipsychotic drugs are its treatment of choice, but there is controversy about which agent should be used. We aimed to compare and rank antipsychotics by quantifying information from randomised controlled trials.
METHODS
We did a network meta-analysis of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomised controlled trials and compared 32 antipsychotics. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PubMed, BIOSIS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov from database inception to Jan 8, 2019. Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We included randomised controlled trials in adults with acute symptoms of schizophrenia or related disorders. We excluded studies in patients with treatment resistance, first episode, predominant negative or depressive symptoms, concomitant medical illnesses, and relapse-prevention studies. Our primary outcome was change in overall symptoms measured with standardised rating scales. We also extracted data for eight efficacy and eight safety outcomes. Differences in the findings of the studies were explored in metaregressions and sensitivity analyses. Effect size measures were standardised mean differences, mean differences, or risk ratios with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Confidence in the evidence was assessed using CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014014919.
FINDINGS
We identified 54 417 citations and included 402 studies with data for 53 463 participants. Effect size estimates suggested all antipsychotics reduced overall symptoms more than placebo (although not statistically significant for six drugs), with standardised mean differences ranging from -0·89 (95% CrI -1·08 to -0·71) for clozapine to -0·03 (-0·59 to 0·52) for levomepromazine (40 815 participants). Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for reduction of positive symptoms (31 179 participants) varied from -0·69 (95% CrI -0·86 to -0·52) for amisulpride to -0·17 (-0·31 to -0·04) for brexpiprazole, for negative symptoms (32 015 participants) from -0·62 (-0·84 to -0·39; clozapine) to -0·10 (-0·45 to 0·25; flupentixol), for depressive symptoms (19 683 participants) from -0·90 (-1·36 to -0·44; sulpiride) to 0·04 (-0·39 to 0·47; flupentixol). Risk ratios compared with placebo for all-cause discontinuation (42 672 participants) ranged from 0·52 (0·12 to 0·95; clopenthixol) to 1·15 (0·36 to 1·47; pimozide), for sedation (30 770 participants) from 0·92 (0·17 to 2·03; pimozide) to 10·20 (4·72 to 29·41; zuclopenthixol), for use of antiparkinson medication (24 911 participants) from 0·46 (0·19 to 0·88; clozapine) to 6·14 (4·81 to 6·55; pimozide). Mean differences compared to placebo for weight gain (28 317 participants) ranged from -0·16 kg (-0·73 to 0·40; ziprasidone) to 3·21 kg (2·10 to 4·31; zotepine), for prolactin elevation (21 569 participants) from -77·05 ng/mL (-120·23 to -33·54; clozapine) to 48·51 ng/mL (43·52 to 53·51; paliperidone) and for QTc prolongation (15 467 participants) from -2·21 ms (-4·54 to 0·15; lurasidone) to 23·90 ms (20·56 to 27·33; sertindole). Conclusions for the primary outcome did not substantially change after adjusting for possible effect moderators or in sensitivity analyses (eg, when excluding placebo-controlled studies). The confidence in evidence was often low or very low.
INTERPRETATION
There are some efficacy differences between antipsychotics, but most of them are gradual rather than discrete. Differences in side-effects are more marked. These findings will aid clinicians in balancing risks versus benefits of those drugs available in their countries. They should consider the importance of each outcome, the patients' medical problems, and preferences.
FUNDING
German Ministry of Education and Research and National Institute for Health Research.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Antipsychotic Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Schizophrenia; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31303314
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31135-3 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2022Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory... (Review)
Review
Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare immune-mediated acute polyradiculo-neuropathy that typically develops after a previous gastrointestinal or respiratory infection. This narrative overview aims to summarise and discuss current knowledge and previous evidence regarding triggers and pathophysiology of GBS. A systematic search of the literature was carried out using suitable search terms. The most common subtypes of GBS are acute inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (AIDP) and acute motor axonal neuropathy (AMAN). The most common triggers of GBS, in three quarters of cases, are previous infections. The most common infectious agents that cause GBS include , , and cytomegalovirus. is responsible for about a third of GBS cases. GBS due to is usually more severe than that due to other causes. Clinical presentation of GBS is highly dependent on the structure of pathogenic lipo-oligosaccharides (LOS) that trigger the innate immune system via Toll-like-receptor (TLR)-4 signalling. AIDP is due to demyelination, whereas in AMAN, structures of the axolemma are affected in the nodal or inter-nodal space. In conclusion, GBS is a neuro-immunological disorder caused by autoantibodies against components of the myelin sheath or axolemma. Molecular mimicry between surface structures of pathogens and components of myelin or the axon is one scenario that may explain the pathophysiology of GBS.
Topics: Humans; Amantadine; Autoantibodies; Axons; Campylobacter jejuni; Guillain-Barre Syndrome
PubMed: 36430700
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232214222 -
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety Oct 2018Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Currently, five pharmacotherapeutic options are available to treat Alzheimer's disease: memantine; the three cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine; and combination treatments with memantine and one cholinesterase inhibitor. Selection of the best course of treatment is based upon the evidence gathered by systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Areas covered: This article provides a risk-benefit analysis of these treatments using evidence from meta-analyses on their safety and their efficacy. Expert opinion: Memantine improves cognitive functions and behavioral disturbances more efficiently than the placebo, both as monotherapy and in combination with donepezil. Although memantine monotherapy and combination therapy are associated with a few individual adverse events such as somnolence, it is well-tolerated and its safety (all-cause discontinuation) is comparable or superior to that of the placebo (agitation). Pooled cholinesterase inhibitors are superior to the placebo in the improvement of cognitive functions, but not behavioral disturbances and they are not well-tolerated, as evaluated by the high discontinuation rate. Donepezil (10 mg/day) and oral rivastigmine and galantamine monotherapies carry the risk for some adverse events including gastrointestinal symptoms. Therefore, we consider that combined treatment with memantine and donepezil is the most useful treatment for Alzheimer's disease.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30222469
DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2018.1524870 -
Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics 2016Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard... (Review)
Review
Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a prevalent psychiatric condition associated with high disability and frequent comorbidity. Current standard pharmacotherapy (methylphenidate and atomoxetine) improves ADHD symptoms in the short-term, but poor data were published about long-term treatment. In addition a number of patients present partial or no response to methylphenidate and atomoxetine. Research into the main database sources has been conducted to obtain an overview of alternative pharmacological approaches in adult ADHD patients. Among alternative compounds, amphetamines (mixed amphetamine salts and lisdexamfetamine) have the most robust evidence of efficacy, but they may be associated with serious side effects (e.g. psychotic symptoms or hypertension). Antidepressants, particularly those acting as noradrenaline or dopamine enhancers, have evidence of efficacy, but they should be avoided in patients with comorbid bipolar disorder. Finally metadoxine and lithium may be particularly suitable in case of comorbid alcohol misuse or bipolar disorder.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Agonists; Adult; Amphetamines; Antidepressive Agents; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Benzhydryl Compounds; Bridged Bicyclo Compounds, Heterocyclic; Bupropion; Central Nervous System Stimulants; Desipramine; Dopamine Agents; Droxidopa; Drug Combinations; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Guanfacine; Histamine Agents; Humans; Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate; Lithium Compounds; Lobeline; Mecamylamine; Memantine; Modafinil; Morpholines; Nicotinic Agonists; Nicotinic Antagonists; Nomifensine; Paroxetine; Pyridines; Pyridoxine; Pyrrolidonecarboxylic Acid; Quinazolinones; Reboxetine; Venlafaxine Hydrochloride; Wakefulness-Promoting Agents
PubMed: 26693882
DOI: 10.1586/14737175.2016.1135735 -
Movement Disorders : Official Journal... Jul 2023To compare drug regimens across clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) conversion formulae between antiparkinsonian drugs have been developed. These are reported in...
BACKGROUND
To compare drug regimens across clinical trials in Parkinson's disease (PD) conversion formulae between antiparkinsonian drugs have been developed. These are reported in relation to levodopa as the benchmark drug in PD pharmacotherapy as 'levodopa equivalent dose' (LED). Currently, the LED conversion formulae proposed in 2010 by Tomlinson et al. based on a systematic review are predominantly used. However, new drugs with established and novel mechanisms of action and novel formulations of longstanding drugs have been developed since 2010. Therefore, consensus proposals for updated LED conversion formulae are needed.
OBJECTIVES
To update LED conversion formulae based on a systematic review.
METHODS
The MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2021. Additionally, in a standardized process according to the GRADE grid method, consensus proposals were issued for drugs with scarce data on levodopa dose equivalency.
RESULTS
The systematic database search yielded 3076 articles of which 682 were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. Based on these data and the standardized consensus process, we present proposals for LED conversion formulae for a wide range of drugs that are currently available for the pharmacotherapy of PD or are expected to be introduced soon.
CONCLUSIONS
The LED conversion formulae issued in this Position Paper will serve as a research tool to compare the equivalence of antiparkinsonian medication across PD study cohorts and facilitate research on the clinical efficacy of pharmacological and surgical treatments as well as other non-pharmacological interventions in PD. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.
Topics: Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Antiparkinson Agents; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37147135
DOI: 10.1002/mds.29410 -
Journal of the American Medical... Apr 2018The use of psychotropic medication and cardiovascular medication has been associated with an increased risk of falling. However, other frequently prescribed medication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The use of psychotropic medication and cardiovascular medication has been associated with an increased risk of falling. However, other frequently prescribed medication classes are still under debate as potential risk factors for falls in the older population. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the associations between fall risk and nonpsychotropic and noncardiovascular medications.
METHODS AND DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was conducted in Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase. Key search concepts were "falls," "aged," "medication," and "causality." Studies were included that investigated nonpsychotropic and noncardiovascular medications as risk factors for falls in participants ≥60 years or participants with a mean age ≥70 years. A meta-analysis was performed using the generic inverse variance method, pooling unadjusted and adjusted odds ratio (OR) estimates separately.
RESULTS
In a qualitative synthesis, 281 studies were included. The results of meta-analysis using adjusted data were as follows (a pooled OR [95% confidence interval]): analgesics, 1.42 (0.91-2.23); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), 1.09 (0.96-1.23); opioids, 1.60 (1.35-1.91); anti-Parkinson drugs, 1.54 (0.99-2.39); antiepileptics, 1.55 (1.25-1.92); and polypharmacy, 1.75 (1.27-2.41). Most of the meta-analyses resulted in substantial heterogeneity that did not disappear after stratification for population and setting in most cases. In a descriptive synthesis, consistent associations with falls were observed for long-term proton pump inhibitor use and opioid initiation. Laxatives showed inconsistent associations with falls (7/20 studies showing a positive association).
CONCLUSION
Opioid and antiepileptic use and polypharmacy were significantly associated with increased risk of falling in the meta-analyses. Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors and opioid initiation might increase the fall risk. Future research is necessary because the causal role of some medication classes as fall-risk-increasing drugs remains unclear, and the existing literature contains significant limitations.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Analgesics, Opioid; Antidepressive Agents; Benzodiazepines; Female; Humans; Incidence; Male; Middle Aged; Netherlands; Psychotropic Drugs; Public Health; Risk Assessment; Sex Factors
PubMed: 29402646
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2017.12.099 -
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2021Long-term physiotherapy is acknowledged to be crucial to manage motor symptoms for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, but its effectiveness is not well understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Long-term physiotherapy is acknowledged to be crucial to manage motor symptoms for Parkinson's disease (PD) patients, but its effectiveness is not well understood.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the evidence regarding the effectiveness of long-term physiotherapy to improve motor symptoms and reduce antiparkinsonian medication dose in PD patients.
METHODS
Pubmed, Cochrane, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials before August 31, 2020 that investigated the effectiveness of physiotherapy for 6 months or longer on motor symptoms and levodopa-equivalent dose (LED) in PD patients with Hoehn and Yahr stage 1- 3. We performed random effects meta-analyses for long-term physiotherapy versus no/control intervention and estimated standard mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Levels of evidence were rated by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
RESULTS
From 2,940 studies, 10 studies involving 663 PD patients were assessed. Long-term physiotherapy had favorable effects on motor symptoms in off medication state [- 0.65, 95% CI - 1.04 to - 0.26, p = 0.001] and LED [- 0.49, 95% CI - 0.89to - 0.09, p = 0.02]. Subgroup analyses demonstrated favorable effects on motor symptoms in off medication state by aerobic exercise [- 0.42, 95% CI - 0.64 to - 0.20, p < 0.001] and LED by multidisciplinary rehabilitation of primarily physiotherapy [- 1.00, 95% CI - 1.44 to - 0.56, p < 0.001]. Quality of evidence for aerobic exercise and multidisciplinary rehabilitation were low and very low.
CONCLUSION
This review provided evidence that long-term physiotherapy has beneficial impact on motor symptoms and antiparkinsonian medication dose in PD patients and could motivate implementation of long-term physiotherapy.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease; Physical Therapy Modalities
PubMed: 34366377
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-212782 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2017The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE
We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy/safety of memantine in AD.
METHODS
We included randomized trials of memantine for AD patients. Cognitive function scores (CF), behavioral disturbances scores (BD), and all-cause discontinuation were used as primary measures. Effect size based on a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Thirty studies (n = 7,567; memantine versus placebo: N = 11, n = 3,298; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors (M+ChEIs) versus ChEIs: N = 17, n = 4,175) were identified. Memantine showed a significant improvement in CF [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) = -0.34, -0.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 35% ] and BD (SMD = -0.16, 95% CIs = -0.29, -0.04, p = 0.01, I2 = 52%) compared with placebo. In the sensitivity analysis including only patients with moderate-severe AD, memantine was superior to the placebo in reducing BD without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.34, -0.07, p = 0.003, I2 = 36%). Compared with ChEIs, M+ChEIs showed a greater reduction in BD (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.36, -0.03, p = 0.02, I2 = 77%) and a trend of CF improvement (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.22, 0.01, p = 0.06, I2 = 56%). However, in the sensitivity analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies only, M+ChEIs showed a significant reduction in BD compared with ChEIs without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.21, -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 40%). When performing the sensitivity analysis of donepezil studies only, M+ChEIs was superior to ChEIs in improving CF without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.18, 95% CIs = -0.31, -0.05, p = 0.006, I2 = 49%). No differences were detected in all-cause discontinuation between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 28922160
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-170424 -
Movement Disorders : Official Journal... Nov 2010Interpretation of clinical trials comparing different drug regimens for Parkinson's disease (PD) is complicated by the different dose intensities used: higher doses of... (Review)
Review
Interpretation of clinical trials comparing different drug regimens for Parkinson's disease (PD) is complicated by the different dose intensities used: higher doses of levodopa and, possibly, other drugs produce better symptomatic control but more late complications. To address this problem, conversion factors have been calculated for antiparkinsonian drugs that yield a total daily levodopa equivalent dose (LED). LED estimates vary, so we undertook a systematic review of studies reporting LEDs to provide standardized formulae. Electronic database and hand searching of references identified 56 primary reports of LED estimates. Data were extracted and the mean and modal LEDs calculated. This yielded a standardized LED for each drug, providing a useful tool to express dose intensity of different antiparkinsonian drug regimens on a single scale. Using these conversion formulae to report LEDs would improve the consistency of reporting and assist the interpretation of clinical trials comparing different PD medications.
Topics: Antiparkinson Agents; Humans; Levodopa; Parkinson Disease
PubMed: 21069833
DOI: 10.1002/mds.23429 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6