-
BMJ Open 2012Memantine is licensed for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance does not recommend the use of memantine...
BACKGROUND
Memantine is licensed for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance does not recommend the use of memantine in combination with cholinesterase inhibitors (acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI)). The underpinning meta-analysis was disputed by the manufacturer.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the efficacy of AChEI monotherapy with combination memantine and AChEI therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe AD and to examine the impact of including unpublished data on the results.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
The Cochrane Dementia Group trial register, ALOIS, searched for the last time on 3 May 2011.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Data from four domains (clinical global, cognition, function, behaviour and mood) were pooled. Sensitivity analyses examined the impact on the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis of restricting data to patients with moderate-to-severe AD and of including an unpublished trial of an extended release preparation of memantine.
RESULTS
Pooled data from the trials, which were included in the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis but which were restricted to moderate-to-severe AD only, showed a small effect of combination therapy on cognition (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.29, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.14). Adding data from an unpublished trial of an extended release memantine (total three trials, 1317 participants) showed a small benefit of combination therapy on global scores (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09), cognition (SMD=-0.25, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.14) and behaviour and mood (SMD=-0.17, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03) but not on function (SMD=-0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.13) at 6 months. No clinical data have been reported from a 1-year trial, although this found 'no significant benefit' on any clinical measures at 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS
These results suggest that there may be a small benefit at 6 months of adding memantine to AChEIs. However, the impact on clinical global impression depends on exactly which studies are included, and there is no benefit on function, so its clinical relevance is not robustly demonstrated. Currently available information from randomised controlled trails indicates no benefit of combination therapy over monotherapy at 1 year. Legislation on the form and content of registry posted results is needed in Europe.
PubMed: 22689908
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000917 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2010Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Evidence for the efficacy of treatments for autism has improved in recent years. In this systematic review the evidence for both drug and non-drug treatments is appraised and clinical guidance is provided for their use.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of early intensive multidisciplinary intervention programmes in children with autism? What are the effects of dietary interventions in children with autism? What are the effects of drug treatments in children with autism? What are the effects of non-drug treatments in children with autism? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to May 2009 (Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 30 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: applied behavioural analysis; auditory integration training; Autism Preschool Programme; casein-free diet; chelation; Child's Talk programme; cognitive behavioural therapy; digestive enzymes; EarlyBird programme; facilitated communication; Floortime therapy; gluten-free diet; immunoglobulins; melatonin; memantine; methylphenidate; More Than Words programme; music therapy; olanzapine; omega-3 fish oil; picture exchange communication system; Portage scheme; probiotics; relationship development interventions; risperidone; secretin; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); sensory integration training; social stories; social skills training; Son-Rise programme; TEACCH; vitamin A; vitamin B6 (pyridoxine) plus magnesium; and vitamin C.
Topics: Antipsychotic Agents; Autistic Disorder; Caseins; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Infant; Language Disorders; Magnesium; Memantine; Secretin
PubMed: 21729335
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Affective Disorders Jun 2022To date, there is limited evidence on the antidepressant effects of memantine in patients with major mental diseases. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The efficacy and tolerability of memantine for depressive symptoms in major mental diseases: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE
To date, there is limited evidence on the antidepressant effects of memantine in patients with major mental diseases. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of memantine in such populations.
METHODS
A literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the date of their inception until September 28, 2021, using PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Changes in depression scores were the primary outcome. The response rate and remission rate to the treatment were secondary outcomes. We also assessed the dropout rate for tolerance.
RESULTS
Eleven double-blind RCTs were included with 899 participants. Memantine significantly reduced depressive symptom scores compared with the control group (k = 11, n = 899, Hedges' g = -0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.30 to -0.04, p = 0.009) with a small effect size. For secondary outcomes, memantine did not show a significant effect on response rate nor remission rate. In the subgroup analysis, memantine significantly reduced depressive symptom scores in patients with mood disorders (k = 8, n = 673, Hedges' g = -0.17, 95% CI = -0.32 to -0.01, p = 0.035) with a small effect size, but not in patients with schizophrenia.
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis indicates that memantine effectively alleviates depressive symptoms in patients with mood disorders with a small effect size. Furthermore, memantine is well-tolerated and acceptable.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Depression; Humans; Memantine; Psychotic Disorders; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35331821
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.047 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Apr 2010Dementia is characterised by chronic, global, non-reversible deterioration in memory, executive function, and personality. Speech and motor function may also be impaired. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dementia is characterised by chronic, global, non-reversible deterioration in memory, executive function, and personality. Speech and motor function may also be impaired.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments on cognitive symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer's, Lewy body, or vascular)? What are the effects of treatments on behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (Alzheimer's, Lewy body, or vascular)? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2008 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 33 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine), antidepressants (clomipramine, fluoxetine, imipramine, sertraline), antipsychotics (haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone), aromatherapy, benzodiazepines (diazepam, lorazepam), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), cognitive stimulation, exercise, ginkgo biloba, memantine, mood stabilisers (carbamazepine, sodium valproate/valproic acid), music therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), omega 3 (fish oil), reminiscence therapy, and statins.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Dementia; Galantamine; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 21726471
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Pain (London,... Aug 2019N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are involved in pain signalling and neuroplasticity. Memantine has been shown to have analgesic properties in pre-clinical and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are involved in pain signalling and neuroplasticity. Memantine has been shown to have analgesic properties in pre-clinical and small clinical studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of memantine to prevent or reduce chronic pain.
DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT
MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for comparative trials using memantine, either against placebo or active medications, for chronic pain in adults. Pain relief was considered our primary outcome. Meta-analyses were conducted if outcomes were reported in two or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality was assessed using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
Among 454 citations, 15 studies were included with populations predominantly consisting of neuropathic conditions and fibromyalgia. Overall, we observed unclear reporting of randomization and allocation methods, apart from potential for publication bias. Among the 11 studies looking at chronic pain treatment, the difference in end pain score with memantine was not significant: MD = -0.58 units (95% CI -1.31, 0.14); I = 82% (low quality). In two surgical studies using memantine for pain prevention, memantine decreased pain intensity: MD = -1.02 units (95% CI -1.38, -0.66); I = 0%. Dizziness was significantly more common with memantine: RR = 4.90 (95% CI 1.26, 18.99); I = 52% (moderate quality).
CONCLUSION
The current evidence regarding the use of memantine for chronic pain is limited and uncertain. Despite its potential, pain relief achieved in clinical studies is small and is associated with an increase in dizziness.
SIGNIFICANCE
Despite a sound rationale, the benefit of using memantine for chronic pain is unclear. Our systematic review and meta-analysis show that memantine may have the potential to decrease pain. However, it can also increase common adverse effects. Considering the small number of studies with potential for bias and inconclusive evidence, there was low to very low certainty. Hence, no clear recommendations can be made about its routine clinical use until larger and more definitive studies are conducted.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Fibromyalgia; Humans; Memantine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 30848504
DOI: 10.1002/ejp.1393 -
Pharmacological Research Jun 2010The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. Of... (Review)
Review
The term neuroenhancement refers to improvement in the cognitive, emotional and motivational functions of healthy individuals through, inter alia, the use of drugs. Of known interventions, psychopharmacology provides readily available options, such as the anti-dementia drugs, e.g. acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine) and memantine. Based on a systematic review we found that expectations about the potential of these drugs exceed their actual effects, as has been demonstrated in randomised controlled trials. Both single and repeated dose trials were included in the systematic review, however repeated dose trials have only been conducted for donepezil. In six small trials lasting 14-42 days, the following results emerged: donepezil improved the retention of training on complex aviation tasks and verbal memory for semantically processed words. In one study episodic memory was improved, whereas in others it remained unaffected by donepezil. In a sleep deprivation trial, donepezil reduced the memory and attention deficits resulting from 24h of sleep deprivation. Two studies reported even transient negative effects. Regarding the safety profile of donepezil, these studies found that it was rather well tolerated. In any case, since large longitudinal studies are not available no conclusions can be drawn. Seven small studies about the effects of a single dose of memantine, and one study with a single dose of rivastigmine have been reported. Again, these studies are not adequate to answer our research question. If, as here and elsewhere suggested, the concept of pharmaceutical neuroenhancement is not to be rejected in principle, the decision of healthy individuals to take drugs for the purpose of neuroenhancement should be based on exhaustive information. At the moment, the research that would support or oppose the use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine for neuroenhancement by healthy individuals has not yet been performed.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Donepezil; Emotions; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Motivation; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate; Rivastigmine
PubMed: 20193764
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2010.02.009 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2017We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether memantine was beneficial for the treatment of depressive symptoms in major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorder (BD). The analysis included double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of memantine in MDD and BD. The primary outcome measures for efficacy and safety were response rate and all-cause discontinuation, respectively. Risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated. We identified six trials including 451 patients: MDD, four trials (n = 189), three of which studied memantine augmentation for antidepressants; BD, two trials (n = 262), both on memantine augmentation for mood stabilizers. The mean study duration was 8.33 weeks, and the mean age of patients was 39.9 years. Memantine was not superior to placebo with regard to response rate (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.70-1.20, I2 = 72%), remission rate, improvement of depressive symptoms scale score, all-cause discontinuation (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.60-1.18, I2 = 0%), discontinuation due to inefficacy and adverse events, or incidence of individual adverse events including decreased appetite, dizziness, nausea, and sedation. Although we conducted sensitivity analyses of the response rate to determine the reasons for the heterogeneity (diagnosis, age of patients, memantine dose, memantine augmentation, geographical region, and statistical population), we did not seek confounding factors. Memantine did not improve the treatment efficacy for depressive symptoms in MDD and BD patients. Long-term study of memantine for depression is required.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Bipolar Disorder; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Memantine
PubMed: 28222534
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161251 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD; also known as autism) is a developmental disability that begins in childhood and is typically seen in around 1% to 2% of children. It is characterised by social communication difficulties and repetitive and restricted behaviours and routines that can have a negative impact on a child's quality of life, achievement at school, and social interactions with others. It has been hypothesised that memantine, which is traditionally used to treat dementia, may be effective in reducing the core symptoms of autism as well as some co-occurring symptoms such as hyperactivity and language difficulties. If memantine is being used to treat the core symptoms of autism, it is important to review the evidence of its effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of memantine on the core symptoms of autism, including, but not limited to, social communication and stereotypical behaviours.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and three trials registers up to February 2022. We also checked reference lists of key studies and checked with experts in the field for any additional papers. We searched for retractions of the included studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database. No retractions or corrections were found.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any dose of memantine compared with placebo in autistic people. We also included RCTs in which only one group received memantine, but both groups received the same additional therapy (e.g. a behaviour intervention).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were core autism symptoms and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, intelligence, memory, adaptive behaviour, hyperactivity, and irritability. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three RCTs (two double-blind and one single-blind) with 204 participants that examined the short-term effect (immediately postintervention) of memantine in autistic people. Two studies took place in the USA and the other in Iran. All three studies focused on children and adolescents, with a mean age of 9.40 (standard deviation (SD) 2.26) years. Most participants were male (range across studies 73% to 87%). The diagnosis of ASD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition; 4th edition, text revision; or 5th edition). To confirm the diagnosis, one study used the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R); one used ADOS, ADI-R or the Autism Diagnostic Interview Screener; and one used the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale. Dosage of memantine was based on the child's weight and ranged from 3 mg to 15 mg per day. Comparisons Two studies examined memantine compared with placebo; in the other study, both groups had a behavioural intervention while only one group was given memantine. Risk of bias All studies were rated at high risk of bias overall, as they were at high or unclear risk of bias across all but four domains in one study, and all but two domains in the other two studies. One study was funded by Forest Laboratories, LLC, (Jersey City, New Jersey), Allergan. The study sponsor was involved in the study design, data collection (via contracted clinical investigator sites), analysis and interpretation of data, and the decision to present these results. The other two studies reported no financial support or sponsorship; though in one of the two, the study medication was an in-kind contribution from Forest Pharmaceuticals. Primary outcomes There was no clear evidence of a difference between memantine and placebo with respect to severity of core symptoms of autism, although we are very uncertain about the evidence. The standardised mean difference in autism symptoms score in the intervention group versus the control group was -0.74 standard deviations (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.07 to 0.58; 2 studies, 181 participants; very low-certainty evidence; medium effect size); lower scores indicate less severe autistic symptoms. Two studies (144 participants) recorded adverse effects that the authors deemed related to the study and found there may be no difference between memantine and placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.39; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There may be no difference between memantine and placebo on language (2 studies, 144 participants; low-certainty evidence); memory or adaptive behaviour (1 study, 23 participants; both low-certainty evidence); or hyperactivity or irritability (1 study, 121 participants; both low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear whether memantine is an effective treatment for autistic children. None of the three included trials reported on the effectiveness of memantine in adults. Further studies using rigorous designs, larger samples, longer follow-up and clinically meaningful outcome measures that are important to autistic people and their families will strengthen our knowledge of the effects of memantine in autism.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Odds Ratio; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36006807
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013845.pub2 -
Drugs & Aging 2006Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is characterised by a worsening of cognition, functional ability, and behaviour and mood. The objective... (Review)
Review
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia and is characterised by a worsening of cognition, functional ability, and behaviour and mood. The objective of this study was to review the clinical and cost-effectiveness of memantine for the treatment of patients with moderately severe to severe AD. To achieve this, a systematic search and review of the clinical and cost effectiveness literature for memantine was undertaken. The literature search covered the period from the inception of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and other electronic databases until July 2004. The search included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full economic evaluations that assessed the use of memantine in patients with moderately severe to severe AD. Two published RCTs were included in this review; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The two RCTs showed benefit for patients receiving memantine compared with placebo on the outcome measures of the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory modified for severe dementia, the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input, and the Severe Impairment Battery, and that memantine appeared to be slightly more effective in patients already receiving a stable dose of donepezil. Five cost-effectiveness studies were included in the review. Although these studies reported cost reductions and improved outcomes with memantine, the evaluations were based on a number of assumptions. In conclusion, memantine appears to be beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. However, the effect of memantine on cognitive scores and behaviour and mood outcomes is less clear. Cost-effectiveness is dependent upon assumptions surrounding clinical effect and context-specific cost data.
Topics: Aged; Alzheimer Disease; Behavior; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dopamine Agents; Humans; Memantine; Models, Economic; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 16608378
DOI: 10.2165/00002512-200623030-00005 -
Psychiatry Research Dec 2019A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
A considerable proportion of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) patients receiving first-line pharmacological therapy, fail to fully respond to treatment and continue to exhibit significant symptoms. In this systematic review, we evaluate the efficacy of memantine, as a glutamate-modulating agent, in moderate to severe OCD. Single and double blinded as well as open-label trials of memantine augmentation in adults with OCD were considered. Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) scores were the primary outcome measure. The electronic databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar were searched for relevant trials using keywords 'obsessive-compulsive disorder OR OCD' AND 'memantine'. The meta-analysis of eight studies involving 125 OCD subjects receiving memantine augmentation exhibited a significant overall mean reduction of 11.73 points in Y-BOCS scores. The categorical analysis of treatment response (a minimum of 35% reduction in Y-BOCS) in four double-blind placebo-controlled studies indicated that OCD patients receiving memantine augmentation were 3.61 times more likely to respond to treatment than those receiving placebo. We found that 20 mg/day memantine augmentation to first-line pharmacological treatment for a period of at least 8 weeks is a safe and effective intervention for moderate to severe OCD.
Topics: Adult; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Female; Humans; Male; Memantine; Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder; Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Single-Blind Method; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31630042
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112602