-
Health Technology Assessment... 2012Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK. (Review)
Review
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (review of Technology Appraisal No. 111): a systematic review and economic model.
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most commonly occurring form of dementia. It is predominantly a disease of later life, affecting 5% of those over 65 in the UK.
OBJECTIVES
Review and update guidance to the NHS in England and Wales on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine [acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs)] and memantine within their licensed indications for the treatment of AD, which was issued in November 2006 (amended September 2007 and August 2009).
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews and/or metaanalyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ongoing research in November 2009 and updated in March 2010; this updated search revealed no new includable studies. The databases searched included The Cochrane Library (2009 Issue 4, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, ISI Web of Science Databases--Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and BIOSIS; the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases--NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects.
REVIEW METHODS
The clinical effectiveness systematic review was undertaken following the principles published by the NHS CRD. We included RCTs whose population was people with AD. The intervention and comparators depended on disease severity, measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE).
INTERVENTIONS
mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine; moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--memantine. Comparators: mild AD (MMSE 21-26)--placebo or best supportive care (BSC); moderate AD (MMSE 10-20)--donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, placebo or BSC; severe AD (MMSE < 10)--placebo or BSC. The outcomes were clinical, global, functional, behavioural, quality of life, adverse events, costs and cost-effectiveness. Where appropriate, data were pooled using pair-wise meta-analysis, multiple outcome measures, metaregression and mixedtreatment comparisons. The decision model was based broadly on the structure of the three-state Markov model described in the previous technology assessment report, based upon time to institutionalisation, parameterised with updated estimates of effectiveness, costs and utilities.
RESULTS
Notwithstanding the uncertainty of our results, we found in the base case that the AChEIs are probably cost saving at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of £’30,000 per qualityadjusted life-year (QALY) for people with mild-to-moderate AD. For this class of drugs, there is a > 99% probability that the AChEIs are more cost-effective than BSC. These analyses assume that the AChEIs have no effect on survival. For the AChEIs, in people with mild to moderate AD, the probabilistic sensitivity analyses suggested that donepezil is the most cost-effective, with a 28% probability of being the most cost-effective option at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY (27% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). In the deterministic results, donepezil dominates the other drugs and BSC, which, along with rivastigmine patches, are associated with greater costs and fewer QALYs. Thus, although galantamine has a slightly cheaper total cost than donepezil (£’69,592 vs £’69,624), the slightly greater QALY gains from donepezil (1.616 vs 1.617) are enough for donepezil to dominate galantamine.The probability that memantine is cost-effective in a moderate to severe cohort compared with BSC at a WTP of £’30,000 per QALY is 38% (and 28% at a WTP of £’20,000 per QALY). The deterministic ICER for memantine is £’32,100 per/QALY and the probabilistic ICER is £’36,700 per/QALY.
LIMITATIONS
Trials were of 6 months maximum follow-up, lacked reporting of key outcomes, provided no subgroup analyses and used insensitive measures. Searches were limited to English language, The model does not include behavioural symptoms and there is uncertainty about the model structure and parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
The additional clinical effectiveness evidence identified continues to suggest clinical benefit from the AChEIs in alleviating AD symptoms, although there is debate about the magnitude of the effect. Although there is also new evidence on the effectiveness of memantine, it remains less supportive of this drug’s use than the evidence for AChEIs. The conclusions concerning cost-effectiveness are quite different from the previous assessment. This is because both the changes in effectiveness and costs between drug use and non-drug use underlying the ICERs are very small. This leads to highly uncertain results, which are very sensitive to change. RESEARCH PRIORITIES: RCTs to include mortality, time to institutionalisation and quality of life, powered for subgroup analysis.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Middle Aged; Models, Economic; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 22541366
DOI: 10.3310/hta16210 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jan 2006To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To provide an update review of the best quality evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine for mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) and of memantine for moderately severe to severe AD.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases, experts in the field and manufacturer submissions to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
REVIEW METHODS
A systematic review of the literature and an economic evaluation were undertaken. The quality of included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using criteria developed by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. An outline assessment of economic evaluations was undertaken using a standard checklist. The clinical and cost-effectiveness data were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of included studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis of data was undertaken.
RESULTS
For mild to moderately severe AD, the results of the study suggested that all three treatments were beneficial when assessed using cognitive outcome measures. Global outcome measures were positive for donepezil and rivastigmine, but mixed for galantamine. Results for measures of function were mixed for donepezil and rivastigmine, but positive for galantamine. Behaviour and mood measures were mixed for donepezil and galantamine, but showed no benefit for rivastigmine. For memantine, two published RCTs were included; in one of these trials the participants were already being treated with donepezil. The results suggest that memantine is beneficial when assessed using functional and global measurements. The effect of memantine on cognitive and behaviour and mood outcomes is, however, less clear. Literature on the cost-effectiveness of donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine was dominated by industry-sponsored studies, and studies varied in methods and results. Of the three UK studies, two report donepezil as not cost-effective, whereas a third study reports an additional cost (1996 pounds sterling) of between 1200 pounds sterling and 7000 pounds sterling per year in a non-severe AD health state (concerns over these estimates are raised, suggesting that they may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of donepezil). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in this review suggests that donepezil treatment has a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in excess of 80,000 pounds sterling, with donepezil treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression of AD) by 1.42-1.59 months (over a 5-year period). From four published cost-effectiveness studies, two UK studies report additional costs associated with rivastigmine treatment. Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the current review suggests that rivastigmine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 57,000 pounds sterling, with rivastigmine treatment reducing the mean time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.43-1.63 months (over a 5-year period). From five published cost-effectiveness studies, one UK study reports a cost per QALY of 8693 pounds sterling for 16-mg galantamine treatment and 10,051 pounds sterling for 24-mg galantamine treatment (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of galantamine). Cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken in the present review suggests that galantamine treatment has a cost per QALY in excess of 68,000 pounds sterling, with galantamine reducing the time spent in full-time care (delays progression) by 1.42-1.73 months (over a 5-year period). From two published cost-effectiveness studies, one reports analysis for the UK, finding that memantine treatment results in cost savings and benefits in terms of delaying disease progression (concerns raised suggest that this may underestimate the true cost-effectiveness of memantine). In the current review, the cost-effectiveness of memantine has not been modelled separately, but where alternative parameter inputs on the cost structure and utility values have been used in a reanalysis using the industry model, the cost-effectiveness is reported at between 37,000 pounds sterling and 52,000 pounds sterling per QALY, with this alternative analysis still based on what is regarded as an optimistic or favourable effectiveness profile for memantine.
CONCLUSIONS
Although results from the clinical effectiveness review suggest that these treatments may be beneficial, a number of issues need to be considered when assessing the results of the present review, such as the characteristics of the participants included in the individual trials, the outcome measures used, the length of study duration, the effects of attrition and the relationship between statistical significance and clinical significance. Many included trials were sponsored by industry. For donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine, the cost savings associated with reducing the mean time spent in full-time care do not offset the cost of treatment sufficiently to bring estimated cost-effectiveness to levels generally considered acceptable by NHS policy makers. It is difficult to draw conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of memantine; it is suggested that further amendments to the potentially optimistic industry model (measure of effect) would offer higher cost per QALY estimates. Future research should include: information on the quality of the outcome measures used; development of quality of life instruments for patients and carers; studies assessing the effects of these interventions of durations longer than 12 months; comparisons of benefits between interventions; and research on the prediction of disease progression.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Donepezil; Dopamine Agents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Male; Memantine; Neuroprotective Agents; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Treatment Outcome; United Kingdom
PubMed: 16409879
DOI: 10.3310/hta10010 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2022Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive deficits are common in people who have received cranial irradiation and have a serious impact on daily functioning and quality of life. The benefit of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of cognitive deficits in this population is unclear. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing or ameliorating cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation.
SEARCH METHODS
For this review update we searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, and PsycInfo via Ovid to 12 September 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled (RCTs) trials that evaluated pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions in cranial irradiated adults, with objective cognitive functioning as a primary or secondary outcome measure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors (MK, JD) independently extracted data from selected studies and carried out a risk of bias assessment. Cognitive function, fatigue and mood outcomes were reported. No data were pooled.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this updated review. Six were from the original version of the review, and two more were added when the search was updated. Nineteen further studies were assessed as part of this update but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Of the eight included studies, four studies investigated "prevention" of cognitive problems (during radiotherapy and follow-up) and four studies investigated "amelioration" (interventions to treat cognitive impairment as a late complication of radiotherapy). There were five pharmacological studies (two studies on prevention and three in amelioration) and three non-pharmacological studies (two on prevention and one in amelioration). Due to differences between studies in the interventions being evaluated, a meta-analysis was not possible. Studies in early radiotherapy treatment phase (five studies) Pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" were designed to prevent or ameliorate cognitive deficits and included drugs used in dementia (memantine) and fatigue (d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride). Non-pharmacological studies in the "early radiotherapy treatment phase" included a ketogenic diet and a two-week cognitive rehabilitation and problem-solving programme. In the memantine study, the primary cognitive outcome of memory at six months did not reach significance, but there was significant improvement in overall cognitive function compared to placebo, with similar adverse events across groups. The d-threo-methylphenidate hydrochloride study found no statistically significant difference between arms, with few adverse events. The study of a calorie-restricted ketogenic diet found no effect, although a lower than expected calorie intake in the control group complicates interpretation of the results. The study investigating the utility of a rehabilitation program did not carry out a statistical comparison of cognitive performance between groups. Studies in delayed radiation or late effect phase (four studies) The "amelioration" pharmacological studies to treat cognitive complications of radiotherapy included drugs used in dementia (donepezil) or psychostimulants (methylphenidate and modafinil). Non-pharmacological measures included cognitive rehabilitation and problem solving (Goal Management Training). These studies included patients with cognitive problems at entry who had "stable" brain cancer. The donepezil study did not find an improvement in the primary cognitive outcome of overall cognitive performance, but did find improvement in an individual test of memory, compared to placebo; adverse events were not reported. A study comparing methylphenidate with modafinil found improvements in cognitive function in both the methylphenidate and modafinil arms; few adverse events were reported. Another study comparing two different doses of modafinil combined treatment arms and found improvements across all cognitive tests, however, a number of adverse events were reported. Both studies were limited by a small sample size. The Goal Management Training study suggested a benefit of the intervention, a behavioural intervention that combined mindfulness and strategy training, on executive function and processing speed. There were a number of limitations across studies and few were without high risks of bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In this update, limited additional evidence was found for the treatment or amelioration of cognitive deficits in adults treated with cranial irradiation. As concluded in the original review, there is supportive evidence that memantine may help prevent cognitive deficits for adults with brain metastases receiving cranial irradiation. There is supportive evidence that donepezil, methylphenidate and modafinil may have a role in treating cognitive deficits in adults with brain tumours who have been treated with cranial irradiation; patient withdrawal affected the statistical power of these studies. Further research that tries to minimise the withdrawal of consent, and subsequently reduce the requirement for imputation procedures, may offer a higher certainty of evidence. There is evidence from only a single small study to support non-pharmacological interventions in the amelioration of cognitive deficits. Further research is required.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Modafinil; Donepezil; Memantine; Quality of Life; Cognitive Dysfunction; Cranial Irradiation; Cognition; Methylphenidate; Brain Neoplasms; Fatigue; Dementia
PubMed: 36427235
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011335.pub3 -
Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 2024Many premedication agents with opioid-sparing properties have been used in patients undergoing various elective surgeries. Memantine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)... (Review)
Review
Many premedication agents with opioid-sparing properties have been used in patients undergoing various elective surgeries. Memantine is an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist that has been used by many researchers as an opioid-sparing strategy. Various databases like PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched after registering the review protocol in PROSPERO for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and safety of memantine premedication in adult patients undergoing various elective surgeries. The risk of bias (RoB-2) scale was used to assess the quality of evidence. From the 225 articles that were identified after a database search, 3 studies were included for a qualitative systematic review and a quantitative meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that the use of memantine provided better pain scores at 2nd (mean difference: -0.82, 95% CI: -1.60, -0.05, = 0.04) with significant heterogeneity ( = 0.06; I² =71%), and 6 hours postoperatively (mean difference: -1.80, 95% CI: -2.23, -1.37, < 0.00001), but not at 1 hour. The sedation scores at 1 hour were higher in the memantine group but comparable in the 2nd hour. The number of doses of rescue analgesia and nausea/vomiting in the postoperative period was comparable in both groups. The results of this review suggest that memantine premedication could provide better pain scores in the immediate postoperative period with acceptable adverse effects. However, the current evidence is insufficient to suggest the routine use of memantine as a premedication before elective surgeries.
PubMed: 38313717
DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_398_23 -
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association... Nov 2013Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
METHODS
Our eligibility criteria were studies of the effects of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine on mild cognitive impairment reporting cognition, function, behaviour, global status, and mortality or harms. We identified relevant material by searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), the references of included studies, trial registries and conference proceedings, and by contacting experts. Two reviewers independently screened the results of the literature search, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.
RESULTS
We screened 15,554 titles and abstracts and 1384 full-text articles. Eight randomized clinical trials and 3 companion reports met our inclusion criteria. We found no significant effects of cognitive enhancers on cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination: 3 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], mean difference [MD] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to 0.50; Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognition subscale: 3 RCTs, standardized MD -0.07, 95% CI-0.16 to 0.01]) or function (Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living inventory: 2 RCTs, MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86). Cognitive enhancers were associated with higher risks of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting than placebo.
INTERPRETATION
Cognitive enhancers did not improve cognition or function among patients with mild cognitive impairment and were associated with a greater risk of gastrointestinal harms. Our findings do not support the use of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognitive Dysfunction; Donepezil; Galantamine; Humans; Indans; Memantine; Nootropic Agents; Phenylcarbamates; Piperidines; Rivastigmine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24043661
DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.130451 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2009Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome (DS). There is an understanding that an increase in L-glutamate contributes to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome (DS). There is an understanding that an increase in L-glutamate contributes to the pathogenesis of cerebral ischemias and AD. Memantine acts as an antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) type receptors, which is thought to reduce abnormal activation of glutamate neurotransmission. It binds with a low affinity to the NMDA receptor and so should not prevent learning and the formation of memory. Memantine can improve cognitive function and slow the decline of AD in the general population over time, and is the subject of this review. It is important to note that people with DS tend to present with AD at a much younger age than the normal population as well as having subtle differences in physiology (e.g. metabolism and heart rate) and may therefore have different requirements from the general population.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of memantine for people with DS who develop AD.
SEARCH STRATEGY
CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, SCI, SSCI and the NRR were searched up to October 2008. We contacted the manufacturers of memantine, as well as experts in the field, to ask about reports of unpublished or ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of participants with DS and AD in which treatment with memantine was administered compared with a placebo group.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
No study was identified which met the inclusion criteria for this review.
MAIN RESULTS
No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review, however there is an on-going randomised controlled study being conducted in the UK and data are expected in 2009.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
As there are no included trials, recommendations cannot be made about memantine for AD in DS. Well-designed, adequately powered studies are required.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Down Syndrome; Humans; Memantine; Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate
PubMed: 19160343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007657 -
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica Apr 2022The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of pharmacological interventions to diminish cognitive side effects of ECT.
METHODS
Electronic databases of Pubmed, PsycInfo, Embase and Scopus were searched from inception through 1 April, 2021, using terms for ECT (e.g. electroconvulsive therapy), cognitive outcome (e.g. cogni*) and pharmacological intervention (e.g. calcium channel blocker and general terms, like protein). Original studies with humans receiving ECT were included, which applied pharmacological interventions in comparison with placebo or no additive intervention to diminish cognitive side effects. Data quality was assessed using Risk of Bias and GRADE. Random-effects models were used. PROSPERO registration number was CRD42021212773.
RESULTS
Qualitative synthesis (systematic review) showed 52 studies reporting sixteen pharmacological intervention-types. Quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) included 26 studies (1387 patients) describing twelve pharmacological intervention-types. Low-quality evidence of efficacy was established for memantine (large effect size) and liothyronine (medium effect size). Very low-quality evidence shows effect of acetylcholine inhibitors, piracetam and melatonin in some cognitive domains. Evidence of no efficacy was revealed for ketamine (very low-quality), herbal preparations with anti-inflammatory properties (very low to low-quality) and opioid receptor agonists (low-quality).
CONCLUSION
Memantine and liothyronine are promising for further research and future application. Quality of evidence was low because of differences in ECT techniques, study populations and cognitive measurements. These findings provide a guide for rational choices of potential pharmacological intervention research targets to decrease the burden of cognitive side effects of ECT. Future research should be more uniform in design and attempt to clarify pathophysiological mechanisms of cognitive side effects of ECT.
Topics: Cognition; Electroconvulsive Therapy; Humans; Ketamine; Memantine; Triiodothyronine
PubMed: 35075641
DOI: 10.1111/acps.13397 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) is the second most common cause of optic nerve-related permanent visual loss in adults. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Nonarteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy (NAION) is the second most common cause of optic nerve-related permanent visual loss in adults.
AIM
We aimed to analyze the efficacy of the noninvasive and minimally invasive therapeutic options of NAION.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to 10 June 2019 to identify the studies that report on the effect of different therapies on visual acuity (VA) and visual field (VF). Weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for these outcomes. The efficacy of steroids was investigated in quantitative, oxygen, steroid plus erythropoietin (EPO), levodopa/carbidopa, memantine, and heparin-induced extracorporeal LDL/fibrinogen precipitation (HELP) therapies and other therapeutic modalities in qualitative synthesis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies were found to be eligible. We found that steroid therapy compared to control did not improve VA ( = 0.182, WMD = 0.14, 95% CI: -0.07, 0.35) or VF ( = 0.853, WMD = 0.16, 95% CI: -1.54, 1.86). Qualitative analysis could be performed for oxygen, steroid plus EPO, and HELP as well, however, none of them showed VA and VF benefit. Two individual studies found memantine and levodopa beneficial regarding VA.
CONCLUSION
Our systematic review did not reveal any effective treatment. Further investigations are needed to find therapy for NAION.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Levodopa; Memantine; Optic Neuropathy, Ischemic; Oxygen; Steroids; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 35270411
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19052718 -
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease... Mar 2014The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review is to summarize the current data on the pharmacological treatments for frontotemporal dementias from randomized controlled trials. A systematic search of 4 major databases, PubMed, Medline, PsychINFO and Cochrane, found a total of 9 randomized controlled, double-blinded clinical trials. Of these, 2 trials used the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), paroxetine; 1 trial used trazodone; 2 trials used stimulants (methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine); 1 trial used the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, galantamine; 2 trials used the N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist, memantine; and 1 trial used the neuropeptide oxytocin. The analysis of the available data indicates that SSRIs, trazodone, and the amphetamines may be effective in reducing some behavioral symptoms, but none of these medications had an impact on cognition. Available data indicate that these medications were well tolerated in all the trials.
Topics: Cognition; Dopamine Agents; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24164931
DOI: 10.1177/1533317513507375