Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 77 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

AD patients aged 50-85 years were randomized to open-label treatment with oral rivastigmine, donepezil or galantamine for 13 weeks. AChE and BuChE activities were assayed by Ellman's colorimetric method. Protein levels were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Primary analyses were based on the Completer population (randomized patients who completed Week 13 assessments). 63 patients were randomized to treatment. Rivastigmine was associated with decreased AChE activity by 42.6% and decreased AChE protein levels by 9.3%, and decreased BuChE activity by 45.6% and decreased BuChE protein levels by 21.8%. Galantamine decreased AChE activity by 2.1% and BuChE activity by 0.5%, but increased AChE protein levels by 51.2% and BuChE protein levels by 10.5%. Donepezil increased AChE and BuChE activities by 11.8% and 2.8%, respectively. Donepezil caused a 215.2% increase in AChE and 0.4% increase in BuChE protein levels. Changes in mean AChE-Readthrough/Synaptic ratios, which might reflect underlying neurodegenerative processes, were 1.4, 0.6, and 0.4 for rivastigmine, donepezil and galantamine, respectively. The findings suggest pharmacologically-induced differences between rivastigmine, donepezil and galantamine. Rivastigmine provides sustained inhibition of AChE and BuChE, while donepezil and galantamine do not inhibit BuChE and are associated with increases in CSF AChE protein levels. The clinical implications require evaluation.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 77/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 11 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 2 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 1 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read left out, no data. 43 of the 56 points it could be judged on, which is 77 of 100. Total 77 of 100.43 of the 56 points we could judge = 77 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 43 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current Alzheimer research)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 11 / 12 A randomised controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”)
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2009 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 63 participants
Effect reported 2 / 3 Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 1 / 2 Randomised (as stated in the record)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 19199870)
Free to read — / 2 Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points 43 / 56 Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 43 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 77 out of 100.
Total 77 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Nordberg, A., Darreh-Shori, T., Peskind, E., Soininen, H., Mousavi, M., Eagle, G., et al. (2009). Different cholinesterase inhibitor effects on CSF cholinesterases in Alzheimer patients. Current Alzheimer research. https://doi.org/10.2174/156720509787313961

Vancouver

Nordberg A, Darreh-Shori T, Peskind E, Soininen H, Mousavi M, Eagle G, et al. Different cholinesterase inhibitor effects on CSF cholinesterases in Alzheimer patients. Current Alzheimer research. 2009. doi:10.2174/156720509787313961. PMID: 19199870.

BibTeX

@article{nordberg2009-19199870,
  author  = {Nordberg, Agneta and Darreh-Shori, Taher and Peskind, Elaine and Soininen, Hilkka and Mousavi, Malahat and Eagle, Gina and Lane, Roger},
  title   = {{Different cholinesterase inhibitor effects on CSF cholinesterases in Alzheimer patients}},
  journal = {Current Alzheimer research},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.2174/156720509787313961},
  pmid    = {19199870},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2174/156720509787313961}
}

Related studies in Treatments

Also tagged “acetylcholinesterase”

234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “acetylcholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →