Home › Research › Treatments
Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease
Farlow MR, Cummings JL.. The American journal of medicine, 2007-05-01
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
In order to assist physicians in the effective pharmacologic management of this challenging population, evidence-based pharmacologic treatment algorithms for the different stages of Alzheimer's disease have been developed. Evidence-based guidelines outlining pharmacotherapeutic strategies can be systematically implemented to optimize outcomes for patients in different stages of Alzheimer's disease. The first step toward the best possible long-term management is early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, thereby facilitating early initiation of cholinesterase inhibitor treatment, which may stabilize/reduce the rate of symptomatic cognitive and functional decline. Cholinesterase inhibitor therapy with rivastigmine, donepezil, or galantamine is endorsed as standard first-line therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor-antagonist, memantine, may be used as monotherapy or in combination with a cholinesterase inhibitor for patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease, and as monotherapy for patients with severe Alzheimer's disease. During treatment, cognitive and functional status should be monitored over 6-month intervals, and pharmacologic therapy should ideally be continued until there are no meaningful social interactions and quality of life has irreversibly deteriorated.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Farlow, M. R., & Cummings, J. L. (2007). Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease. The American journal of medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.036
Vancouver
Farlow MR, Cummings JL. Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease. The American journal of medicine. 2007. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.036. PMID: 17466645.
BibTeX
@article{farlow2007-17466645,
author = {Farlow, M. R. and Cummings, J. L.},
title = {{Effective pharmacologic management of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {The American journal of medicine},
year = {2007},
doi = {10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.036},
pmid = {17466645},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.08.036}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Evidence-based guidelines outlining pharmacotherapeutic strategies can be systematically implemented to optimize outcomes for patients in different stages of Alzheimer's disease.
- The first step toward the best possible long-term management is early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, thereby facilitating early initiation of cholinesterase inhibitor treatment, which may stabilize/reduce the rate of symptomatic cognitive and functional decline.
- Cholinesterase inhibitor therapy with rivastigmine, donepezil, or galantamine is endorsed as standard first-line therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.
- The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor-antagonist, memantine, may be used as monotherapy or in combination with a cholinesterase inhibitor for patients with moderate Alzheimer's disease, and as monotherapy for patients with severe Alzheimer's disease.
- During treatment, cognitive and functional status should be monitored over 6-month intervals, and pharmacologic therapy should ideally be continued until there are no meaningful social interactions and quality of life has irreversibly deteriorated.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The American journal of medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2007 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 17466645) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.