Home › Research › Clinical trials
Galantamine: a randomized, double-blind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer's disease
D Wilkinson, J Murray. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 2001-09
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Patients treated with galantamine 24 mg/day had a significantly better outcome than placebo on ADAS-cog; the treatment difference was 3 points on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis ( p = 0.01) and 4.2 points on per protocol analysis ( p = 0.001). Per protocol analysis showed that galantamine had a significantly better outcome than placebo on PDS ( 24-mg/day dose, p < 0.05) and CGIC (36-mg/day dose, p < 0.05). Galantamine was well tolerated at the lower doses of 18 and 24 mg/day where it produced mild, transient effects typical of cholinomimetic agents. This study shows that, relative to placebo, galantamine significantly improves the core symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.
Key findings
- Patients treated with galantamine 24 mg/day had a significantly better outcome than placebo on ADAS-cog; the treatment difference was 3 points on the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis ( p = 0.01) and 4.2 points on per protocol analysis ( p = 0.001).
- Per protocol analysis showed that galantamine had a significantly better outcome than placebo on PDS ( 24-mg/day dose, p < 0.05) and CGIC (36-mg/day dose, p < 0.05).
- Galantamine was well tolerated at the lower doses of 18 and 24 mg/day where it produced mild, transient effects typical of cholinomimetic agents.
- This study shows that, relative to placebo, galantamine significantly improves the core symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Registered clinical trials →
Study details
- Participants285
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 77/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomised controlled trial. Scored zero for effect reported 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, 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.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of geriatric psychiatry) |
| 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 | 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 285 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomised and blinded or placebo-controlled (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 11571763) |
| 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. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Wilkinson, D., & Murray, J. (2001). Galantamine: a randomized, double-blind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer's disease. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.409
Vancouver
Wilkinson D, Murray J. Galantamine: a randomized, double-blind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer's disease. International journal of geriatric psychiatry. 2001. doi:10.1002/gps.409. PMID: 11571763.
BibTeX
@article{wilkinson2001-11571763,
author = {Wilkinson, D and Murray, J},
title = {{Galantamine: a randomized, double-blind, dose comparison in patients with Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {International journal of geriatric psychiatry},
year = {2001},
doi = {10.1002/gps.409},
pmid = {11571763},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.409}
}