Home › Research › Treatments
Galantamine in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia
Kertesz A, Morlog D, Light M, Blair M, Davidson W, Jesso S, Brashear R.. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders, 2008-01-14
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Background/aims The treatment of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has been mainly symptomatic. Small randomized or open-label case control studies of neurotransmitters have been inconclusive. We tried galantamine in the 2 most common varieties of FTD. Method Thirty-six behavioral variety FTD and primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients were treated in an open-label period of 18 weeks and a randomized, placebo-controlled phase for 8 weeks with galantamine. The primary efficacy measures were the Frontal Behavioral Inventory, the Aphasia Quotient of the Western Aphasia Battery, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement. Results No significant differences in behavior or language were found for the total group. A treatment effect (p = 0.009), in a subgroup of subjects with PPA in the global severity score, in favor of galantamine was detected in the placebo-controlled withdrawal phase but was not considered significant after correction for multiple comparisons. The language scores for the treated PPA group also remained stable compared to the placebo group, which showed deterioration. Conclusion Galantamine is not effective in the behavioral variety of FTD, but a trend of efficacy is shown in the aphasic subgroup, which may be clinically significant. Galantamine appeared safe in FTD/PPA.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kertesz, A., Morlog, D., Light, M., Blair, M., Davidson, W., Jesso, S., et al. (2008). Galantamine in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113034
Vancouver
Kertesz A, Morlog D, Light M, Blair M, Davidson W, Jesso S, et al. Galantamine in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia. Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. 2008. doi:10.1159/000113034. PMID: 18196898.
BibTeX
@article{kertesz2008-18196898,
author = {Kertesz, A. and Morlog, D. and Light, M. and Blair, M. and Davidson, W. and Jesso, S. and Brashear, R.},
title = {{Galantamine in frontotemporal dementia and primary progressive aphasia}},
journal = {Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders},
year = {2008},
doi = {10.1159/000113034},
pmid = {18196898},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000113034}
}
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.
Key findings
- Results No significant differences in behavior or language were found for the total group.
- A treatment effect (p = 0.009), in a subgroup of subjects with PPA in the global severity score, in favor of galantamine was detected in the placebo-controlled withdrawal phase but was not considered significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
- The language scores for the treated PPA group also remained stable compared to the placebo group, which showed deterioration.
- Conclusion Galantamine is not effective in the behavioral variety of FTD, but a trend of efficacy is shown in the aphasic subgroup, which may be clinically significant.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designopen-label trial
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 71/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. Scored zero for sample size and 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 71 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized 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 | 2008 — 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 | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (pubmed indexes it as a clinical or observational study) |
| Randomized / blinded | 2 / 2 | Randomized 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 18196898) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 41 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 41 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 71 out of 100. |
| Total | 71 / 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.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “randomized-controlled-trial”
9 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomized-controlled-trial”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 9 tagged studies.