Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine, Donepezil, or Combination Therapy-What is the best therapy for Alzheimer's Disease? A Network Meta-Analysis
Guo J, Wang Z, Liu R, Huang Y, Zhang N, Zhang R.. Brain and behavior, 2020-09-10
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Introduction Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a degenerative brain disease that progresses over time, heavily burdening patients, families, and aging societies worldwide. Memantine and donepezil are frequently used in its treatment, both as monotherapy and in combination. This multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of these regimens and placebo in the management of AD. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Wanfang Med Online and China National Knowledge Infrastructure for English and Chinese publications from the first records to 17 April 2020. Two investigators scanned articles for placebo-controlled trials of memantine and donepezil alone and in combination. We extracted data on the following outcomes: cognition, global assessment, daily activities, neuropsychiatric symptoms, adverse events, and the acceptability and cost of these treatment regimens. Results Of 936 records screened, we included 54 trials in this analysis. The combination therapy was more effective in improving cognition (mean difference (MD)-5.01, 95% credible interval (95% Crl) -10.73 to 0.86 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale; MD 9.61, 95% Crl 2.29 to 16.97 in the Severe Impairment Battery), global assessment (MD -2.88, 95% Crl -6.04 to 0.40), daily activities (MD 13.06, 95% Crl -34.04 to 58.92), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (MD -6.84, 95% Crl -10.62 to -2.82) compared with placebo. Memantine was more acceptable than placebo (MD 0.93, 95% Crl 0.69 to 1.22). Conclusions Memantine plus donepezil showed superior outcomes for cognition, global assessment, daily activities, and neuropsychiatric symptoms, but lower acceptability than monotherapy and placebo. Combination therapy may be more cost-effective, because memantine slows the progression of AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Guo, J., Wang, Z., Liu, R., Huang, Y., Zhang, N., & Zhang, R. (2020). Memantine, Donepezil, or Combination Therapy-What is the best therapy for Alzheimer's Disease? A Network Meta-Analysis. Brain and behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1831
Vancouver
Guo J, Wang Z, Liu R, Huang Y, Zhang N, Zhang R. Memantine, Donepezil, or Combination Therapy-What is the best therapy for Alzheimer's Disease? A Network Meta-Analysis. Brain and behavior. 2020. doi:10.1002/brb3.1831. PMID: 32914577.
BibTeX
@article{guo2020-32914577,
author = {Guo, J. and Wang, Z. and Liu, R. and Huang, Y. and Zhang, N. and Zhang, R.},
title = {{Memantine, Donepezil, or Combination Therapy-What is the best therapy for Alzheimer's Disease? A Network Meta-Analysis}},
journal = {Brain and behavior},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1002/brb3.1831},
pmid = {32914577},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.1831}
}
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
- Results Of 936 records screened, we included 54 trials in this analysis.
- The combination therapy was more effective in improving cognition (mean difference (MD)-5.01, 95% credible interval (95% Crl) -10.73 to 0.86 in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale; MD 9.61, 95% Crl 2.29 to 16.97 in the Severe Impairment Battery), global assessment (MD -2.88, 95% Crl -6.04 to 0.40), daily activities (MD 13.06, 95% Crl -34.04 to 58.92), and neuropsychiatric symptoms (MD -6.84, 95% Crl -10.62 to -2.82) compared with placebo.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants54
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. 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 and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Brain and behavior) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A meta-analysis pooling many studies |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 1 / 4 | 54 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomization is not credited here |
| 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 32914577) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 44 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100. |
| Total | 76 / 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 “best”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “best”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.