Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine for Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Kishi T, Matsunaga S, Oya K, Nomura I, Ikuta T, Iwata N.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2017-01-01
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Background The clinical benefit of memantine for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains inconclusive. Objective We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy/safety of memantine in AD. Methods We included randomized trials of memantine for AD patients. Cognitive function scores (CF), behavioral disturbances scores (BD), and all-cause discontinuation were used as primary measures. Effect size based on a random-effects model was evaluated in the meta-analyses. Results Thirty studies (n = 7,567; memantine versus placebo: N = 11, n = 3,298; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors (M+ChEIs) versus ChEIs: N = 17, n = 4,175) were identified. Memantine showed a significant improvement in CF [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) = -0.34, -0.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 35% ] and BD (SMD = -0.16, 95% CIs = -0.29, -0.04, p = 0.01, I2 = 52%) compared with placebo. In the sensitivity analysis including only patients with moderate-severe AD, memantine was superior to the placebo in reducing BD without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.34, -0.07, p = 0.003, I2 = 36%). Compared with ChEIs, M+ChEIs showed a greater reduction in BD (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.36, -0.03, p = 0.02, I2 = 77%) and a trend of CF improvement (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.22, 0.01, p = 0.06, I2 = 56%). However, in the sensitivity analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies only, M+ChEIs showed a significant reduction in BD compared with ChEIs without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.21, -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 40%). When performing the sensitivity analysis of donepezil studies only, M+ChEIs was superior to ChEIs in improving CF without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.18, 95% CIs = -0.31, -0.05, p = 0.006, I2 = 49%). No differences were detected in all-cause discontinuation between the groups. Conclusions The meta-analyses suggest the credible efficacy and safety of memantine in treating AD when used alone or in combination with ChEIs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Kishi, T., Matsunaga, S., Oya, K., Nomura, I., Ikuta, T., & Iwata, N. (2017). Memantine for Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170424
Vancouver
Kishi T, Matsunaga S, Oya K, Nomura I, Ikuta T, Iwata N. Memantine for Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2017. doi:10.3233/jad-170424. PMID: 28922160.
BibTeX
@article{kishi2017-28922160,
author = {Kishi, T. and Matsunaga, S. and Oya, K. and Nomura, I. and Ikuta, T. and Iwata, N.},
title = {{Memantine for Alzheimer's Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.3233/jad-170424},
pmid = {28922160},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-170424}
}
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 Thirty studies (n = 7,567; memantine versus placebo: N = 11, n = 3,298; memantine + cholinesterase inhibitors (M+ChEIs) versus ChEIs: N = 17, n = 4,175) were identified.
- Memantine showed a significant improvement in CF [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.24, 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) = -0.34, -0.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 35% ] and BD (SMD = -0.16, 95% CIs = -0.29, -0.04, p = 0.01, I2 = 52%) compared with placebo.
- Compared with ChEIs, M+ChEIs showed a greater reduction in BD (SMD = -0.20, 95% CIs = -0.36, -0.03, p = 0.02, I2 = 77%) and a trend of CF improvement (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.22, 0.01, p = 0.06, I2 = 56%).
- However, in the sensitivity analysis of double-blind, placebo-controlled studies only, M+ChEIs showed a significant reduction in BD compared with ChEIs without considerable heterogeneity (SMD = -0.11, 95% CIs = -0.21, -0.01, p = 0.04, I2 = 40%).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants7,567
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 76/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. 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 (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| 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 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 7,567 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 28922160) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| 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 “galantamine”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “galantamine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.