Home › Research › Treatments
Memantine in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Boxer AL, Knopman DS, Kaufer DI, Grossman M, Onyike C, Graf-Radford N, Mendez M, Kerwin D et al.. The Lancet. Neurology, 2013-01-02
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Background Memantine has been used off-label to treat frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD). A previous 26-week open-label study suggested a transient, modest benefit on neuropsychiatric symptoms as measured by the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI). We aimed to determine whether memantine is an effective treatment for FTD. Methods We did a randomised, parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 20 mg memantine taken orally daily for 26 weeks in patients with FTD. Participants met Neary criteria for behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD) or semantic dementia and had characteristic brain atrophy. Use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors was prohibited. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive either memantine or matched placebo tablets (1:1) in blocks of two and four patients. All patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were the change in total NPI score and clinical global impression of change (CGIC) score after 26 weeks and were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00545974. Findings Of 100 patients screened, 81 were randomly assigned to receive memantine (39 patients) or placebo (42 patients). Five (6%) patients discontinued, and 76 completed the 26-week treatment. Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial. Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment. Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one). Interpretation Memantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD. These data do not support memantine use in FTD. Funding Forest Research Institute.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Boxer, A. L., Knopman, D. S., Kaufer, D. I., Grossman, M., Onyike, C., Graf-Radford, N., et al. (2013). Memantine in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70320-4
Vancouver
Boxer AL, Knopman DS, Kaufer DI, Grossman M, Onyike C, Graf-Radford N, et al. Memantine in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet. Neurology. 2013. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70320-4. PMID: 23290598.
BibTeX
@article{boxer2013-23290598,
author = {Boxer, A. L. and Knopman, D. S. and Kaufer, D. I. and Grossman, M. and Onyike, C. and Graf-Radford, N. and Mendez, M. and Kerwin, D. and others},
title = {{Memantine in patients with frontotemporal lobar degeneration: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial}},
journal = {The Lancet. Neurology},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70320-4},
pmid = {23290598},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(12)70320-4}
}
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's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Enrolment numbers were lower than planned because of many patients' preference to take memantine or cholinesterase inhibitors off-label rather than participate in a clinical trial.
- Memantine treatment had no effect on either the NPI (mean difference 2·2, 95% CI -3·9 to 8·3, p=0·47) or CGIC (mean difference 0·0, -0·4 to 0·4, p=0·90) after 26 weeks of treatment.
- Memantine was generally well tolerated; however, patients in the memantine group had more frequent cognitive adverse events (six patients) than those in the placebo group (one).
- Interpretation Memantine treatment showed no benefit in patients with FTD.
- These data do not support memantine use in FTD.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designopen-label trial
- Participants100
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 77/100
Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a randomized 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 and institution's track record, so those were left out: it earned 47 of the 61 points we could judge it on, which is 77 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Lancet. Neurology) |
| 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 | 2013 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 100 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 | 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23290598) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 47 / 61 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 47 of the 61 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.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “randomised-double-blind”
4 studies in the library carry the topic tag “randomised-double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 4 tagged studies.