Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Memantine is a clinically well tolerated N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist--a review of preclinical data
Parsons CG, Danysz W, Quack G.. Neuropharmacology, 1999-06-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists have therapeutic potential in numerous CNS disorders ranging from acute neurodegeneration (e.g. stroke and trauma), chronic neurodegeneration (e.g. Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, ALS) to symptomatic treatment (e.g. epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, drug dependence, depression, anxiety and chronic pain). However, many NMDA receptor antagonists also produce highly undesirable side effects at doses within their putative therapeutic range. This has unfortunately led to the conclusion that NMDA receptor antagonism is not a valid therapeutic approach. However, memantine is clearly an uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist at therapeutic concentrations achieved in the treatment of dementia and is essentially devoid of such side effects at doses within the therapeutic range. This has been attributed to memantine's moderate potency and associated rapid, strongly voltage-dependent blocking kinetics. The aim of this review is to summarise preclinical data on memantine supporting its mechanism of action and promising profile in animal models of chronic neurodegenerative diseases. The ultimate purpose is to provide evidence that it is indeed possible to develop clinically well tolerated NMDA receptor antagonists, a fact reflected in the recent interest of several pharmaceutical companies in developing compounds with similar properties to memantine.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Parsons, C. G., Danysz, W., & Quack, G. (1999). Memantine is a clinically well tolerated N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist--a review of preclinical data. Neuropharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00019-2
Vancouver
Parsons CG, Danysz W, Quack G. Memantine is a clinically well tolerated N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist--a review of preclinical data. Neuropharmacology. 1999. doi:10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00019-2. PMID: 10465680.
BibTeX
@article{parsons1999-10465680,
author = {Parsons, C. G. and Danysz, W. and Quack, G.},
title = {{Memantine is a clinically well tolerated N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist--a review of preclinical data}},
journal = {Neuropharmacology},
year = {1999},
doi = {10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00019-2},
pmid = {10465680},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3908(99)00019-2}
}
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
- This has unfortunately led to the conclusion that NMDA receptor antagonism is not a valid therapeutic approach.
- However, memantine is clearly an uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonist at therapeutic concentrations achieved in the treatment of dementia and is essentially devoid of such side effects at doses within the therapeutic range.
- This has been attributed to memantine's moderate potency and associated rapid, strongly voltage-dependent blocking kinetics.
- The aim of this review is to summarise preclinical data on memantine supporting its mechanism of action and promising profile in animal models of chronic neurodegenerative diseases.
- The ultimate purpose is to provide evidence that it is indeed possible to develop clinically well tolerated NMDA receptor antagonists, a fact reflected in the recent interest of several pharmaceutical companies in developing compounds with similar properties to memantine.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuropharmacology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 1999 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| 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 | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| 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 10465680) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 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 Vascular contributions
Also tagged “double-blind”
783 studies in the library carry the topic tag “double-blind”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 783 tagged studies.