Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety

Memantine, a partial antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR), approved for moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment within the U.S. and Europe under brand name Namenda (Forest), Axura and Akatinol (Merz), and Ebixa and Abixa (Lundbeck), may have potential in alleviating additional neurological conditions, such as vascular dementia (VD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). In various animal models, memantine has been reported to be a neuroprotective agent that positively impacts both neurodegenerative and vascular processes. While excessive levels of glutamate result in neurotoxicity, in part through the over-activation of NMDARs, memantine-as a partial NMDAR antagonist, blocks the NMDA glutamate receptors to normalize the glutamatergic system and ameliorate cognitive and memory deficits. The key to memantine's therapeutic action lies in its uncompetitive binding to the NMDAR through which low affinity and rapid off-rate kinetics of memantine at the level of the NMDAR-channel preserves the physiological function of the receptor, underpinning memantine's tolerability and low adverse event profile. As the biochemical pathways evoked by NMDAR antagonism also play a role in PD and since no other drug is sufficiently effective to substitute for the first-line treatment of L-dopa despite its side effects, memantine may be useful in PD treatment with possibly fewer side effects. In spite of the relative modest nature of its adverse effects, memantine has been shown to provide only a moderate decrease in clinical deterioration in AD and VD, and hence efforts are being undertaken in the design of new and more potent memantine-based drugs to hopefully provide greater efficacy.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Olivares, D., Deshpande, V. K., Shi, Y., Lahiri, D. K., Greig, N. H., Rogers, J. T., et al. (2012). N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease. Current Alzheimer research. https://doi.org/10.2174/156720512801322564

Vancouver

Olivares D, Deshpande VK, Shi Y, Lahiri DK, Greig NH, Rogers JT, et al. N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease. Current Alzheimer research. 2012. doi:10.2174/156720512801322564. PMID: 21875407.

BibTeX

@article{olivares2012-21875407,
  author  = {Olivares, D. and Deshpande, V. K. and Shi, Y. and Lahiri, D. K. and Greig, N. H. and Rogers, J. T. and Huang, X.},
  title   = {{N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists and memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease, vascular dementia and Parkinson's disease}},
  journal = {Current Alzheimer research},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.2174/156720512801322564},
  pmid    = {21875407},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2174/156720512801322564}
}

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

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 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.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current Alzheimer research)
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 2012 — 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 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 21875407)
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 Treatments

Also tagged “repurposing”

235 studies in the library carry the topic tag “repurposing”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 235 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Treatments

See all studies in Treatments →