Home › Research › Treatments
Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond
Lipton SA.. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2006-02-01
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
Neuroprotective drugs tested in clinical trials, particularly those that block N-methyl-D-aspartate-sensitive glutamate receptors (NMDARs), have failed miserably in large part because of intolerable side effects. However, one such drug, memantine, was recently approved by the European Union and the US FDA for the treatment of dementia following our group's discovery of its clinically tolerated mechanism of action. Here, we review the molecular basis for memantine efficacy in neurological diseases that are mediated, at least in part, by overactivation of NMDARs, producing excessive Ca(2+) influx through the receptor's associated ion channel and consequent free-radical formation.
Key findings
- Neuroprotective drugs tested in clinical trials, particularly those that block N-methyl-D-aspartate-sensitive glutamate receptors (NMDARs), have failed miserably in large part because of intolerable side effects.
- However, one such drug, memantine, was recently approved by the European Union and the US FDA for the treatment of dementia following our group's discovery of its clinically tolerated mechanism of action.
- Here, we review the molecular basis for memantine efficacy in neurological diseases that are mediated, at least in part, by overactivation of NMDARs, producing excessive Ca(2+) influx through the receptor's associated ion channel and consequent free-radical formation.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
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 (Nature reviews. Drug discovery) |
| 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 | 2006 — 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 16424917) |
| 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.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
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.
APA 7th
Lipton, S. A. (2006). Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond. Nature reviews. Drug discovery. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1958
Vancouver
Lipton SA. Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond. Nature reviews. Drug discovery. 2006. doi:10.1038/nrd1958. PMID: 16424917.
BibTeX
@article{lipton2006-16424917,
author = {Lipton, S. A.},
title = {{Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond}},
journal = {Nature reviews. Drug discovery},
year = {2006},
doi = {10.1038/nrd1958},
pmid = {16424917},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1958}
}
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “acetylcholinesterase”
234 studies in the library carry the topic tag “acetylcholinesterase”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 234 tagged studies.