Home › Research › Treatments
Paradigm shift in NMDA receptor antagonist drug development: molecular mechanism of uncompetitive inhibition by memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurologic disorders
Lipton SA.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2004-12-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
Recent phase 3 clinical trials have shown that memantine is effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease and possibly vascular dementia (multi-infarct dementia). Excitotoxic neuronal cell death is mediated in part by overactivation of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA)-type glutamate receptors, which results in excessive Ca(2+) influx through the receptor's associated ion channel. In contrast, studies in our laboratory have shown that the adamantane derivative, memantine, preferentially blocks excessive NMDA receptor activity without disrupting normal activity.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Lipton, S. A. (2004). Paradigm shift in NMDA receptor antagonist drug development: molecular mechanism of uncompetitive inhibition by memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurologic disorders. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2004-6s610
Vancouver
Lipton SA. Paradigm shift in NMDA receptor antagonist drug development: molecular mechanism of uncompetitive inhibition by memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurologic disorders. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2004. doi:10.3233/jad-2004-6s610. PMID: 15665416.
BibTeX
@article{lipton2004-15665416,
author = {Lipton, S. A.},
title = {{Paradigm shift in NMDA receptor antagonist drug development: molecular mechanism of uncompetitive inhibition by memantine in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease and other neurologic disorders}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2004},
doi = {10.3233/jad-2004-6s610},
pmid = {15665416},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-2004-6s610}
}
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
- Recent phase 3 clinical trials have shown that memantine is effective in the treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease and possibly vascular dementia (multi-infarct dementia).
- Excitotoxic neuronal cell death is mediated in part by overactivation of N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA)-type glutamate receptors, which results in excessive Ca(2+) influx through the receptor's associated ion channel.
- In contrast, studies in our laboratory have shown that the adamantane derivative, memantine, preferentially blocks excessive NMDA receptor activity without disrupting normal activity.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designclinical trial
- 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 randomized / 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 multicenter 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 (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “clinical trial”, which our rubric does not rank (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 | 2004 — 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) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15665416) |
| 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “drug-development”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “drug-development”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.