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.

43/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 43 out of 100. Treatments

Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis

Plain-language summary

Background Cholinesterase inhibitors have all been available in oral formulations, but a rivastigmine transdermal patch has now been developed and is approved in many countries worldwide for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) (including the USA, Latin America, Europe and Asia). Objectives To review the available pharmacokinetic data that supported the rationale behind the development of the rivastigmine transdermal patch and its clinical effects in dementia therapy. This article will also discuss how the patch may alter the treatment paradigm for patients with AD. Results The 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch was shown to provide comparable exposure to the highest recommended doses of capsules (12 mg/day) with significantly lower maximum plasma concentration (Cmax 8.7 vs. 21.6 ng/ml) and slower absorption rate (tmax 8.1 vs. 1.4 h). In a clinical trial of 1195 AD patients, this translated into similar efficacy with three times fewer reports of nausea and vomiting (7.2% vs. 23.1%, and 6.2% vs. 17.0% respectively). Consequently, more patients in the 9.5 mg/24 h patch group achieved their target therapeutic dose at the end of the study, compared with those in the 12 mg/day capsule group (95.9% vs. 64.4%). Conclusion The rivastigmine patch provides continuous drug delivery over 24 h and similar efficacy to the highest recommended dose of oral rivastigmine with improved tolerability. This may allow patients to achieve optimal therapeutic doses and to benefit from a longer duration of treatment.

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

APA 7th

Kurz, A., Farlow, M., & Lefèvre, G. (2009). Pharmacokinetics of a novel transdermal rivastigmine patch for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a review. International journal of clinical practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02052.x

Vancouver

Kurz A, Farlow M, Lefèvre G. Pharmacokinetics of a novel transdermal rivastigmine patch for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a review. International journal of clinical practice. 2009. doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02052.x. PMID: 19392927.

BibTeX

@article{kurz2009-19392927,
  author  = {Kurz, A. and Farlow, M. and Lefèvre, G.},
  title   = {{Pharmacokinetics of a novel transdermal rivastigmine patch for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a review}},
  journal = {International journal of clinical practice},
  year    = {2009},
  doi     = {10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02052.x},
  pmid    = {19392927},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02052.x}
}

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.

How to read this study

Design: this is a narrative review. It summarises a field without a fixed search method, so it shows how authors read the evidence rather than measuring it. Use it to find the primary studies, not as a result in itself.
Size: the record gives no participant count. Look for one in the original before trusting a pattern.
Effect: the record reports “7.2%; 23.1%; 6.2%”. A statistically significant result can still be small in daily life.

What the evidence grade means here

This page is graded low. alzhub.org assigns the grade automatically from keywords in the abstract, not from reading the paper. Low means the abstract matched neither pattern. It is the default label, and it does not mean the work is poor; many sound lab and imaging papers land here. It can add at most 5 of the 100 points in the study score, and it is a label about design, not a verdict on whether the findings are true.

New to reading papers? Six questions to ask of any Alzheimer’s study · how we score.

Key findings

Results The 9.5 mg/24 h rivastigmine patch was shown to provide comparable exposure to the highest recommended doses of capsules (12 mg/day) with significantly lower maximum plasma concentration (Cmax 8.7 vs. 21.6 ng/ml) and slower absorption rate (tmax 8.1 vs. 1.4 h).
Consequently, more patients in the 9.5 mg/24 h patch group achieved their target therapeutic dose at the end of the study, compared with those in the 12 mg/day capsule group (95.9% vs. 64.4%).

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →

Study details

Effect size7.2%; 23.1%; 6.2%
Evidence strengthLow

How this study scored 43/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, 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 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (International journal of clinical practice)
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	2009 — 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	2 / 3	Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test
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 19392927)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Points	25 / 58	Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100.
Total	43 / 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.

Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.

Related studies in Treatments from nearby years

Also tagged “transdermal”

3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “transdermal”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.

Studies sharing this one's topic tags

Similar studies

More on Treatments

Where this led: Rivastigmine on the treatments page — its current status, approval date, side-effect rate and list price, kept up to date.

See all studies in Treatments →