Home › Research › Treatments
Rivastigmine and donepezil treatment in moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period
Roger Bullock, Jacques Touchon, Howard Bergman, Giuseppe Gambina, Yunsheng He, Günter Rapatz, Jennifer Nagel, Roger Lane. Current medical research and opinion, 2005-08
Topic: Drug trials: efficacy and safety
In total, 994 patients received cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (rivastigmine, n = 495; donepezil, n = 499), and 57.9% of patients completed the study. The most frequent reason for premature discontinuation in both treatment groups was adverse events, primarily gastrointestinal. Adverse events were more frequent in the rivastigmine group during the titration phase, but similar in the maintenance phase. Serious adverse events were reported by 31.7% of rivastigmine- and 32.5% of donepezil-treated patients, respectively. Rivastigmine and donepezil had similar effects on measures of cognition and behaviour, but rivastigmine showed a statistically significant advantage on measures of activities of daily living and global functioning in the ITT-LOCF population. However, this was not maintained in the non-ITT-LOCF populations. In secondary subgroup analyses, AD patients who had genotypes that encoded for full expression of the butyrylcholinesterase enzyme (BuChE wt/wt; n = 226/340), who were < 75 years of age (n = 362/994) or who had symptoms suggestive of concomitant Lewy body disease (n = 49/994) showed significantly greater benefits from rivastigmine treatment. Cholinesterase inhibitor treatment may offer continued therapeutic benefit for up to 2 years in patients with moderate AD. Although both drugs performed similarly on cognition and behaviour, rivastigmine may provide greater benefit in activities of daily living and global functioning.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bullock, R., Touchon, J., Bergman, H., Gambina, G., He, Y., Rapatz, G., et al. (2005). Rivastigmine and donepezil treatment in moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period. Current medical research and opinion. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079905x56565
Vancouver
Bullock R, Touchon J, Bergman H, Gambina G, He Y, Rapatz G, et al. Rivastigmine and donepezil treatment in moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period. Current medical research and opinion. 2005. doi:10.1185/030079905x56565. PMID: 16083542.
BibTeX
@article{bullock2005-16083542,
author = {Bullock, Roger and Touchon, Jacques and Bergman, Howard and Gambina, Giuseppe and He, Yunsheng and Rapatz, Günter and Nagel, Jennifer and Lane, Roger},
title = {{Rivastigmine and donepezil treatment in moderate to moderately-severe Alzheimer's disease over a 2-year period}},
journal = {Current medical research and opinion},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1185/030079905x56565},
pmid = {16083542},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1185/030079905x56565}
}
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 8 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
- In total, 994 patients received cholinesterase inhibitor treatment (rivastigmine, n = 495; donepezil, n = 499), and 57.9% of patients completed the study.
- The most frequent reason for premature discontinuation in both treatment groups was adverse events, primarily gastrointestinal.
- Adverse events were more frequent in the rivastigmine group during the titration phase, but similar in the maintenance phase.
- Serious adverse events were reported by 31.7% of rivastigmine- and 32.5% of donepezil-treated patients, respectively.
- Rivastigmine and donepezil had similar effects on measures of cognition and behaviour, but rivastigmine showed a statistically significant advantage on measures of activities of daily living and global functioning in the ITT-LOCF population.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Participants495
- Effect size57.9%; 31.7%; 32.5%
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 78/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a randomized controlled trial. 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 free to read, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 59 points we could judge it on, which is 78 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Current medical research and opinion) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 11 / 12 | A randomized controlled trial (from PubMed type “Randomized Controlled Trial”) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 495 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 1 / 2 | Randomized (as stated in the record) |
| 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 | 2 / 3 | PubMed indexes it as a multicentre study |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 16083542) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 46 / 59 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 59 points we could judge it on is 78 out of 100. |
| Total | 78 / 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 “galantamine”
271 studies in the library carry the topic tag “galantamine”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 271 tagged studies.