4.5 Article

Effects of memantine on cognition in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease: post-hoc analyses of ADAS-cog and SIB total and single-item scores from six randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.2226

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; cognition; ADAS-cog; SIB; memantine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The post-hoc analyses reported here evaluate the specific effects of memantine treatment on ADAS-cog single-items or SIB subscales for patients with moderate to severe AD. Methods Data from six multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, 6-month studies were used as the basis for these post-hoc analyses. All patients with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of less than 20 were included. Analyses of patients with moderate AD (MMSE: 10-19), evaluated with the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog) and analyses of patients with moderate to severe AD (MMSE: 3-14), evaluated using the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), were performed separately. Results The mean change from baseline showed a significant benefit of memantine treatment on both the ADAS-cog (p < 0.01) and the SIB (p < 0.001) total score at study end. The ADAS-cog single-item analyses showed significant benefits of memantine treatment, compared to placebo, for mean change from baseline for commands (p < 0.001), ideational praxis (p < 0.05), orientation (p < 0.01), comprehension (p, < 0.05), and remembering test instructions (p < 0.05) for observed cases (OC). The SIB subscale analyses showed significant benefits of memantine, compared to placebo, for mean change from baseline for language (p < 0.05), memory (p < 0.05), orientation (p < 0.01), praxis (p < 0.001), and visuospatial ability (p < 0.01) for OC. Conclusion Memantine shows significant benefits on overall cognitive abilities as well as on specific key cognitive domains for patients with moderate to severe AD. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据