4.2 Article

Clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil on cognitive and global function in patients with Alzheimer's disease - A 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japan

期刊

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 299-313

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000017259

关键词

donepezil; acetylcholinesterase inhibitor; Alzheimer's disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated efficacy and safety of donepezil hydrochloride (donepezil) at 5 mg/day in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease for 24 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled comparative trial. In this study, 268 patients were enrolled and 39 of these (15%) were withdrawn. In the evaluable population of efficacy, Protocol-Compatible (PC) analyzed patients (n = 228), better effects than that of placebo were confirmed using two primary efficacy measures: a cognitive performance test, the Japanese version of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-J cog, p = 0.003) and a clinical global assessment, the Japanese version of the Clinical Global Impression of Change (J-CGIC, p = 0.000). The superiority of donepezil was also shown by secondary measures: the Sum of the Boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR-SB), the Mental Function Impairment Scale (MENFIS) and the caregiver-rated modified Crichton scale (CMCS). The same results were obtained in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (n = 263). The incidence of drug-related adverse events was 10% (14/136) in the donepezil and 8% (10/ 131) in the placebo group; no significant difference was seen between the two groups. The main adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms, and these were almost all mild, and they all disappeared with continued administration or temporary discontinuation of donepezil. These results indicate that the donepezil appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease. Copyright (C) 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.2
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