IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0035185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy of Memantine for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Dementia: A Randomised Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Chris Fox
  • Monica Crugel
  • Ian Maidment
  • Bjorn Henrik Auestad
  • Simon Coulton
  • Adrian Treloar
  • Clive Ballard
  • Malaz Boustani
  • Cornelius Katona
  • Gill Livingston

Abstract

Background: Agitation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is common and associated with poor patient life-quality and carer distress. The best evidence-based pharmacological treatments are antipsychotics which have limited benefits with increased morbidity and mortality. There are no memantine trials in clinically significant agitation but post-hoc analyses in other populations found reduced agitation. We tested the primary hypothesis, memantine is superior to placebo for clinically significant agitation, in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods and Findings: We recruited 153 participants with AD and clinically significant agitation from care-homes or hospitals for a double-blind randomised-controlled trial and 149 people started the trial of memantine versus placebo. The primary outcome was 6 weeks mixed model autoregressive analysis of Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Secondary outcomes were: 12 weeks CMAI; 6 and 12 weeks Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C), Standardised Mini Mental State Examination, Severe Impairment Battery. Using a mixed effects model we found no significant differences in the primary outcome, 6 weeks CMAI, between memantine and placebo (memantine lower −3.0; −8.3 to 2.2, p = 0.26); or 12 weeks CMAI; or CGI-C or adverse events at 6 or 12 weeks. NPI mean difference favoured memantine at weeks 6 (−6.9; −12.2 to −1.6; p = 0.012) and 12 (−9.6; −15.0 to −4.3 p = 0.0005). Memantine was significantly better than placebo for cognition. The main study limitation is that it still remains to be determined whether memantine has a role in milder agitation in AD. Conclusions: Memantine did not improve significant agitation in people with in moderate-to-severe AD. Future studies are urgently needed to test other pharmacological candidates in this group and memantine for neuropsychiatric symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00371059 Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial 24953404

Suggested Citation

  • Chris Fox & Monica Crugel & Ian Maidment & Bjorn Henrik Auestad & Simon Coulton & Adrian Treloar & Clive Ballard & Malaz Boustani & Cornelius Katona & Gill Livingston, 2012. "Efficacy of Memantine for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Dementia: A Randomised Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-8, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035185
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035185
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035185&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0035185?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0035185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.