↓ Skip to main content

A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Dementia Medications: Systematic Review of the Evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs & Aging, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 1,290)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
35 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
121 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 Mendeley
Title
A Risk-Benefit Assessment of Dementia Medications: Systematic Review of the Evidence
Published in
Drugs & Aging, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40266-015-0266-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jacob S. Buckley, Shelley R. Salpeter

Abstract

There is no cure for dementia, and no treatments exist to halt or reverse the course of the disease. Treatments are aimed at improving cognitive and functional outcomes. Our objective was to review the basis of pharmacological treatments for dementia and to summarize the benefits and risks of dementia treatments. We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE through November 2014, for English-language trials and observational studies on treatment of dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Additional references were identified by searching bibliographies of relevant publications. Whenever possible, pooled data from meta-analyses or systematic reviews were obtained. Studies were included for review if they were randomized trials or observational studies on dementia or mild cognitive impairment that evaluated efficacy outcomes or adverse outcomes associated with treatment. Studies were excluded if they evaluated non-FDA approved treatments, or if they evaluated treatment in disorders other than dementia and mild cognitive impairment. The literature search found 540 potentially relevant studies, of which 257 were included in the systematic review. In pooled trial data, cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) produce small improvements in cognitive, functional, and global benefits in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's and Lewy body dementia, but the clinical significance of these effects are unclear. There is no significant benefit seen for vascular dementia. The efficacy of ChEI treatment appears to wane over time, with minimal benefit seen after 1 year. There is no evidence for benefit for those with advanced disease or those aged over 85 years. Adverse effects are significantly increased with ChEIs, in a dose-dependent manner. A two- to fivefold increased risk for gastrointestinal, neurological, and cardiovascular side effects is related to cholinergic stimulation, the most serious being weight loss, debility, and syncope. Those aged over 85 years have double the risk of adverse events compared with younger patients. Memantine monotherapy may provide some cognitive benefit for patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's and vascular dementia, but the benefit is small and may wane over the course of several months. Memantine exhibits no significant benefit in mild dementia or Lewy body dementia or as an add-on treatment with ChEIs. Memantine has a relatively favorable side-effect profile, at least under controlled trial conditions. ChEIs produce small, short-lived improvements in cognitive function in mild to moderate dementia, which may not translate into clinically meaningful effects. Marginal benefits are seen with severe disease, long-term treatment, and advanced age. Cholinergic side effects, including weight loss, debility, and syncope, are clinically significant and could be especially detrimental in the frail elderly population, in which the risks of treatment outweigh the benefits. Memantine monotherapy may have minimal benefits in moderate to severe dementia, balanced by minimal adverse effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 259 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 15%
Student > Bachelor 37 14%
Researcher 29 11%
Other 24 9%
Student > Postgraduate 19 7%
Other 57 22%
Unknown 59 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 23 9%
Psychology 20 8%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Other 37 14%
Unknown 69 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2020.
All research outputs
#996,268
of 24,631,014 outputs
Outputs from Drugs & Aging
#31
of 1,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,283
of 269,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs & Aging
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,631,014 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.