| Title |
Predictors of discontinuation, efficacy, and safety of memantine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 18 randomized clinical trials involving 5004 patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Geriatrics, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12877-018-0857-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lídia Blanco-Silvente, Dolors Capellà, Josep Garre-Olmo, Joan Vilalta-Franch, Xavier Castells |
| Abstract |
The risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains unclear. In addition, variability between the results of clinical trials has been observed. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk-benefit relationship of memantine treatment in patients with AD and to determine the predictor effect of patient, intervention, and study design related covariates. A systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, placebo controlled clinical trials was performed. Primary outcomes were all-cause discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events (AE) and efficacy on cognitive function. Odds ratio (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was conducted to identify related covariates. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included trials. Eighteen studies involving 5004 patients were included. No differences between memantine and placebo were found for all-cause treatment discontinuation (OR=0.97 [0.82, 1.14]) and discontinuation due to AE (OR=1.18 [0.91, 1.53]). Memantine showed small improvement on cognitive function (SMD=0.15 [0.08, 0.22]). Baseline functional ability was positively associated with all-cause treatment discontinuation and discontinuation due to AE. Our study suggests that memantine has a very small efficacy on AD symptomatology and its safety profile is similar to that of placebo. No evidence of treatment discontinuation improvement with memantine is found, indicating a dubious risk-benefit relationship. No intervention characteristic or subgroup of patients clearly shows a significantly better risk-benefit relationship. CRD42014015696 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Peru | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 44 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 50 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 09 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,602,217
of 24,589,002 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#677
of 3,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,879
of 334,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,589,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,435 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 334,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.