Cited by 50Treatment of Major DepressionChemical synthesis and alkaloidsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A double blind, placebo‐controlled pilot study of galantamine augmentation of antidepressant treatment in older adults with major depression

Open access
Holtzheimer, Paul E., Meeks, Thomas W., Kelley, Mary E., Mufti, Mustafa, Young, Raymond, McWhorter, Kimberly, Vito, Nancie, Chismar, Ronald +4 more·2008·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: Depression in older adults is often associated with cognitive abnormalities and may predict later development of a primary cognitive disorder. This double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled pilot study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of galantamine augmentation of antidepressant treatment for depressive and cognitive symptoms in older adults with major depression. Methods: Thirty‐eight, non‐demented older adults (age >50) with major depression were randomized to receive galantamine or placebo augmentation of standard antidepressant pharmacotherapy (venlafaxine XR or citalopram). Mood and cognitive status were monitored for 24 weeks using the 24‐item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status. Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in mood and cognition over 24 weeks, but no significant difference was found in change over time between groups. An exploratory post‐hoc analysis suggested that patients randomized to galantamine had lower depression scores compared to patients in the placebo group after 2 weeks of treatment. Dropout was high with more subjects randomized to antidepressant plus galantamine withdrawing early from the study. Conclusions: This pilot study failed to demonstrate a benefit for galantamine augmentation of antidepressant medication in the treatment of depression in older adults. Future studies should explore strategies for reducing dropout in such longitudinal trials and more carefully assess time to response with cholinesterase inhibitor augmentation. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.1951

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two double-blind RCTs evaluated the effects of galantamine augmentation on neurocognitive function in major depressive disorder, and both failed to demonstrate beneficial effects on cognition.

    “Two double-blind, RCTs evaluated the effects of galantamine augmentation on neurocognitive function in MDD [150, 151], and both failed to demonstrate beneficial effects on cognition.”
  • Both galantamine RCTs enrolled small samples, with the trial by Holtzheimer et al. enrolling only elderly participants.

    “However, they both enrolled small samples, with that by Holtzheimer et al. [150] enrolling only elderly participants.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB, Gibbon M, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Disorders—Research Version (SCID-I, Version 2.0) New York: Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute; 1996. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holtzheimer, P. E., Meeks, T. W., Kelley, M. E., Mufti, M., Young, R., McWhorter, K., Vito, N., Chismar, R., Quinn, S., Dey, S., Byrd, E. H., & McDonald, W. M.
Affiliations
Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Holtzheimer, Paul E.
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-12-03
Volume
23
Issue
6
Pages
625-631
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W1996147546
Cited by
50
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American Federation for Aging Research
  • American Foundation for Suicide Prevention
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH077869)
  • National Center for Research Resources (K12RR017643)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Chemical synthesis and alkaloids
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
galantamine, antidepressant augmentation, major depressive disorder, older adults, cholinesterase inhibitors, venlafaxine, citalopram, cognitive impairment, treatment discontinuation, non-demented elderly
MeSH terms
Venlafaxine Hydrochloride, Aged, Antidepressive Agents, Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Cyclohexanols, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Galantamine, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pilot Projects, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Citalopram, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review