Cited by 892Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Long-term donepezil treatment in 565 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD2000): randomised double-blind trial

AD Collaborative Group·2004·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Cholinesterase inhibitors produce small improvements in cognitive and global assessments in Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to determine whether donepezil produces worthwhile improvements in disability, dependency, behavioural and psychological symptoms, carers' psychological wellbeing, or delay in institutionalisation. If so, which patients benefit, from what dose, and for how long?Methods 565 community-resident patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease entered a 12-week run-in period in which they were randomly allocated donepezil (5 mg/day) or placebo. 486 who completed this period were rerandomised to either donepezil (5 or 10 mg/day) or placebo, with double-blind treatment continuing as long as judged appropriate. Primary endpoints were entry to institutional care and progression of disability, defined by loss of either two of four basic, or six of 11 instrumental, activities on the Bristol activities of daily living scale (BADLS). Outcome assessments were sought for all patients and analysed by logrank and multilevel models.Findings Cognition averaged 0.8 MMSE (mini-mental state examination) points better (95% CI 0.5-1.2; p<0.0001) and functionality 1.0 BADLS points better (0.5-1.6; p<0.0001) with donepezil over the first 2 years. No significant benefits were seen with donepezil compared with placebo in institutionalisation (42% vs 44% at 3 years; p=0.4) or progression of disability (58% vs 59% at 3 years; p=0.4). The relative risk of entering institutional care in the donepezil group compared with placebo was 0.97 (95% CI 0.72-1.30; p=0.8); the relative risk of progression of disability or entering institutional care was 0.96 (95% CI 0.74-1.24; p=0.7). Similarly, no significant differences were seen between donepezil and placebo in behavioural and psychological symptoms, carer psychopathology, formal care costs, unpaid caregiver time, adverse events or deaths, or between 5 mg and 10 mg donepezil.Interpretation Donepezil is not cost effective, with benefits below minimally relevant thresholds. More effective treatments than cholinesterase inhibitors are needed for Alzheimer's disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16499-4

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Donepezil showed no benefit for clinically significant agitation over 12 weeks in a large RCT, or for overall change in neuropsychiatric inventory scores in a longer term trial with up to four years' follow-up.

    “In addition, donepezil showed no benefit for clinically significant agitation over 12 weeks in a large RCT,147 or for overall change in neuropsychiatric inventory scores in a longer term trial with up to four years’ follow-up.98”
  • Patients taken off, or those inconsistently taking, anti-AD medications progress more rapidly than those who continue treatments, particularly cholinesterase inhibitors.

    “Patients taken off, or those inconsistently taking, anti-AD medications progress more rapidly than those who continue treatments, particularly ChEIs.”

    From The Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Spectrum (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

  • Discontinuation of cholinesterase inhibitor treatment is, on aggregate, harmful.

    “Discontinuation of ChEI treatment is, on aggregate, harmful.”

    From The Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Spectrum (2019) · cites this paper as [68]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
AD Collaborative Group
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
AD Collaborative Group
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-06
Volume
363
Issue
9427
Pages
2105-2115
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W180469417
Cited by
892
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 29
FWCI
70.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (U19AG010483)
  • Cilag
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
donepezil, Alzheimer's disease, cholinesterase inhibitors, institutionalization, disability progression, activities of daily living, cognitive function, behavioural and psychological symptoms, caregiver well-being, cost-effectiveness, dose comparison, community-dwelling patients, long-term treatment outcomes, Mini-Mental State Examination
MeSH terms
Donepezil, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Cognition, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Double-Blind Method, Female, United Kingdom, Health Resources, Humans, Indans, Institutionalization, Male, Middle Aged, Piperidines, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Disease Progression

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