Cited by 787Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Donepezil and memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease

Open access
Howard, Robert, McShane, Rupert, Lindesay, James, Ritchie, Craig, Baldwin, Ashley, Barber, Robert, Burns, Alistair, Dening, Tom +25 more·2012·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown the benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is not known whether treatment benefits continue after the progression to moderate-to-severe disease. METHODS: We assigned 295 community-dwelling patients who had been treated with donepezil for at least 3 months and who had moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease (a score of 5 to 13 on the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [SMMSE, on which scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function]) to continue donepezil, discontinue donepezil, discontinue donepezil and start memantine, or continue donepezil and start memantine. Patients received the study treatment for 52 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were scores on the SMMSE and on the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS, on which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). The minimum clinically important differences were 1.4 points on the SMMSE and 3.5 points on the BADLS. RESULTS: Patients assigned to continue donepezil, as compared with those assigned to discontinue donepezil, had a score on the SMMSE that was higher by an average of 1.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.5) and a score on the BADLS that was lower (indicating less impairment) by 3.0 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.3) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients assigned to receive memantine, as compared with those assigned to receive memantine placebo, had a score on the SMMSE that was an average of 1.2 points higher (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8; P<0.001) and a score on the BADLS that was 1.5 points lower (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.8; P=0.02). The efficacy of donepezil and of memantine did not differ significantly in the presence or absence of the other. There were no significant benefits of the combination of donepezil and memantine over donepezil alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. (Funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council and the U.K. Alzheimer's Society; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49545035.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1106668

Cites

30 of 30 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?

  • In moderate and severe AD, short-term efficacy of memantine monotherapy compared with placebo is reported in several randomized controlled trials of 12 to 50 weeks duration and supported by meta-analyses.

    “In moderate and severe AD, short-term efficacy of memantine monotherapy compared with placebo is reported in several RCTs of 12 to 50 weeks duration and supported by meta-analyses.”

    From The Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Spectrum (2019) · cites this paper as [71]

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

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dr. Barber, receiving royalties from Arnold Press;
  2. Dr. Burns, receiving royalties from John Wiley; Dr. Findlay, receiving lecture fees and reimburse- ment for meeting expenses from Eisai, Pfizer, and Lundbeck;
  3. Cummings JL, Mega M, Gray K, Rosenberg-Thompson S, Carusi DA, Gornbein J. The Neuropsychiatric Inven- tory: comprehensive assessment of psycho- pathology in dementia. Neurology 1994; 44:2308-14.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Howard, R., McShane, R., Lindesay, J., Ritchie, C., Baldwin, A., Barber, R., Burns, A., Dening, T., Findlay, D., Holmes, C., Hughes, A., Jacoby, R., Jones, R., Jones, R., McKeith, I., Macharouthu, A., O'Brien, J., Passmore, P., Sheehan, B., Juszczak, E., Katona, C., Hills, R., Knapp, M., Ballard, C., Brown, R., Banerjee, S., Onions, C., Griffin, M., Adams, J., Gray, R., Johnson, T., Bentham, P., & Phillips, P.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
  • Whiston Hospital (GB)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Fulbourn Hospital (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Inverclyde Royal Hospital (GB)
  • Crichton Royal Hospital (GB)
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of Wales (GB)
  • Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (GB)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2012-03-08
Volume
366
Issue
10
Pages
893-903
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2151585937
Cited by
782
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 59 · 2013: 74 · 2012: 40
FWCI
52.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • Alzheimer's Society
  • King's College London
  • Medical Research Council
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
Alzheimer's disease, donepezil, memantine, cholinesterase inhibitors, NMDA receptor antagonists, combination therapy, cognitive function, activities of daily living, functional disability, treatment continuation, community-dwelling patients, minimal clinically important difference, treatment discontinuation
MeSH terms
Donepezil, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Double-Blind Method, Drug Synergism, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Indans, Male, Memantine, Patient Dropouts, Piperidines, Psychological Tests, Receptors, N-Methyl-D-Aspartate, Treatment Outcome, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

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