Cited by 943Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative DiseasesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatments

Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer's disease: international randomised controlled trial Commentary: Another piece of the Alzheimer's jigsaw

Open access
Rosler, M., Anand, R., Cicin-Sain, A., Gauthier, S., Agid, Y., Dal-Bianco, P., Stahelin, H. B, Hartman, R. +2 more·1999·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of rivastigmine on the core domains of Alzheimer's disease. DESIGN: Prospective, randomised, multicentre, double blind, placebo controlled, parallel group trial. Patients received either placebo, 1-4 mg/day (lower dose) rivastigmine, or 6-12 mg/day (higher dose) rivastigmine. Doses were increased in one of two fixed dose ranges (1-4 mg/day or 6-12 mg/day) over the first 12 weeks with a subsequent assessment period of 14 weeks. SETTING: 45 centres in Europe and North America. PARTICIPANTS: 725 patients with mild to moderately severe probable Alzheimer's disease diagnosed according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, and the criteria of the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association. OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale, rating on the clinician interview based impression of change incorporating caregiver information scale, and the progressive deterioration scale. RESULTS: At the end of the study cognitive function had deteriorated among those in the placebo group. Scores on the Alzheimer's disease assessment scale improved in patients in the higher dose group when compared with patients taking placebo (P<0.05). Significantly more patients in the higher dose group had improved by 4 points or more than had improved in the placebo group (24% (57/242) v 16% (39/238)). Global function as rated by the clinician interview scale had significantly improved among those in the higher dose group compared with those taking placebo (P<0.001), and significantly more patients in the higher dose group showed improvement than did in the placebo group (37% (80/219) v 20% (46/230)). Mean scores on the progressive deterioration scale improved from baseline in patients in the higher dose group but fell in the placebo group. Adverse events were predominantly gastrointestinal, of mild to moderate severity, transient, and occurred mainly during escalation of the dose. 23% (55/242) of those in the higher dose group, 7% (18/242) of those in the lower dose group, and 7% (16/239) of those in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Rivastigmine is well tolerated and effective. It improves cognition, participation in activities of daily living, and global evaluation ratings in patients with mild to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease. This is the first treatment to show compelling evidence of efficacy in a predominantly European population.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.318.7184.633

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Clinical trials of donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine in participants with average MMSE score 19 for mild dementia stage demonstrated moderate reduction in cognitive decline over 6 months using the ADAS-cog scale.

    “Clinical trials of donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine of participants with the average MMSE score–19 for AD in mild dementia stage demonstrated moderate reduction in cognitive decline over 6 months (or 26 weeks) using the ADAS-cog scale.21–23”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosler, M., Anand, R., Cicin-Sain, A., Gauthier, S., Agid, Y., Dal-Bianco, P., Stahelin, H. B., Hartman, R., Gharabawi, M., & Bayer, T.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-03-06
Volume
318
Issue
7184
Pages
633-640
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1985528178
Cited by
943
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Keywords
rivastigmine, Alzheimer's disease, cholinesterase inhibitors, dose escalation, cognitive function, functional status, functional decline, adverse events, gastrointestinal adverse effects, treatment discontinuation, drug safety and efficacy, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, Clinical Global Impression Scale
MeSH terms
Rivastigmine, Activities of Daily Living, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Carbamates, Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Cognition Disorders, Double-Blind Method, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Disease Progression, Phenylcarbamates

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