Galantamine in Frontotemporal Dementia and Primary Progressive Aphasia
Abstract
Background/Aims: The treatment of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) has been mainly symptomatic. Small randomized or open-label case control studies of neurotransmitters have been inconclusive. We tried galantamine in the 2 most common varieties of FTD. Method: Thirty-six behavioral variety FTD and primary progressive aphasia (PPA) patients were treated in an open-label period of 18 weeks and a randomized, placebo-controlled phase for 8 weeks with galantamine. The primary efficacy measures were the Frontal Behavioral Inventory, the Aphasia Quotient of the Western Aphasia Battery, the Clinical Global Impression of Severity and the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement. Results: No significant differences in behavior or language were found for the total group. A treatment effect (p = 0.009), in a subgroup of subjects with PPA in the global severity score, in favor of galantamine was detected in the placebo-controlled withdrawal phase but was not considered significant after correction for multiple comparisons. The language scores for the treated PPA group also remained stable compared to the placebo group, which showed deterioration. Conclusion: Galantamine is not effective in the behavioral variety of FTD, but a trend of efficacy is shown in the aphasic subgroup, which may be clinically significant. Galantamine appeared safe in FTD/PPA.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) have been shown to be effective in classic AD but not in bvFTD.
“While no randomized clinical trials have been undertaken in fvAD, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine) have been shown to be effective in classic AD but not in bvFTD [36].”
From Diagnosing the frontal variant of Alzheimer’s disease: a clinician’s yellow brick road (2017) · cites this paper as [36]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 217
- Authors
- Kertesz, A., Morlog, D., Light, M., Blair, M., Davidson, W., Jesso, S., & Brashear, R.
- Affiliations
- St. Joseph's Hospital (CA)
- Janssen Canada (Canada) (CA)
- Janssen Research & Development (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 178-185
- ISSN
- 1420-8008 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9824
- OpenAlex
- W2074209215
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 10.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
- Keywords
- galantamine, frontotemporal dementia, primary progressive aphasia, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, aphasia, language deterioration, treatment efficacy, drug safety
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cholinesterase Inhibitors, Dementia, Double-Blind Method, Female, Galantamine, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Aphasia, Primary Progressive
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