Cited by 173Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchAlzheimer's disease research and treatmentsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Efficacy of Memantine for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Dementia: A Randomised Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Trial

Open access
Fox, Chris, Crugel, Monica, Maidment, Ian, Auestad, Bjorn Henrik, Coulton, Simon, Treloar, Adrian, Ballard, Clive, Boustani, Malaz +2 more·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Agitation in Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common and associated with poor patient life-quality and carer distress. The best evidence-based pharmacological treatments are antipsychotics which have limited benefits with increased morbidity and mortality. There are no memantine trials in clinically significant agitation but post-hoc analyses in other populations found reduced agitation. We tested the primary hypothesis, memantine is superior to placebo for clinically significant agitation, in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We recruited 153 participants with AD and clinically significant agitation from care-homes or hospitals for a double-blind randomised-controlled trial and 149 people started the trial of memantine versus placebo. The primary outcome was 6 weeks mixed model autoregressive analysis of Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Secondary outcomes were: 12 weeks CMAI; 6 and 12 weeks Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C), Standardised Mini Mental State Examination, Severe Impairment Battery. Using a mixed effects model we found no significant differences in the primary outcome, 6 weeks CMAI, between memantine and placebo (memantine lower -3.0; -8.3 to 2.2, p = 0.26); or 12 weeks CMAI; or CGI-C or adverse events at 6 or 12 weeks. NPI mean difference favoured memantine at weeks 6 (-6.9; -12.2 to -1.6; p = 0.012) and 12 (-9.6; -15.0 to -4.3 p = 0.0005). Memantine was significantly better than placebo for cognition. The main study limitation is that it still remains to be determined whether memantine has a role in milder agitation in AD. CONCLUSIONS: Memantine did not improve significant agitation in people with in moderate-to-severe AD. Future studies are urgently needed to test other pharmacological candidates in this group and memantine for neuropsychiatric symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00371059. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial 24953404.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0035185

Cites

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?

  • One high-quality RCT found no additional effect on agitation of individualising activities according to functional level and interest, although two lower-quality RCTs did.

    “One high-quality RCT found no additional effect on agitation of individualising activities according to functional level and interest, 24 although two lower-quality RCTs did. 25,26”

    From Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in dementia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2014) · cites this paper as [25]

    The Discussion reports no significant advantage of memantine over placebo for agitation, but that is a drug trial, not a trial of individualised activities. Searches for activities tailored to functional level and interest found no passage evaluating that intervention in our copy (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 173

Authors
Fox, C., Crugel, M., Maidment, I., Auestad, B. H., Coulton, S., Treloar, A., Ballard, C., Boustani, M., Katona, C., & Livingston, G.
Affiliations
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Aston University (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Fox, Chris
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-05-02
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
e35185
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154596951
Cited by
173
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Alzheimer's Society
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Eisai
  • H. Lundbeck A/S
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 › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
memantine, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory, cognitive function, antipsychotic alternatives, care homes, pharmacotherapy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Female, Humans, Male, Memantine, Psychomotor Agitation

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