↓ Skip to main content

Cumulative, additive benefits of memantine-donepezil combination over component monotherapies in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s dementia: a pooled area under the curve analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cumulative, additive benefits of memantine-donepezil combination over component monotherapies in moderate to severe Alzheimer’s dementia: a pooled area under the curve analysis
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13195-015-0109-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alireza Atri, Suzanne B Hendrix, Vojislav Pejović, Robert K Hofbauer, John Edwards, José Luis Molinuevo, Stephen M Graham

Abstract

Treatment in moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) often involves adding memantine to a cholinesterase-inhibitor (ChEI: donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine). Evidence from six-month randomized trials and long-term observational studies supports superiority of memantine-ChEI combination to ChEI monotherapy. We utilized area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis to assess six-month cumulative treatment efficacy of memantine-donepezil combination versus component monotherapies on individual clinical domains and on a composite index. Data were pooled from 1,408 individuals with moderate to severe AD from four six-month randomized trials of memantine monotherapy (n = 570) or add-on therapy (donepezil-only subset: n = 847). AUC changes from baseline on measures of cognition (SIB), function (ADCS-ADL19), behavior (NPI), global status (CIBIC-Plus), and a composite index (4D-CI: equally weighted composite of four domain measures) were calculated using the trapezoidal rule and evaluated via analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (2-sided-α = 0.05). AUC results were contrasted with visit-by-visit changes from baseline ("snapshot analysis"), performed using a mixed-effects model with repeated measures (MMRM). Over the entire six-month period, placebo-only treatment was associated with significant cumulative worsening on all outcomes. Memantine-donepezil combination showed significantly greater AUC improvements (point x week) on the SIB, NPI, and CIBIC-Plus than placebo-donepezil (SIB: 68.4 versus 32.0, P = 0.019; NPI: -74.3 versus -28.2, P = 0.003; CIBIC-Plus: -2.5 versus 1.4, P = 0.006) and memantine-only monotherapies (SIB: 68.4 versus 12.0, P <0.001; NPI: -74.3 versus -7.4, P <0.001; CIBIC-Plus: -2.5 versus 2.7, P <0.001), whereas these comparisons were not significant for the ADCS-ADL19 (memantine-donepezil (1.4) versus placebo-donepezil (-0.9), P = 0.407; versus memantine-only (-12.2), P = 0.310). Composite index analysis demonstrated significant cumulative advantages of memantine-donepezil combination (630.0) over placebo-donepezil (344.7, P <0.001) and memantine-only (152.1, P <0.001) treatments. Combining memantine and donepezil had an additive effect. Compared with AUC analysis, baseline-to-endpoint change-score analysis underestimated effects of combination therapy, monotherapies, or both. This large pooled area-under-the-curve analysis of randomized-trial data in moderate to severe AD provides ecologically valid support that adding memantine to stable donepezil results in overall clinical benefits that are additive compared with individual monotherapies, continue to accumulate through six-month treatment, and are at least 50% greater than those of monotherapies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 15%
Neuroscience 10 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 20 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,521,887
of 17,351,915 outputs
Outputs from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#304
of 887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,292
of 241,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alzheimer's Research & Therapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,351,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 241,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them