Iracema Leroi

Memantine in patients with Parkinson's disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial

BACKGROUNDnDementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and Parkinsons disease dementia (PDD) are common forms of dementia that substantially affect quality of life. Currently, the only treatment licensed for PDD is rivastigmine, and there are no licensed treatments for DLB. We aimed to test the safety and efficacy of the N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist memantine in patients with PDD or DLB.nnnMETHODSnWe did a parallel-group, 24-week, randomised controlled study of memantine (20 mg per day) versus placebo at four psychiatric and neurological outpatient clinics in Norway, Sweden, and the UK during 2005-08. Patients were included if they fulfilled the UK Parkinsons Disease Society Brain Bank clinical diagnostic criteria for Parkinsons disease (PD) and developed dementia according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition (DSM IV) criteria at least 1 year after the onset of motor symptoms (PDD) or met the revised consensus operationalised criteria for DLB. Patients were assigned to a computer-generated randomisation list. All physicians who had contact with patients were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was clinical global impression of change (CGIC), which ranged from 1 to 7 points, and a low score means a better outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat based on the last observation carried forward. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN89624516.nnnFINDINGSn72 patients with PDD or DLB were randomly assigned and started treatment: 34 with memantine and 38 with placebo. 56 (78%) completed the study. All withdrawals were owing to adverse events, but the proportion of withdrawals was similar in both groups. At week 24 the patients in the memantine group had better CGIC scores than those taking placebo (mean difference 0.7, 95% CI 0.04-1.39; p=0.03). With the exception of improved speed on attentional tasks in the memantine group (a quick test of cognition [AQT] form: difference 12.4, 95% CI 6.0-30.9; p=0.004), there were no significant differences between the groups in secondary outcome measures.nnnINTERPRETATIONnPatients with DLB or PDD might benefit from treatment with memantine, which was well tolerated. Large-scale studies are now required to confirm our preliminary findings.nnnFUNDINGnThe Western Norway Regional Health Authority; H Lundbeck A/S.

Memantine improves goal attainment and reduces caregiver burden in Parkinson's disease with dementia

Memantine, an uncompetitive antagonist of N‐methyl‐d‐aspartate receptors, may have a role in managing symptoms associated with dementia in Parkinsons disease (PDD), although its role in improving patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) has not been extensively investigated. PROs may be more sensitive than standard psychometric measures for detecting change in complex conditions such as PDD. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of memantine on PROs: individually determined goals and health‐related quality of life. We also examined memantines effect on caregiver burden.

Cognitive training interventions for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson’s Disease.

Background Approximately 60% to 80% of people with Parkinsons disease (PD) experience cognitive impairment that impacts on their quality of life. Cognitive decline is a core feature of the disease and can often present before the onset of motor symptoms. Cognitive training may be a useful non-pharmacological intervention that could help to maintain or improve cognition and quality of life for people with PD dementia (PDD) or PD-related mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI). Objectives To determine whether cognitive training (targeting single or multiple domains) improves cognition in people with PDD and PD-MCI or other clearly defined forms of cognitive impairment in people with PD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Trials Register (8 August 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We searched reference lists and trial registers, searched relevant reviews in the area and conference proceedings. We also contacted experts for clarifications on data and ongoing trials. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials where the participants had PDD or PD-MCI, and where the intervention was intended to train general or specific areas of cognitive function, targeting either a single domain or multiple domains of cognition, and was compared to a control condition. Multicomponent interventions that also included motor or other elements were considered eligible. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for inclusion in the review. Two review authors also independently undertook extraction of data and assessment of methodological quality. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of the evidence. Main results Seven studies with a total of 225 participants met the inclusion criteria for this review. All seven studies compared the effects of a cognitive training intervention to a control intervention at the end of treatment periods lasting four to eight weeks. Six studies included people with PD living in the community. These six studies recruited people with single-domain (executive) or multiple-domain mild cognitive impairment in PD. Four of these studies identified participants with MCI using established diagnostic criteria, and two included both people with PD-MCI and people with PD who were not cognitively impaired. One study recruited people with a diagnosis of PD dementia who were living in long-term care settings. The cognitive training intervention in three studies targeted a single cognitive domain, whilst in four studies multiple domains of cognitive function were targeted. The comparison groups either received no intervention or took part in recreational activities (sports, music, arts), speech or language exercises, computerised motor therapy, or motor rehabilitation combined with recreational activity. We found no clear evidence that cognitive training improved global cognition. Although cognitive training was associated with higher scores on global cognition at the end of treatment, the result was imprecise and not statistically significant (6 trials, 178 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.59; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference at the end of treatment between cognitive training and control interventions on executive function (5 trials, 112 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.48; low-certainty evidence) or visual processing (3 trials, 64 participants; SMD 0.30, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.81; low-certainty evidence). The evidence favoured the cognitive training group on attention (5 trials, 160 participants; SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence) and verbal memory (5 trials, 160 participants; SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.69; low-certainty evidence), but these effects were less certain in sensitivity analyses that excluded a study in which only a minority of the sample were cognitively impaired. There was no evidence of differences between treatment and control groups in activities of daily living (3 trials, 67 participants; SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.53; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (5 trials, 147 participants; SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.33; low-certainty evidence). There was very little information on adverse events. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to be low due to risk of bias in the included studies and imprecision of the results. We identified six ongoing trials recruiting participants with PD-MCI, but no ongoing trials of cognitive training for people with PDD. Authors conclusions This review found no evidence that people with PD-MCI or PDD who receive cognitive training for four to eight weeks experience any important cognitive improvements at the end of training. However, this conclusion was based on a small number of studies with few participants, limitations of study design and execution, and imprecise results. There is a need for more robust, adequately powered studies of cognitive training before conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of cognitive training for people with PDD and PD-MCI. Studies should use formal criteria to diagnose cognitive impairments, and there is a particular need for more studies testing the efficacy of cognitive training in people with PDD.