Efficacy of memantine on neuropsychiatric symptoms associated with the severity of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: A six-month, open-label, self-controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have focused on the curative effects of memantine in patients with mild-to-moderate frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD); however, its benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe FTLD have not been investigated. The present study explores the behavioral, cognitive and functional effects of memantine on behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) in patients with mild and moderate-to-severe stage bvFTD. A total of 42 patients with bvFTD completed a 6-month treatment plan of 20 mg memantine daily in an open-label, self-controlled clinical trial. Patients were divided into two groups according to their Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score: Mild (score, 21-26); and moderate-to-severe (score, 4-20). Primary endpoints included Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) and Clinic Dementia Rating (CDR) scores, and secondary endpoints comprised Neuropsychiatric Inventory Caregiver Distress Scale (NPI-D), MMSE, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Activity of Daily Life (ADL) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores. Memantine treatment had no effect on overall NPI-Q scores, with the exception of the agitation subdomain in all patients with bvFTD. However, patients with moderate-to-severe bvFTD exhibited a better performance than patients with mild bvFTD, demonstrated by improved NPI-Q total scores and subscales of agitation, depression, apathy and disinhibition. In the moderate-to-severe group, CDR and HAMD scores remained stable, but MMSE, MoCA and ADL scores were reduced after 6 months of treatment. Memantine was well-tolerated in patients. In conclusion, patients with moderate-to-severe bvFTD responded significantly better to memantine in comparison to patients with mild bvFTD with regard to their neuropsychiatric scores, while memantine did not present any cognitive or functional benefits in patients with mild bvFTD. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a larger number of patients is required to verify these promising results for patients with moderate-to-severe bvFTD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".