Increased plasma donepezil concentration improves cognitive function in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies: An exploratory pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis in a phase 3 randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether increasing plasma donepezil concentration further improves cognitive function and neuropsychiatric symptoms without compromising safety in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). METHODS: We analyzed data from a 12-week phase 3 trial of donepezil (5 and 10mg/day) in patients with DLB. The contribution of factors affecting plasma donepezil concentration was evaluated using multivariate regression analysis. The relationships between plasma donepezil concentration and efficacy (cognitive function as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE], hallucinations and cognitive fluctuation), or safety (blood pressure, pulse rate, body weight, and parkinsonism as measured by the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III) were assessed by scatterplots and Pearson correlation. RESULTS: The data of 87 patients were used in the analyses. Plasma donepezil concentration increased proportionally with increasing dose from 5 to 10mg/day. The dose (contribution rate: 0.39, p<0.0001) and age (contribution rate: 0.12, p=0.0003) were statistically significant contributing factors affecting plasma donepezil concentration. Plasma donepezil concentration correlated significantly with improvement of MMSE score (p=0.040), but no significant correlations were found with the change in other tested parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma donepezil concentration correlated positively with change in cognitive function without affecting safety, and was affected mainly by dose and to a lesser extent by age. Therefore, for patients in whom safety concerns are not found at donepezil 5mg/day, increasing the dose to 10mg/day to increase plasma concentration is worthwhile to further improve cognitive function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".