MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154555400 · doi:10.1007/s40266-021-00852-8

Efficacy and Safety of the Association of Nimodipine and Choline Alphoscerate in the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment in Patients with Cerebral Small Vessel Disease. The CONIVaD Trial

2021· article· en· W3154555400 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilia Salvadori, Anna Poggesi, Ida Donnini, Valentina Rinnoci, Guido Chiti, Martina Squitieri, Laura Tudisco, Fabio Fierini, Anna Melone, Francesca Pescini, Leonardo Pantoni

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs & Aging · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondazione Cassa di Risparmio di FirenzeUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsNimodipineMedicineCognitive impairmentPharmacotherapyCognitionDiseaseClinical trialInternal medicineIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: No approved treatment is available for patients with vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) due to cerebral small vessel disease (SVD). OBJECTIVE: The CONIVaD (Choline Alphoscerate and Nimodipine in Vascular Dementia) study aimed to investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of a combined treatment with choline alphoscerate and nimodipine in patients with SVD and mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. METHODS: Within this pilot, single-center (university hospital), double-blinded, randomized clinical trial, patients were randomized to two arms: 1-year treatment with nimodipine 30 mg three times a day (TID) plus choline alphoscerate 600 mg twice a day (BID) (arm 1) or nimodipine 30 mg TID plus placebo BID (arm 2). Patients underwent an evaluation at baseline and after 12 months. Cognitive decline, defined as a ≥ 2-point loss on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, was the primary endpoint. Functional, quality of life, other cognitive measures, and safety were secondary endpoints. Treatment adherence was measured by the count of medicine bottles returned by patients. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were randomized (31 each arm). Fourteen patients (22%) dropped out for reasons including consent withdrawal (n = 9), adverse reactions (n = 4), and stroke (n = 1). Forty-eight patients (mean ± SD age 75.1 ± 6.8 years), well balanced between arms, completed the study. Regarding adherence, of the prescribed total drug dose, > 75% was taken by 96% of patients for choline alphoscerate, 87.5% for placebo, and 15% for nimodipine. No statistically significant differences were found between the treatment groups for the primary cognitive outcome, nor for the secondary outcomes. Eight patients had non-serious adverse reactions; five presented adverse events. CONCLUSION: Patients' adherence to treatment was low. With this limitation, the combined choline alphoscerate-nimodipine treatment showed no significant effect in our cohort of VCI patients with SVD. The safety profile was good overall. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial NCT03228498. Registered 25 July 2017.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs & AgingSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207