Efficacy and safety of donepezil in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies: results from a 12‐week multicentre, randomised, double‐blind, and placebo‐controlled phase IV study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Donepezil has been approved in Japan for the treatment of dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) based on clinical trials showing its beneficial effects on cognitive impairment. This phase IV study evaluated the efficacy of donepezil by focusing on global clinical status during a 12-week double-blind phase. METHODS: Patients with probable DLB were randomly assigned to the placebo (n = 79) or 10 mg donepezil (n = 81) groups. The primary endpoint was changes in global clinical status, assessed using the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus). We also assessed four CIBIC-plus domains (general condition, cognitive function, behaviour, and activities of daily living) and changes in cognitive impairment and behavioural and neuropsychiatric symptoms measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), respectively. RESULTS: Although donepezil's superiority was not shown in the global clinical status, a significant favourable effect was detected in the cognitive domain (P = 0.006). MMSE scores improved in the donepezil group after adjustments in post hoc analysis (MMSE mean difference, 1.4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42-2.30), P = 0.004). Improvements in NPIs were similar between the groups (NPI-2: -0.2 (95% CI, -1.48 to 1.01), P = 0.710; NPI-10: 0.1 (95% CI, -3.28 to 3.55), P = 0.937). CONCLUSION: The results support the observation that the efficacy of 10 mg donepezil in improving cognitive function is clinically meaningful in DLB patients. The evaluation of global clinical status might be affected by mild to moderate DLB patients enrolled in this study. No new safety concerns were detected.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".