A meta-analysis update evaluating the treatment effects of donepezil alone versus donepezil combined with memantine for Alzheimer's disease

一项荟萃分析更新,评估了多奈哌齐单药治疗与多奈哌齐联合美金刚治疗阿尔茨海默病的效果

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains a significant global health problem, with ongoing debates about the most effective treatment approach. While donepezil monotherapy has been traditionally used, recent interest has focused on combining it with memantine. This updated meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of donepezil monotherapy versus its combination with memantine for treating AD. METHOD: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to February 14, 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing donepezil monotherapy with donepezil combined with memantine in AD patients were included. The quality of each selected study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) risk-of-bias tool. Data on cognitive function, measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB), were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of four RCTs, including 1930 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Analysis using a forest plot revealed no significant difference in MMSE scores between monotherapy and combination therapy (OR = 0.54, 95 % CI: 0.06-4.60, p > 0.05). However, SIB scores showed a significant improvement with combination therapy (OR = 7.00, 95 % CI: 1.13-43.24, p < 0.05). Both analyses exhibited high heterogeneity (I² = 72 % for MMSE; I² = 89 % for SIB). The funnel plots suggested minor publication bias for the MMSE outcomes, but some asymmetry was observed in the results for SIB. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that combination therapy with donepezil and memantine significantly benefits patients with severe cognitive impairment, as assessed by the SIB, compared to donepezil monotherapy. However, no significant advantage was observed in MMSE scores. The high heterogeneity among studies highlights the need for cautious interpretation and calls for larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials to further elucidate the comparative efficacy of these two therapeutic approaches in Alzheimer's disease.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。