4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of Cerebrolysin in moderate to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease: results of a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial investigating three dosages of Cerebrolysin

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 59-68

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2010.03092.x

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; Cerebrolysin; randomized controlled trial

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cerebrolysin is a neuropeptide preparation mimicking the effects of neurotrophic factors. This subgroup analysis assessed safety and efficacy of Cerebrolysin in patients with moderate to moderately severe Alzheimer's disease (AD) (ITT data set: N = 133; MMSE: 14-20) included in a dose-finding study (ITT data set: N = 251; MMSE: 14-25). Results of the mild AD subgroup (ITT data set: N = 118; MMSE: 21-25) are also presented. Methods: Patients with AD received 100 ml IV infusions of Cerebrolysin (10, 30 or 60 ml diluted in saline; N = 32, 34 and 35, respectively) or placebo (saline; N = 32) over twelve weeks (5 days per week for 4 weeks and 2 days per week for another 8 weeks). Primary efficacy criteria ADAS-cog+ (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subpart Modified) and CIBIC+ (Clinical Interview-based Impression of Change with Caregiver Input) were assessed 24 weeks after baseline. Results: At week 24, Cerebrolysin improved the global clinical function significantly with all three dosages and induced significant improvements in cognition, initiation of activities of daily living (ADL) and neuropsychiatric symptoms at 10-, 30- and 60-ml doses, respectively. Treatment effects on total ADL and other secondary parameters (MMSE, Trail-making test) were not significant. Cerebrolysin was safe and well tolerated. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the efficacy of Cerebrolysin in moderate to moderately severe AD, showing dose-specific effects similar to those reported for patients with mild to moderate AD. The benefits of Cerebrolysin in advanced AD need to be confirmed in larger trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据