↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Physostigmine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Physostigmine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001499
Pubmed ID
Authors

João M JMC Coelho Filho, Jacqueline Birks

Abstract

The main pharmacological approach for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been based on the use of agents potentiating cholinergic transmission, particularly by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE), the enzyme that destroys acetylcholine after it has been secreted into the synaptic clefts. Physostigmine is an AChE inhibitor originally extracted from calabar beans. It is licensed in many countries as an agent for reversing the effect of drugs and poisons causing the anticholinergic syndrome. Studies conducted more than 20 years ago suggested that physostigmine could improve memory in people with or without dementia. Investigation of this property has been limited by the very short half-life of physostigmine. Various forms of administering the drug have been tried to overcome this problem, most recently a controlled-release (CR) oral formulation, and a skin patch. It has been proposed as a potential drug for the symptomatic treatment of AD. To determine whether there is evidence of beneficial effects for the use of physostigmine in Alzheimer's disease. To assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was searched using the following terms: 'physostigmine', 'physostigmine salicylate', 'Synapton' and 'Antilirium' in accordance with the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's search strategy. The pharmaceutical company was contacted. All relevant unconfounded, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in which physostigmine was administered for more than one day to patients with dementia of Alzheimer type. Trials in which the allocation to the treatment was not randomized, or in which the allocation to the treatment was not concealed were excluded. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers (JMC & JB), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the weighted or standardized mean differences or Peto odds ratios (95% CI) were estimated. Where possible, intention-to-treat analysis was used. Fifteen studies were included using four different methods of administration of physostigmine. Four studies, involving 29 people in total, used intravenous infusion; seven, involving 131 people, used a conventional oral form; four, involving 1456 participants, used a controlled-release oral form, and one study of 181 people used a verum skin patch. There are no usable results from the intravenous infusion trials, and the few results from the conventional oral form showed no benefit of physostigmine compared with placebo. The results from two of the four studies of the controlled-release physostigmine apply only to a group of patients identified as responders in a pre-randomization titration period. The best dose physostigmine (mean 25mg/day) was associated with a 1.75 point improvement on ADAS-Cog score (mean difference -1.75, 95% confidence interval -2.90, -0.60 on an intention-to-treat basis) and a 0.26 point improvement on the CGIC score (treated as a continuous scale) (mean difference -0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.06, 0.46 on an intention-to-treat basis) compared with placebo at 6 weeks. There were statistically significantly higher numbers of patients from the physostigmine group withdrawing from the trial (22/183 vs 2/183)(OR 5.92, 95% confidence limits 2.59, 13.54) and suffering at least one event of nausea, vomiting, diarhoea, anorexia, dizziness, stomach pain, flatulence or sweating compared with placebo at 6 weeks. The best dose physostigmine (mean 27mg/day) was associated with a 2.0 point improvement on ADAS-Cog score (mean difference -2.02, 95% confidence interval -3.59, -0.45 on an intention to treat basis) compared with placebo at 12 weeks. There were statistically significantly higher numbers of patients from the physostigmine group withdrawing from the trial due to adverse events (13/83 vs 5/93)(OR 3.05, 95% confidence limits 1.15, 8.07) and suffering at least one event of nausea, vomiting, diarhoea, anorexia, dizziness, stomach pain, tremor, asthenia or sweating compared with placebo at 12 weeks. When no attempt was made to identify responders and all relevant patients with Alzheimer's disease were randomized, fixed dose physostigmine (mean 33 mg/day) was associated with a statistically significantly higher number withdrawing (234/358 vs 31/117)(OR 4.82, 95% confidence limits 3.17, 7.33), withdrawing due to adverse events (196/358 vs 10/117) (OR 6.54, 95%confidence limits 4.29, 9.95) and suffering at least one event of nausea, vomiting, diarhoea, anorexia, dizziness, stomach pain, dyspepsia, sweating, asthenia, dyspnoea or abnormal dreaming compared with placebo at 24 weeks. The results from the study of the verum patch physostigmine show that the double dose (delivering mean dose 12mg/day) was associated with statistically significantly higher numbers suffering at least one adverse event of vomiting, nausea or abdominal cramps compared with placebo at 24 weeks, but placebo was associated with statistically significantly greater numbers of gastrointestinal complaints at 24 weeks compared with single-dose physostigmine. The evidence of effectiveness of physostigmine for the symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is limited. Even in a controlled release formulation designed to overcome the short half-life, physostigmine showed no convincing benefit and adverse effects remained common leading to a high rate of withdrawal.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Master 19 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 49 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#8,572,103
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,245
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,366
of 42,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 42,603 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.