Memantine prevents hypoglycemia-induced decrements of the cerebral energy status in healthy subjects

Systematic review of 31P-magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies of brain high energy phosphates and membrane phospholipids in aging and Alzheimer's disease

Many lines of evidence suggest that mitochondria have a central role in aging-related neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). Mitochondrial dysfunction, cerebral energy dysmetabolism and oxidative damage increase with age, and are early event in AD pathophysiology and may precede amyloid beta (Aβ) plaques. In vivo probes of mitochondrial function and energy metabolism are therefore crucial to characterize the bioenergetic abnormalities underlying AD risk, and their relationship to pathophysiology and cognition. A majority of the research conducted in humans have used 18F-fluoro-deoxygluose (FDG) PET to image cerebral glucose metabolism (CMRglc), but key information regarding oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS), the process which generates 90% of the energy for the brain, cannot be assessed with this method. Thus, there is a crucial need for imaging tools to measure mitochondrial processes and OXPHOS in vivo in the human brain. 31Phosphorus-magnetic resonance spectroscopy (31P-MRS) is a non-invasive method which allows for the measurement of OXPHOS-related high-energy phosphates (HEP), including phosphocreatine (PCr), adenosine triphosphate (ATP), and inorganic phosphate (Pi), in addition to potential of hydrogen (pH), as well as components of phospholipid metabolism, such as phosphomonoesters (PMEs) and phosphodiesters (PDEs). Herein, we provide a systematic review of the existing literature utilizing the 31P-MRS methodology during the normal aging process and in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD, with an additional focus on individuals at risk for AD. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the technique, in addition to considering future directions toward validating the use of 31P-MRS measures as biomarkers for the early detection of AD.

[Pathogenetic therapy of cognitive impairment: results of a multicenter placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of Miladean]

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the use of the drug Miladean in the treatment of patients with cognitive disorders (CDs) of vascular genesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In during the double-blind multicenter prospective randomized placebo-controlled phase III clinical trial, 300 patients with CDs and chronic cerebral ischemia were randomized into 3 groups: group 1 (n=100) received Miladean (daily dose: memantine 10 mg + melatonin 6 mg), group 2 (n=101) - memantine (10 mg/day), group 3 - placebo (n=99) for 8 weeks. The dynamics of the overall score (the primary criterion of effectiveness) and the proportion of patients with improvement on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog), the dynamics of visual-spatial orientation disorders (Benton test), sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scale) and the safety of therapy were evaluated.

RESULTS

Miladean demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of CDs: a statistically and clinically significant decrease in the overall score on the ADAS-Sod scale was shown (by 6.1 versus 4.7 and 3.5 points in the 2nd (p=0.009) and 3rd (p<0.05) groups) and an increase in the proportion of patients (96.9%) with clinically and statistically a significant improvement compared to the 2nd and 3rd groups (p=0.019 and p<0.001 respectively). Miladean significantly improved the performance in the Benton test (1.20±1.66 vs. 0.64±1.69 points in group 3, p=0.026) and sleep quality (84.7% of patients with CDs), compared to placebo (63.9%) and memantine (64.3%) (p=0.002 in both cases). Miladean was well tolerated, there were no cases of interaction with basic therapy drugs.

CONCLUSION

The combination of many different pathogenetic effects of Miladean suggests that it has the ability to slow down the rate of progression of CDs and stabilize the condition of patients. The unique combination of active substances in Miladean has been proven to be effective and safe in the treatment of patients with CDs.

Reply to Witthöft et al. Comment on “Wardzinski et al. Mobile Phone Radiation Deflects Brain Energy Homeostasis and Prompts Human Food Ingestion. Nutrients 2022, 14, 339”

We are somewhat surprised about the extent of the feedback that we received upon our publication [...]

Memantine for dementia

BACKGROUND

Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.

MAIN RESULTS

Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.

Effects of acute memantine administration on MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery performance in psychosis: Testing an experimental medicine strategy

RATIONALE

Pro-cognitive agents for chronic psychotic disorders (CPDs) might be detected via experimental medicine models, in which neural targets engaged by the drug predict sensitivity to the drug's pro-cognitive effects.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to use an experimental medicine model to test the hypothesis that "target engagement" predicts pro-cognitive effects of the NMDA antagonist, memantine (MEM), in CPDs.

METHODS

MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) performance was assessed in CPD (n = 41) and healthy subjects (HS; n = 41) in a double-blind, randomized cross-over design of acute (single dose) MEM (placebo vs. 10 or 20 mg p.o.). Measures of prepulse inhibition (PPI) and mismatch negativity previously reported from this cohort substantiated target engagement. Biomarkers predicting MEM neurocognitive sensitivity were assessed.

RESULTS

Testing confirmed MCCB deficits associated with CPD diagnosis, age, and anticholinergic exposure. MEM (20 mg p.o.) reduced MCCB performance in HS. To control for significant test order effects, an "order-corrected MEM effect" (OCME) was calculated. In CPD subjects, greater age, positive MEM effects on PPI, and SNP rs1337697 (within the ionotropic NMDA receptor gene, GRIN3A) predicted greater positive OCME with 20 mg MEM.

CONCLUSIONS

An experimental medicine model to assess acute pro-cognitive drug effects in CPD subjects is feasible but not without challenges. A single MEM 20 mg dose had a negative impact on neurocognition among HS. In CPD patients, age, MEM effects on PPI, and rs1337697 predicted sensitivity to the neurocognitive effects of MEM. Any potential clinical utility of these predictive markers for pro-cognitive effects of MEM in subgroups of CPD patients cannot be inferred without a validating clinical trial.

Memantine Effects On Sensorimotor Gating and Mismatch Negativity in Patients with Chronic Psychosis

Patients with chronic psychotic disorders (CPD) exhibit deficient sensorimotor gating (measured by prepulse inhibition (PPI) of startle) and mismatch negativity (MMN). In healthy subjects (HS), N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists like memantine and ketamine increase PPI, and under some conditions, memantine enhances MMN; these findings present a challenge to understanding the basis for deficient PPI and MMN in psychotic disorders, as reduced NMDA activity is implicated in the pathogenesis of these disorders. Here we assessed for the first time the effects of memantine on PPI and MMN in CPD subjects. Baseline PPI was measured in HS and patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, depressed type. Subjects (total n=84) were then tested twice, in a double-blind crossover design, comparing either: (1) placebo vs 10 mg of memantine or (2) placebo vs 20 mg memantine. Tests included measures of acoustic startle magnitude and habituation, PPI, MMN, autonomic indices, and subjective self-rating scales. Memantine (20 mg) significantly enhanced PPI in CPD subjects, and enhanced MMN across subject groups. These effects on PPI were age dependent and most evident in older CPD patients, whereas those on MMN were most evident in younger subjects. The lower dose (10 mg) either had no detectable effect or tended to degrade these measures. The NMDA antagonist, memantine, has dose-dependent effects on preconscious, automatic measures of sensorimotor gating and auditory sensory processing that are associated with enhanced cognition and function in CPD patients. Ongoing studies will determine whether these memantine-induced changes predict acute pro-cognitive or otherwise clinically beneficial effects in CPD patients.

Possible synergistic effect of direct angiotensin II type 2 receptor stimulation by compound 21 with memantine on prevention of cognitive decline in type 2 diabetic mice

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is known to be associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment including Alzheimer disease. Recent studies have suggested an interaction between angiotensin II and N-methyl-d-aspartic acid (NMDA) glutamate receptors. We previously reported that stimulation of the angiotensin II type 2 (AT2) receptor exerts brain protective effects. A newly developed AT2 receptor agonist, compound 21 (C21), has enabled examination of the direct effect of AT2 receptor stimulation in vivo. Accordingly, we examined the possible synergistic effect of C21 and memantine on cognitive impairment in T2DM mice, KKAy. KKAy were divided into four groups; (1) control, (2) treatment with C21 (10 μg/kg/day), (3) treatment with memantine (20mg/kg/day), and (4) treatment with both for 4 weeks, and subjected to Morris water maze tasks. Treatment with C21 or memantine alone at these doses tended to shorten escape latency compared to that in the control group. C21 treatment increased cerebral blood flow (CBF), but memantine did not influence CBF. Treatment with C21 or C21 plus memantine increased hippocampal field-excitatory postsynaptic potential (f-EPSP). Moreover, treatment with memantine or C21 increased acetylcholine level, which was lower in KKAy than in wild-type mice, and C21 plus memantine treatment enhanced memantine or C21-induced acetylcholine secretion. This study provides an insight into new approaches to understand the interaction of angiotensin II and neurotransmitters. We can anticipate a new therapeutic approach against cognitive decline using C21 and memantine.

The effects of acute hypoglycaemia on cognitive function in type 1 diabetes

Throughout life with type 1 diabetes mellitus people with the condition are exposed to multiple episodes of hypoglycaemia associated with insulin therapy. Hypoglycaemia affects several domains of cognitive function. Studies in non-diabetic adults and in people with type 1 diabetes have shown that almost all domains of cognitive function are impaired to some degree during acute hypoglycaemia, with complex tasks being more greatly affected.

The specific cognitive functions of attention and memory are both profoundly impaired during hypoglycaemia. These cognitive processes are fundamental to the performance of many day to day tasks. Their impairment disrupts everyday life and raises safety concerns for the pursuit of activities such as driving.

Mood and emotion are also negatively affected by hypoglycaemia, resulting in tense tiredness, while motivation is reduced, and anger may be generated in some individuals. Hypoglycaemia can cause embarrassing social situations, and may lead to chronic anxiety and depression in people with type 1 diabetes.

At present few therapeutic measures can modify or ameliorate the effects of hypoglycaemia on cognitive function, so instigation of measures to prevent exposure to hypoglycaemia is of major clinical importance, while preserving good glycaemic control.

Towards medication-enhancement of cognitive interventions in schizophrenia

Current antipsychotic medications do little to improve real-life function in most schizophrenia patients. A dispassionate view of the dispersed and variable neuropathology of schizophrenia strongly suggests that it is not currently, and may never be, correctable with drugs. In contrast, several forms of cognitive therapy have been demonstrated to have modest but lasting positive effects on cognition, symptoms, and functional outcomes in schizophrenia patients. To date, attempts to improve clinical outcomes in schizophrenia by adding pro-cognitive drugs to antipsychotic regimens have had limited success, but we propose that a more promising strategy would be to pair drugs that enhance specific neurocognitive functions with cognitive therapies that challenge and reinforce those functions. By using medications that engage spared neural resources in the service of cognitive interventions, it might be possible to significantly enhance the efficacy of cognitive therapies. We review and suggest several laboratory measures that might detect potential pro-neurocognitive effects of drugs in individual patients, using a "test dose" design, aided by specific biomarkers predicting an individual's drug sensitivity. Lastly, we argue that drug classes viewed as "counter-intuitive" based on existing models for the pathophysiology of schizophrenia-including pro-catecholaminergic and NMDA-antagonistic drugs-might be important candidate "pro-cognitive therapy" drugs.

Are we studying and treating schizophrenia correctly?

New findings are rapidly revealing an increasingly detailed image of neural- and molecular-level dysfunction in schizophrenia, distributed throughout interconnected cortico-striato-pallido-thalamic circuitry. Some disturbances appear to reflect failures of early brain maturation, that become codified into dysfunctional circuit properties, resulting in a substantial loss of, or failure to develop, both cells and/or appropriate connectivity across widely dispersed brain regions. These circuit disturbances are variable across individuals with schizophrenia, perhaps reflecting the interaction of multiple different risk genes and epigenetic events. Given these complex and variable hard-wired circuit disturbances, it is worth considering how new and emerging findings can be integrated into actionable treatment models. This paper suggests that future efforts towards developing more effective therapeutic approaches for the schizophrenias should diverge from prevailing models in genetics and molecular neuroscience, and focus instead on a more practical three-part treatment strategy: 1) systematic rehabilitative psychotherapies designed to engage healthy neural systems to compensate for and replace dysfunctional higher circuit elements, used in concert with 2) medications that specifically target cognitive mechanisms engaged by these rehabilitative psychotherapies, and 3) antipsychotic medications that target nodal or convergent circuit points within the limbic-motor interface, to constrain the scope and severity of psychotic exacerbations and thereby facilitate engagement in cognitive rehabilitation. The use of targeted cognitive rehabilitative psychotherapy plus synergistic medication has both common sense and time-tested efficacy with numerous other neuropsychiatric disorders.