OBJECTIVE: To compare longitudinal changes in the hippocampal structure in subjects with very mild dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) treated with donepezil hydrochloride, untreated subjects with very mild DAT, and controls without dementia. DESIGN: MPRAGE sequences were collected approximately 2 years apart on two 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging systems, yielding 2 cohorts. Large-deformation high-dimensional brain mapping was used to compute deformation of hippocampal subfields. SETTING: A dementia clinic at Washington University School of Medicine. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Subjects came from 2 sources: 18 untreated subjects with DAT and 26 controls were drawn from a previous longitudinal study; 18 treated subjects with DAT were studied prospectively, and 44 controls were drawn from a longitudinal study from the same period. Intervention Patients were prescribed donepezil by their physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hippocampal volume loss and surface deformation. RESULTS: There was no significant cohort effect at baseline; therefore, the 2 groups of control subjects were combined. The potential confounding effect of cohort/scanner was dealt with by including it as a covariate in statistical tests. There was no significant group effect in the rate of change of hippocampal volume or subfield deformation. Further exploration showed that compared with the untreated subjects with DAT, the treated subjects with DAT did not differ in the rate of change in any of the hippocampal measures. They also did not differ from the controls, while the untreated subjects with DAT differed from the controls in the rates of change of hippocampal volume and CA1 and subiculum subfield deformations. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with donepezil did not alter the progression of hippocampal deformation in subjects with DAT in this study. Small sample size may have contributed to this outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To compare longitudinal changes in the hippocampal structure in subjects with very mild dementia of the Alzheimer type (DAT) treated with donepezil hydrochloride, untreated subjects with very mild DAT, and controls without dementia. DESIGN:MPRAGE sequences were collected approximately 2 years apart on two 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging systems, yielding 2 cohorts. Large-deformation high-dimensional brain mapping was used to compute deformation of hippocampal subfields. SETTING: A dementia clinic at Washington University School of Medicine. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Subjects came from 2 sources: 18 untreated subjects with DAT and 26 controls were drawn from a previous longitudinal study; 18 treated subjects with DAT were studied prospectively, and 44 controls were drawn from a longitudinal study from the same period. Intervention Patients were prescribed donepezil by their physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hippocampal volume loss and surface deformation. RESULTS: There was no significant cohort effect at baseline; therefore, the 2 groups of control subjects were combined. The potential confounding effect of cohort/scanner was dealt with by including it as a covariate in statistical tests. There was no significant group effect in the rate of change of hippocampal volume or subfield deformation. Further exploration showed that compared with the untreated subjects with DAT, the treated subjects with DAT did not differ in the rate of change in any of the hippocampal measures. They also did not differ from the controls, while the untreated subjects with DAT differed from the controls in the rates of change of hippocampal volume and CA1 and subiculum subfield deformations. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with donepezil did not alter the progression of hippocampal deformation in subjects with DAT in this study. Small sample size may have contributed to this outcome.
Authors: D Mungas; B R Reed; W J Jagust; C DeCarli; W J Mack; J H Kramer; M W Weiner; N Schuff; H C Chui Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-09-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Randy L Buckner; Denise Head; Jamie Parker; Anthony F Fotenos; Daniel Marcus; John C Morris; Abraham Z Snyder Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: K Ranga Rama Krishnan; H Cecil Charles; P Murali Doraiswamy; Jacobo Mintzer; Richard Weisler; Xin Yu; Carlos Perdomo; John R Ieni; Sharon Rogers Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Lei Wang; Jeffrey S Swank; Irena E Glick; Mokhtar H Gado; Michael I Miller; John C Morris; John G Csernansky Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Michael Grundman; Shelia Jin; Anthony Gamst; Chadwick P Ward; Drahomira Sencakova; Rachelle S Doody; Leon J Thal Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2007-04-23 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: A S Fleisher; S Sun; C Taylor; C P Ward; A C Gamst; R C Petersen; C R Jack; P S Aisen; L J Thal Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-01-15 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Richard A Hansen; Gerald Gartlehner; Aaron P Webb; Laura C Morgan; Charity G Moore; Daniel E Jonas Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Joshua H Balsters; Redmond G O'Connell; Mary P Martin; Alessandra Galli; Sarah M Cassidy; Sophia M Kilcullen; Sonja Delmonte; Sabina Brennan; Jim F Meaney; Andrew J Fagan; Arun L W Bokde; Neil Upton; Robert Lai; Marc Laruelle; Brian Lawlor; Ian H Robertson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alton C Williams; Marie E McNeely; Deanna J Greene; Jessica A Church; Stacie L Warren; Johanna M Hartlein; Bradley L Schlaggar; Kevin J Black; Lei Wang Journal: F1000Res Date: 2013-10-08
Authors: Emma Lawrence; Carolin Vegvari; Alison Ower; Christoforos Hadjichrysanthou; Frank De Wolf; Roy M Anderson Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472