| Literature DB >> 26064685 |
Sriram Ramaswamy1, Jayakrishna Madabushi2, John Hunziker1, Subhash C Bhatia1, Frederick Petty3.
Abstract
Background. Studies using standard neuropsychological instruments have demonstrated memory deficits in patients with PTSD. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist memantine in veterans with PTSD and cognitive impairment. Methods. Twenty-six veterans with PTSD and cognitive impairment received 16 weeks of memantine in an open-label fashion. Cognition was assessed using the Spatial Span, Logical Memory I, and Letter-Number Sequencing subtests of the Wechsler Memory Scale III and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). RBANS measures attention, language, visuospatial skills, and immediate and delayed memories. The Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) were secondary outcome measures. Results. There was a significant improvement in RBANS, both total and subscale scores (P < 0.05), over time. There was a reduction in total CAPS scores, avoidance/numbing symptoms (CAPS-C) and hyperarousal symptoms (CAPS-D), HAM-D, Q-LES-Q, and SDS scores. However, there was no reduction in reexperiencing (CAPS-B) and HAM-A scores. Memantine was well tolerated. Conclusions. Memantine improved cognitive symptoms, PTSD symptoms, and mood in veterans with PTSD. Randomized double-blind studies are needed to validate these preliminary observations.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26064685 PMCID: PMC4443759 DOI: 10.1155/2015/934162
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Aging Res ISSN: 2090-2204
Demographic and baseline characteristics.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Ethnicity | |
| African American | 3 |
| White | 23 (76) |
| Hispanic | 0 |
| Asian | 0 |
| Other | 0 |
| Gender | |
| Male | 24 (92) |
| Female | 2 (8) |
| Age (mean/SD) | 56.88 years (3.9) |
Figure 1This figure illustrates changes in Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status index scores over time.
Figure 2This figure illustrates changes in Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status percentile scores over time.
Estimated means and standard errors for secondary outcome scores at each visit (from ME model).
| Week | Mean | SE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAPS-B | Baseline | 20.65 | 1.73 | 0.52 |
| End of week 8 | 19.10 | 1.62 | ||
| End of week 16 | 19.17 | 1.60 | ||
|
| ||||
| CAPS-C | Baseline | 33.31 | 1.54 | 0.0055 |
| End of week 8 | 27.98 | 2.08 | ||
| End of week 16 | 26.92 | 1.97 | ||
|
| ||||
| CAPS-D | Baseline | 24.88 | 0.97 | 0.023 |
| End of week 8 | 21.88 | 1.58 | ||
| End of week 16 | 20.75 | 1.44 | ||
|
| ||||
| CAPS total score | Baseline | 78.85 | 3.79 | 0.027 |
| End of week 8 | 68.92 | 4.72 | ||
| End of week 16 | 66.80 | 4.45 | ||
|
| ||||
| HAM-A | Baseline | 25.04 | 1.71 | 0.056 |
| End of week 8 | 20.76 | 1.99 | ||
| End of week 16 | 20.18 | 1.74 | ||
|
| ||||
| HAM-D | Baseline | 19.96 | 1.17 | 0.013 |
| End of week 8 | 14.57 | 1.36 | ||
| End of week 16 | 15.53 | 1.54 | ||
|
| ||||
| Q-LES-Q | Baseline | 40.27 | 1.79 | 0.0076 |
| End of week 8 | 47.07 | 2.25 | ||
| End of week 16 | 46.81 | 2.21 | ||
|
| ||||
| SDS | Baseline | 7.02 | 0.31 | 0.020 |
| End of week 8 | 6.20 | 0.66 | ||
| End of week 16 | 5.73 | 0.50 | ||
Change in RBANS scores during repeated measures.
| Visit | Mean | SE |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | Baseline | 77.8 | 2.0 | <0.0001 |
| Week 8 | 90.3 | 2.6 | ||
| Week 16 | 92.2 | 2.7 | ||
|
| ||||
| Total score percentile | Baseline | 10.6 | 1.6 | <0.0001 |
| Week 8 | 32.6 | 4.9 | ||
| Week 16 | 35.8 | 5.4 | ||
|
| ||||
| Immediate memory | Baseline | 82.8 | 2.5 | <0.0001 |
| Week 8 | 95.3 | 2.3 | ||
| Week 16 | 94.6 | 2.7 | ||
|
| ||||
| Immediate memory percentile | Baseline | 18.9 | 4.4 | <0.0001 |
| Week 8 | 39.8 | 5.3 | ||
| Week 16 | 38.9 | 5.8 | ||
|
| ||||
| Visuospatial index score | Baseline | 83.2 | 2.6 | 0.0001 |
| Week 8 | 91.8 | 2.9 | ||
| Week 16 | 97.6 | 3.1 | ||
|
| ||||
| Visuospatial percentile | Baseline | 20.2 | 3.8 | 0.0002 |
| Week 8 | 33.4 | 5.6 | ||
| Week 16 | 45.8 | 5.9 | ||
|
| ||||
| Language | Baseline | 85.7 | 2.2 | 0.0024 |
| Week 8 | 93.9 | 1.9 | ||
| Week 16 | 92.6 | 1.7 | ||
|
| ||||
| Language percentile | Baseline | 22.0 | 3.7 | 0.0006 |
| Week 8 | 36.7 | 3.5 | ||
| Week 16 | 32.9 | 3.7 | ||
|
| ||||
| Attention | Baseline | 79.9 | 2.7 | 0.0017 |
| Week 8 | 92.0 | 3.0 | ||
| Week 16 | 93.4 | 3.3 | ||
|
| ||||
| Attention percentile | Baseline | 16.0 | 3.1 | 0.0009 |
| Week 8 | 34.9 | 5.9 | ||
| Week 16 | 38.4 | 6.3 | ||
|
| ||||
| Delayed memory | Baseline | 83.1 | 3.5 | 0.0003 |
| Week 8 | 91.1 | 3.6 | ||
| Week 16 | 94.0 | 3.5 | ||
|
| ||||
| Delayed memory percentile | Baseline | 24.0 | 4.4 | 0.0003 |
| Week 8 | 37.9 | 5.6 | ||
| Week 16 | 43.1 | 5.5 | ||
There was significant improvement in all RBANS scores, including language, attention, and immediate and delayed memory from baseline, week 8, and week 16.
Figure 3This figure illustrates changes in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale scores over time.
Figure 4This figure illustrates changes in Hamilton Depression Scale and Hamilton Anxiety Scale scores over time.
Figure 5This figure illustrates changes in Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire scores over time.