Premium
Does AAMI constitute a real disease entity? A placebo‐controlled double‐blind study with sabeluzole (R58 735) in a patient population with real memory problems
Author(s) -
Tritsmans Luc,
Clincke Gilbert,
Peelmans Boudewijn
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
drug development research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.582
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1098-2299
pISSN - 0272-4391
DOI - 10.1002/ddr.430200407
Subject(s) - placebo , cued recall , recall , fluency , psychology , population , homogeneous , noun , adjective , verbal fluency test , audiology , cognitive psychology , medicine , natural language processing , neuroscience , neuropsychology , cognition , free recall , pathology , computer science , alternative medicine , mathematics education , environmental health , physics , thermodynamics
Abstract Sabeluzole was studied in patients complaining spontaneously about their memory. They were screened and only included if they fitted into the AAMI‐criteria and if, additionally, they were poor performers on a Selective Reminding Procedure (SRP). Fifty‐three patients (aged between 52 and 90 years) were thus treated in a double‐blind manner with either sabeluzole 10 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 2 months. No intergroup differences were seen for any of the tests used. In the sabeluzole group, however, the learning of new semantic entities, consisting of a noun and an accompanying adjective (U, Td) in a Cued Recall Task, increased significantly ( P = 0.04). Additionally, a higher Word Fluency score was obtained after sabeluzole treatment ( P = 0.002), an effect not present in the placebo group. Objective improvements were paralleled by subjective improvements, as measured on Visual Analogue Scales, in the sabeluzole‐treated patients. The study drug was very well tolerated and no serious adverse reactions were seen. However, AAMI, even with the more stringent criteria we used, does not seem to define a homogeneous study population, which reflects a clinical entity. Therefore, the use of AAMI‐criteria as a research tool is questionable.