Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27145364›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2016

R- and S-citalopram concentrations have differential effects on neuropsychiatric scores in elders with dementia and agitation.

Thang Ho, Bruce G Pollock, Benoit H Mulsant, Oliver Schantz, Devangere P Devanand, Jacobo E Mintzer, Anton P Porsteinsson, Lon S Schneider, Daniel Weintraub, Jerome Yesavage and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease: Past, present, and future.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. New Possibilities in the Therapeutic Approach to Alzheimer's Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Thang HoDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Bruce G PollockCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, CAMH, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Benoit H MulsantCampbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, CAMH, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Oliver SchantzDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Devangere P DevanandDivision of Geriatric Psychiatry, Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Jacobo E MintzerClinical Biotechnology Research Institute, Roper St. Francis Healthcare, Charleston, South Carolina.
Anton P PorsteinssonAlzheimer's Disease Care, Research and Education Program (AD-CARE), University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York.
Lon S SchneiderDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, California.
Daniel WeintraubDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Jerome YesavageDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.
Lea T DryeDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cynthia A MunroDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Bayview and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
David M ShadeDepartment of Medicine (Pulmonary) and Epidemiology (Center for Clinical Trials), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Constantine LyketsosMemory and Alzheimer's Treatment Center, Johns Hopkins Bayview and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Robert BiesDivision of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · USMental Health Research Canada · CAAlzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative · USColumbia University · USIndiana University School of MedicineJohns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center · USPalo Alto University · USRoper St. Francis Healthcare · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

VASCULAR RISK AND COGNITIVE STATUS IN A LATINO POPULATIONP50AG005142 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI ARANDA, MARIA P. · 1985 to 2019
$41.0M
AGING AND INTRAINDIVIDUAL COGNITIVE VARIABILITYR01AG012448 · NIA · SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY · PI SLIWINSKI, MARTIN J. · 2001 to 2005
$1.7M
NIA NIH HHS P50 AG005142NIA NIH HHS R01 AG012448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe aim was to determine the relationship between (R) and (S)-citalopram enantiomer exposure (AUC(0,24 h)) and therapeutic response in agitated individuals greater than 60 years old with Alzheimer's dementia (AD).

methodsCitalopram enantiomer exposures (AUC(0,24 h)) derived from an established population pharmacokinetic analysis were utilized to explore the relationship between (R)- and (S)-citalopram area under the curve (AUC(0,24 )) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neurobehavioural Rating Scale-Agitation Subscale (NBRS-A), modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation subscale (NPIA) scores. Time dependent changes in these scores (disease progression) were accounted for prior to exploring the exposure effect relationship for each enantiomer. These relationships were evaluated using a non-linear-mixed effects modelling approach as implemented in nonmem v7.3.

results(S)-AUC(0,24 h) and (R)-AUC(0,24 h) each contributed to improvement in NBRS-A scores (k3(R) -0.502; k4(S) -0.712) as did time in treatment. However, increasing (R)-AUC(0,24 h) decreased the probability of patient response (maximum Δ -0.182%/AUC(0,24 h)) based on the CGIC while (S)-AUC(0,24 h) improved the probability of response (maximum Δ 0.112%/AUC(0,24 h)). (R)-AUC(0,24 h) was also associated with worsening in MMSE scores (-0.5 points).

conclusionsOur results suggest that citalopram enantiomers contributed differentially to treatment outcomes. (R)-citalopram accounted for a greater proportion of the adverse consequences associated with racemic citalopram treatment in patients with AD including a decreased probability of treatment response as measured by the CGIC and a reduction in MMSE scores. The S-enantiomer was associated with increased probability of response based on the CGIC.

Indexed as

AgedAlzheimer DiseaseCitalopramDementiaFemaleHumansIsomerismMalePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychomotor AgitationSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsTreatment OutcomeCitalopramSelective Serotonin Reuptake InhibitorsagitationAlzheimer's diseasecitalopramescitaloprampharmacodynamics

Identifiers

PMID27145364
PMCPMC6445501
OpenAlexW2345424352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.