Trial reportBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2018
Reversal of mecamylamine-induced effects in healthy subjects by nicotine receptor agonists: Cognitive and (electro) physiological responses.
Trial report in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety, pharmacokinetics and exploratory pro-cognitive effects of HTL0018318, a selective MAlzheimer's research & therapy · 2021Trial
- Reversal of mecamylamine-induced effects in healthy subjects by nicotine receptor agonists: Cognitive and (electro) physiological responses.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018Trial
- The Basal Forebrain Cholinergic Nuclei and Their Relevance to Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
- Neurochemistry of Visual Attention.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Review
- Galantamine-memantine combination superior to donepezil-memantine combination in Alzheimer's disease: critical dissection with an emphasis on kynurenic acid and mismatch negativity.Journal of geriatric care and research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsEstablishing a pharmacological challenge model could yield an important tool to understand the complex role of the nicotinic cholinergic system in cognition and to develop novel compounds acting on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor.
methodsThis randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, four-way crossover study examined the effects of the nicotinic antagonist mecamylamine on a battery of cognitive and neurophysiological test with coadministration of a placebo, nicotine or galantamine in order to reverse the cognitive impairment caused by mecamylamine.
resultsThirty-three healthy subjects received a single oral dose of 30 mg of mecamylamine (or placebo) in combination with either 16 mg of oral galantamine or 21 mg of transdermal nicotine (or its double-dummy). Mecamylamine 30 mg induced significant disturbances of cognitive functions. Attention and execution of visual (fine) motor tasks was decreased, short- and long-term memory was impaired and the reaction velocity during the test was slower when compared to placebo. Mecamylamine 30 mg produced a decrease in posterior α and β power in the surface electroencephalogram, effects that were reversed by nicotine coadministration. Memory and motor coordination tests could be partially reversed by the coadministration of nicotine.
conclusionsMecamylamine administration induced slowing of the electroencephalogram and produced decrease in performance of tests evaluating motor coordination, sustained attention and short- and long-term memory. These effects could be partially reversed by the coadministration of nicotine, and to a lesser extent by galantamine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.