학술논문

GM-1 treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a pilot study of safety and efficacy
Document Type
Academic Journal
Source
Archives of Neurology. Oct, 1990, Vol. 47 Issue 10, p1126, 5 p.
Subject
Alzheimer's disease -- Physiological aspects
Gangliosides -- Health aspects
Alzheimer's disease -- Drug therapy
Health
Language
ISSN
0003-9942
Abstract
In Alzheimer's disease (AD) loss of neurons from the cortex and subcortical structures of the brain leads to progressive mental deterioration. Monosialoganglioside GM-1, a factor involved in the effect of nerve impulses, is a potential therapy for AD because some of its physiologic properties directly oppose the physiology of AD. Of the 42 patients who completed all study requirements, 19 were in the treatment group. Diagnosing AD in living patients is difficult, but the authors feel confident that their criteria resulted in at least 78 percent of those in the study actually having AD. Several tests measuring cognitive and social abilities were administered to evaluate the effects of the drug treatment. For 12 weeks the patients received injections of 100 mg. of GM-1, with no medical complications and modest adverse experiences. The overall lack of changes as measured by the cognitive battery suggests that GM-1 produced no benefit, whether symptomatic or protective, at least for this dosage over 12 weeks. However, the apparent improvement in the facial recognition scale scores may have been a benefit specifically for visuospatial processing, and could be followed up in other studies. The lack of significant objective cognitive scale score differences in the placebo group suggests that a longer treatment period is necessary to determine if a treatment such as GM-1 has a protective effect. The patients in both treatment and placebo groups remained stable as measured by the cognitive scales, but appeared to worsen by the psychosocial scales. Among possible explanations are: (1) the patients' social skills deteriorated more quickly than their cognitive abilities; (2) the psychosocial scales are more sensitive than the cognitive scales; (3) caregivers' expectations of study benefits may have influenced their reports; (4) caregivers may have initially underestimated the severity of the illness, and became more aware of it as the study progressed; and (5) any combination of the above. (Consumer Summary produced by Reliance Medical Information, Inc.)