CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02240589Updated Aug 30, 2017Results posted

Memantine for Neuroprotection and Cognitive Enhancement Following Traumatic Brain Injury

An interventional study of Memantine and Placebo in Traumatic Brain Injury, sponsored by Indiana University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 65 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-08-30.

Sponsored by Indiana University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
11
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 65 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if memantine can improve cognitive and neuropsychiatric outcomes after severe traumatic brain injury.

Read the detailed description

This is a pilot/feasibility study of memantine in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) persons, employing a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, design. Outcome evaluations will occur after 24 weeks of treatment (on medication) and 4 weeks after treatment discontinuation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Traumatic Brain Injury

Keywords

  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Memantine
  • Memory
03

In context

Brain Injuries

2,113 studies on the registry are indexed under Brain Injuries; 385 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 11 is below the median of 48 across 1,331 interventional studies indexed under Brain Injuries.

Browse Brain Injuries studies →

Lead sponsor

Indiana University is the lead sponsor of 958 studies on the registry; 200 are open to participants now.

Of its 142 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 112 (79%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 65 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • 18-65 years old of age at time of enrollment
  • Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI)
  • Feeding access (e.g., orogastric (OG), nasogastric (NG), or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube) permitting delivery of memantine or placebo
  • Availability of legally-authorized representative (LAR) to provide consent and participate in some study activities (e.g., monitoring for side effects, providing information about the patient)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Pre-existing history of serious neurological disorder
  • Pre-existing history of serious psychiatric disorder (e.g., schizophrenia)
  • Anticipated poor prognosis, based on the presence of bilaterally fixed and dilated pupils, severe hemodynamic instability, severe elevations in intracranial pressure refractory to interventions, or other factors leading to a determination of a probable non-survivable injury
  • Primarily penetrating mechanism of injury (e.g., gunshot wound to the head)
  • Isolated epidural hematoma with anticipated good prognosis
  • Low probability of participant being compliant or being able to finish study procedures (e.g., present for outcome rating) in the judgment of the investigator
  • Not English speaking (due to inability to complete outcome measure)
  • Medical contraindications to memantine: Severe hepatic impairment (defined as albumin > 15gm/dL, Alk Phos > 375 U/L, ALT > 150 U/L, AST > 120 U/L or bilirubin > 3mg/dL). Moderate-to-Severe renal impairment (defined as creatinine clearance \< 60)
  • Pregnancy or breastfeeding
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Quadruple (Participant, Care provider, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
11 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Memantine

    24 weeks of memantine with accelerated titration, beginning within 48 hours of injury.

    Drug: Memantine

  • Placebo comparator
    Placebo

    24 weeks of placebo matched to memantine formulation, beginning within 48 hours of injury.

    Drug: Placebo

Interventions

  • DrugMemantine

    Day 1 to 3: 10 mg bid memantine. Day 3 to 21: 20 mg bid memantine. Day 21 to 168: 10 mg bid memantine.

    Also known as: Namenda

  • DrugPlacebo

    Day 1 to 3: 10 mg bid placebo. Day 3 to 21: 20 mg bid placebo. Day 21 to 168: 10 mg bid placebo.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. California Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition (CVLT-II) - Long Delay Free Recall

    Neuropsychological test used to assess an individual's verbal memory abilities. The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Long Delay Free Recall measures total word list items recalled after a 20-minute delay. The raw score is converted to a Z-score (Mean=0; SD=1) which was used for statistical analysis. Higher scores reflect worse performance (i.e., more recall errors) on this variable.

    Time frame: Week 24

Secondary outcomes

  1. CVLT-II Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total

    Neuropsychological test used to assess an individual's verbal memory abilities. California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total measures the sum of all word list items correctly recalled on learning trials 1 through 5. This raw score is converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) which was used for statistical analysis. The total A1-5T score reflects accurate recall over the five learning trials of the first list, and is most often used as a summary index of learning on the CVLT-II, with higher scores reflecting better performance.

    Time frame: Week 24

  2. Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall

    Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall measures the correctly recalled designs (i.e., standard scoring of accuracy and location as described in the manual) after a 25 minute delay. The delayed recall raw score ranges from 0 to 12 with 12 being the highest and best possible score. The raw score is converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) which was used for statistical analysis.

    Time frame: Week 24

  3. BVMT-R Learning

    Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Learning measures the correctly recalled designs (i.e., standard scoring of accuracy and location as described in the manual) over 3 learning trials. The Learning raw score is the sum of the higher number of correctly recalled designs on either Trial 2 or Trial 3 minus the number of correctly recalled designs on Trial 1. A higher score is a better score. The raw score was converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) for analysis.

    Time frame: Week 24

  4. Trail Making Part B

    Neuropsychological test of visual attention and executive functioning. The trail making tests are thought to reflect a variety of cognitive processes including attention, visual search and scanning, sequencing and shifting, psychomotor speed, abstraction, flexibility, ability to execute and modify a plan of action, and ability to maintain two trains of thought simultaneously. In Trails B, the participant is instructed to draw lines to connect numbers and letters in an alternating numeric and alphabetic sequence as rapidly as possible. Lower scores are better scores and the range of scores can be from 0 to no limit for Trail Making Test part B. This is a timed test and the number of seconds to complete the task is recorded. The unit of measure in seconds is converted to a scaled score (mean =10, SD = 3) using the Heaton et al. norms with lower scores indicating better performance.

    Time frame: Week 24

  5. Stroop Interference

    Stroop Interference Test is a neuropsychological test to assess a person's executive function. Specifically, the test is thought to reflect selective attention, cognitive flexibility and processing speed. The raw score for this measure is the number of items correctly identified within 45 seconds. The raw score was converted to a T-score (mean=50; SD=10) for analysis. Higher scores reflect better performance and less interference on reading ability.

    Time frame: Week 24

  6. Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit

    The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit subscale is a rating scale completed by the participant and independently by an observer that assesses the ability to control impulses (inhibitory control) and to stop engaging in a behavior. The frequency of behaviors indicated by items is rated on a 3-point scale (never, sometimes, often). The raw score for the Inhibit subscale is the sum of ratings for the 8 items included in this measure. This sum was converted to a T-score (mean=50; SD=10) for analysis. Higher scores suggest a higher level of dysfunction in a specific domain of executive functions.

    Time frame: Week 24

  7. Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Anger (TBI QOL Anger)

    The TBI-QOL Anger item bank includes 38 hierarchically ordered items designed to measure the full continuum of anger in a way which is both sensitive and appropriate for TBI. The TBI-QOL Anger item bank can be administered as a computer-adaptive test (CAT), allowing precise measurement of self-reported anger using only 4-8 adaptively selected items. Using CAT technology, an individual participant's responses to the TBIQoL Anger scale generated a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) with a range of 0 (lowest anger) to 100 (greatest anger).

    Time frame: Week 24

07

Results

Posted Aug 30, 2017
Limitations and caveats
Small sample size.

Participant flow

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneMemantinePlacebo
Started56
Completed34
Not completed22

Outcome measures

PrimaryCalifornia Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition (CVLT-II) - Long Delay Free Recall

Neuropsychological test used to assess an individual's verbal memory abilities. The California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Long Delay Free Recall measures total word list items recalled after a 20-minute delay. The raw score is converted to a Z-score (Mean=0; SD=1) which was used for statistical analysis. Higher scores reflect worse performance (i.e., more recall errors) on this variable.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · z-score
California Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition (CVLT-II) - Long Delay Free Recall
z-scoreMemantinePlacebo
California Verbal Learning Test - Second Edition (CVLT-II) - Long Delay Free Recall-2.000 ± 1.000-1.375 ± 2.016
SecondaryCVLT-II Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total

Neuropsychological test used to assess an individual's verbal memory abilities. California Verbal Learning Test-Second Edition (CVLT-II) Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total measures the sum of all word list items correctly recalled on learning trials 1 through 5. This raw score is converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) which was used for statistical analysis. The total A1-5T score reflects accurate recall over the five learning trials of the first list, and is most often used as a summary index of learning on the CVLT-II, with higher scores reflecting better performance.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · t-score
CVLT-II Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total
t-scoreMemantinePlacebo
CVLT-II Trials 1-5 Free Recall Total31.000 ± 10.81737.250 ± 15.262
SecondaryBrief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall

Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall measures the correctly recalled designs (i.e., standard scoring of accuracy and location as described in the manual) after a 25 minute delay. The delayed recall raw score ranges from 0 to 12 with 12 being the highest and best possible score. The raw score is converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) which was used for statistical analysis.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · t-score
Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall
t-scoreMemantinePlacebo
Brief Visuospatial Memory Test - Revised (BVMT-R) Delayed Recall47.00 ± 4.58345.50 ± 11.561
SecondaryBVMT-R Learning

Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R) Learning measures the correctly recalled designs (i.e., standard scoring of accuracy and location as described in the manual) over 3 learning trials. The Learning raw score is the sum of the higher number of correctly recalled designs on either Trial 2 or Trial 3 minus the number of correctly recalled designs on Trial 1. A higher score is a better score. The raw score was converted to a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) for analysis.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · t-score
BVMT-R Learning
t-scoreMemantinePlacebo
BVMT-R Learning60.00 ± 8.26646.50 ± 1.000
SecondaryTrail Making Part B

Neuropsychological test of visual attention and executive functioning. The trail making tests are thought to reflect a variety of cognitive processes including attention, visual search and scanning, sequencing and shifting, psychomotor speed, abstraction, flexibility, ability to execute and modify a plan of action, and ability to maintain two trains of thought simultaneously. In Trails B, the participant is instructed to draw lines to connect numbers and letters in an alternating numeric and alphabetic sequence as rapidly as possible. Lower scores are better scores and the range of scores can be from 0 to no limit for Trail Making Test part B. This is a timed test and the number of seconds to complete the task is recorded. The unit of measure in seconds is converted to a scaled score (mean =10, SD = 3) using the Heaton et al. norms with lower scores indicating better performance.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · scaled score
Trail Making Part B
scaled scoreMemantinePlacebo
Trail Making Part B11.67 ± 6.35113.25 ± 4.349
SecondaryStroop Interference

Stroop Interference Test is a neuropsychological test to assess a person's executive function. Specifically, the test is thought to reflect selective attention, cognitive flexibility and processing speed. The raw score for this measure is the number of items correctly identified within 45 seconds. The raw score was converted to a T-score (mean=50; SD=10) for analysis. Higher scores reflect better performance and less interference on reading ability.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · t-score
Stroop Interference
t-scoreMemantinePlacebo
Stroop Interference51.67 ± 6.80752.25 ± 7.320
SecondaryBehavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit subscale is a rating scale completed by the participant and independently by an observer that assesses the ability to control impulses (inhibitory control) and to stop engaging in a behavior. The frequency of behaviors indicated by items is rated on a 3-point scale (never, sometimes, often). The raw score for the Inhibit subscale is the sum of ratings for the 8 items included in this measure. This sum was converted to a T-score (mean=50; SD=10) for analysis. Higher scores suggest a higher level of dysfunction in a specific domain of executive functions.

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · t-score
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit
t-scoreMemantinePlacebo
Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF) Inhibit46.00 ± 9.41661.00 ± 17.569
SecondaryTraumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Anger (TBI QOL Anger)

The TBI-QOL Anger item bank includes 38 hierarchically ordered items designed to measure the full continuum of anger in a way which is both sensitive and appropriate for TBI. The TBI-QOL Anger item bank can be administered as a computer-adaptive test (CAT), allowing precise measurement of self-reported anger using only 4-8 adaptively selected items. Using CAT technology, an individual participant's responses to the TBIQoL Anger scale generated a T-score (Mean=50; SD=10) with a range of 0 (lowest anger) to 100 (greatest anger).

Time frame:
Week 24
Reported as:
Mean · scaled score
Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Anger (TBI QOL Anger)
scaled scoreMemantinePlacebo
Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Anger (TBI QOL Anger)49.725 ± 8.68445.375 ± 9.854

Adverse events

Collected over 6 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Memantine0/5 (0%)0/5 (0%)5/5 (100%)
Placebo1/6 (16.7%)1/6 (16.7%)6/6 (100%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventMemantinePlacebo
Death due to withdrawal of careNervous system disorders0/51/6
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 27
Most frequent other events
EventMemantinePlacebo
PneumoniaInfections and infestations3/53/6
NeurostormingNervous system disorders3/52/6
dehydrationMetabolism and nutrition disorders3/50/6
emesisGastrointestinal disorders2/50/6
AgitationNervous system disorders2/52/6
HeadacheNervous system disorders2/52/6
painNervous system disorders2/51/6
Other, infectionInfections and infestations0/52/6
insomniaNervous system disorders1/52/6
fallInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/52/6

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)MemantinePlaceboTotal
Mean25.4 ± 2.340.83 ± 6.5233.82 ± 14.29
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)MemantinePlaceboTotal
Female044
Male527
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)MemantinePlaceboTotal
Hispanic or Latino000
Not Hispanic or Latino5611
Unknown or Not Reported000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)MemantinePlaceboTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000
Asian000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American000
White5611
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported000
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Indiana University Health Facilities
    Indianapolis, Indiana 46202, United States
09

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 30, 2017, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02240589
Lead sponsor
Indiana University
Responsible party
Flora Hammond (Covalt Professor & Chair, Indiana University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 15, 2014
Start date
Dec 2014
Primary completion
Apr 2016
Completion
Apr 2016
Results posted
Aug 30, 2017
Last update
Aug 30, 2017

Study contacts

Flora Hammond, MD
principal investigator · Indiana University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion