Memantine and HIV-associated cognitive impairment: a neuropsychological and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy study

Schifitto, Giovannia; Navia, Bradford Ab; Yiannoutsos, Constantin Tc; Marra, Christina Md; Chang, Lindae; Ernst, Thomase; Jarvik, Jeffrey Gd; Miller, Eric Nf; Singer, Elyse Jg; Ellis, Ronald Jh; Kolson, Dennis Li; Simpson, Davidj; Nath, Avindrak; Berger, Josephl; Shriver, Sharon Lm; Millar, Linda Ln; Colquhoun, Dodin; Lenkinski, Robertp; Gonzalez, R Gilbertoo; Lipton, Stuart Aq; the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) 301 and 700 Teams and the HIV MRS Consortium

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32813384e8
Clinical Science

Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of memantine, an uncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor as treatment of HIV-associated cognitive impairment.

Methods: This was a Phase II randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial within the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group. One-hundred and forty HIV-infected adults with mild to severe AIDS dementia complex receiving stable antiretroviral therapy were enrolled. Memantine was initiated at 10 mg daily escalated to 40 mg daily, or up to the maximum tolerated dose and continued for 16 weeks (primary evaluation visit) followed by a 4-week washout period and re-evaluation at week 20. Changes in cognitive performance were measured as percent change from baseline to week 16 in the average of eight neuropsychological test scores (NPZ-8). Brain metabolism was measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy in a subgroup of subjects.

Results: Sixty-one percent of subjects in the memantine group and 85% in the placebo group reached the 40 mg dose while the reported adverse experiences between the two groups were similar. There were no significant improvements in neuropsychological performance over 16 weeks; however, memantine was associated with a significant increase at week 16 in the N-acetyl aspartate to creatine ratio, in the frontal white matter (P = 0.040) and parietal cortex (P = 0.023).

Conclusions: Memantine was safe and tolerated by HIV-infected subjects with cognitive impairment. Although we observed no significant differences in cognitive performance, the magnetic resonance spectroscopy data suggest that memantine may ameliorate neuronal metabolism, an important step to stabilizing or preventing neuronal injury. These results underscore the need for longer studies to assess the full potential of neuroprotective agents.

From the aUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA

bDepartments of Neurology and Psychiatry, Infection Unit, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

cIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

dUniversity of Washington Seattle, Washington, USA

eJohn A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

fUCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, California, USA

gUCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA

hUniversity of California at San Diego, California, USA

iUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

jMount Sinai Medical Center, New York, USA

kJohns Hopkins Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

lUniversity of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky, USA

mAACTG Operations Office, Rockville, Maryland, USA

nFrontier Science & Technology Research Foundation, Amherst, New York, USA

oDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, Massachusetts, USA

pDepartment of Radiology, Beth Israel-Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

qBurnham Institute for Medical Research, University of California at San Diego, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, and The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, California, USA.

Received 28 June, 2006

Revised 15 December, 2006

Accepted 21 December, 2006

Correspondence to G. Schifitto, Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, 1351 Mount Hope Avenue, Suite 223, Rochester, NY 14620, USA. Tel: +1 275 3052; fax: +1 585 276 1870; e-mail:

Article Outline
Back to Top | Article Outline


The use of HAART has significantly improved the survival of HIV-infected subjects [1–3], as well as neurocognitive functioning in some individuals [4–6]. However, because many antiretroviral agents, particularly protease inhibitors, generally penetrate poorly across the blood–brain barrier, a significant number of HIV-infected individuals may remain vulnerable to neurological injury and be at risk for developing cognitive impairment despite adequate plasma suppression of HIV RNA concentration. In fact, emerging evidence suggests that cognitive impairment and brain abnormalities may unfold or persist in the setting of HAART and partial immune reconstitution [7–10]. Together, these observations indicate a need to identify safe and effective adjuvant therapies that can either restore or prevent further loss of neurologic function in the setting of stable systemic disease.

In vitro studies have shown that memantine (1-amino-3,5 dimethyl-adamantane) can prevent the neurotoxicity of gp120, Tat, and PAF, and reduce neuronal injury and loss in the gp120 transgenic mouse [11–13]. In addition, Gendelman and colleagues have shown in a murine model of HIV encephalitis that memantine significantly attenuates the damaging effects of HIV infection on synaptic transmission in the hippocampus and long term potentiation, widely believed to be a critical neurophysiological substrate for learning and memory [14].

Memantine, an analog of the antiviral drug amantadine, acts as an uncompetitive/fast off rate, low affinity (micromolar range) antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor [15,16]. It has been widely used in Europe for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease [17–20], and more recently has received FDA approval for the treatment of AD [21,22].

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of memantine within the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group (AACTG) to assess its safety and efficacy in subjects with AIDS Dementia Complex (ADC). To further assess the in vivo effects of memantine, proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) was performed in a subgroup of subjects. MRS provides a noninvasive and reliable method to assess brain injury in HIV infection by measuring metabolites associated with glia and neuronal cell function [7,23–35].

Back to Top | Article Outline



One hundred forty subjects with a diagnosis of ADC stage 1 or greater and neuropsychological impairment were randomized via a central computer system ( at 21 AACTG centers between February 1997 and December 1999. Neuropsychological impairment was defined as: at least two standard deviations below the normative value on one or more neuropsychological tests, or one standard deviation below the normative on at least two tests. Subjects were required to be on stable antiretroviral therapy for 6 weeks prior to entry and to maintain this regimen during the course of the study. Subjects with a history of focal brain lesions, chronic seizures, active psychiatric disorders, or active alcohol or drug abuse were excluded. Subjects receiving a stable antidepressant regimen were not excluded from participation.

At entry, subjects were stratified according to two factors: zidovudine (ZDV) use (current use, previous use, or no use), and ADC stage. The protocol underwent review and approval by the Institutional Review Boards at all participating sites. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their authorized representatives.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Study design

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Memantine dose was initiated at 10 mg per day during the first study week and was escalated by 10 mg in weekly increments to 40 mg per day by week 4, or up to the maximum tolerated dose. Memantine administration was continued to week 16 (the primary evaluation visit), followed by a 4-week drug washout period and re-evaluation at week 20. Similarly, the placebo dose started at one pill per day and escalated by one pill in weekly increments to four pills per day or to the maximum tolerated dose.

Toxicities were graded as: 1, mild not requiring treatment; 2, moderate requiring treatment; 3, severe; and 4, potentially life threatening.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Neurological and neuropsychological studies

Neurologic assessments were performed at baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, 16 and, following the 4-week washout period, at week 20. ADC stage was assessed according to the Memorial-Sloan Kettering Classification [36] at the same weekly visits. Neuropsychological assessments were performed at baseline and weeks 8, 16 and, following the washout period, at week 20. A summary neuropsychological test score, the NPZ-8, was derived by computing the average of eight neuropsychological test scores standardized for the participant's age and education as previously described [36,37]. The NPZ-8 encompassed the following tests, which are sensitive to HIV-associated cognitive-motor impairment: Timed Gait, Symbol Digit, Grooved Pegboard performed with the dominant and non-dominant hand, Trail Making series A and B, and two computerized reaction time tests (CalCAP system) [37–41]. Normative values were obtained from an HIV-negative neurologically asymptomatic group of individuals enrolled in the Multi-center AIDS Cohort Study [39,40,42].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Proton MRS evaluations

Fifty-one subjects had both baseline and week 16 MRS data and are considered in this analysis. MR evaluations consisted of high-resolution T1-weighted sagittal images and simultaneously acquired high-resolution proton-density and T2-weighted axial images, as previously described [34]. MRS data were obtained with the GE pulse sequence PROBE-P, which is a PRESS sequence with CHESS water suppression [43,44]. MRS parameters included: TE, 35 msec; TR, 3000 msec; voxel size, 6 ml (20 × 20 × 15 μl); 128 acquisitions; spectral width, 2500 Hz; 2000 data points. MRS spectra were acquired from the mid-line posterior parietal cortex (PAR; gray matter), mid-frontal centrum semiovale (CSO; white matter) and basal ganglia (BG; deep gray matter). Five metabolite ratios were measured in each of the three brain regions: NAA/Cr, choline (Cho)/Cr, myoinositol (MI)/Cr, NAA/Cho and NAA/MI. A study of intersite variability in metabolite measurements was performed as recently reported [34]. The results showed that metabolite differences between subjects were likely to reflect inherent biological rather than intersite differences.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Sample size

One hundred forty subjects were equally distributed across the two study arms (Fig. 1). Sample size calculations were based on a previous study of nimodipine for ADC (ACTG 162) [45]. In an eight-test neuropsychological battery similar to the one used here, the variance of the percent difference from baseline was 34%. Assuming a drop-out rate of 20% as per ACTG 162, this size provided the study with at least 78% power to detect a change of 17% in the neuropsychological test score (NPZ-8) from baseline to week 16 between the two study arms, which is equivalent to a change of 0.5 units in the NPZ-8 score (effect size). One half of a standard deviation in the summary score was previously shown to represent a clinically significant difference (the average difference between neurologically normal and ADC stage 1 individuals, and between ADC stage 1 and ADC stage 2) [46].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical analyses

The primary outcome was based on percent difference in the summary neuropsychological test score (NPZ-8) from baseline to week 16 between the memantine and placebo arms assessed by the Kruskal–Wallis test. Additional assessments were also performed at week 8 and after the 4-week washout at week 20. In all cases, the primary efficacy analyses were performed based on available data. Analyses based on carrying forward the last available observation (last observation carried forward – LOCF) were also undertaken. Intermittently missing observations were filled in by interpolating between two observations most closely available in time. All analyses were carried out consistent with the intent-to-treat principle. An analysis of covariance was performed to ensure that changes in neuropsychological performance from baseline to week 16 or week 20 were not associated with changing CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA concentration measured in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or plasma. There were CD4 count or HIV viral load measurements assessed at week 20, so week 16 measurements were carried forward.

Additional analyses, using a longitudinal generalized estimating equations model explored the possibility that memantine treatment may result in improvements among patient subgroups defined by HIV RNA concentration in the CSF or plasma at baseline [47]. ADC improvement was defined as lower ADC stage during the study compared to baseline versus no change or worsening. ADC worsening was defined as higher ADC stage compared to baseline versus no change or improvement. In all cases, statistical models were adjusted for baseline CD4 cell count, CSF and plasma HIV RNA concentration, ZDV use and baseline ADC stage. We also considered interactions between these factors and treatment assignment.

To determine the effects of memantine on brain metabolites at week 16, we carried out a multivariate analysis of covariance model of the week 16 MRS levels on all nine metabolite-by-region combinations (three metabolites measured in three brain regions), adjusting for baseline metabolite levels, race/ethnicity, education, CSF and plasma HIV RNA concentration and CD4 cell count, ZDV use, ADC stage and baseline NPZ-8 score. A forward model selection algorithm was performed to select the most parsimonious statistical model of week-16 MRS levels. Factors were successively entered in the statistical model if they reached statistical significance at least at the 20% level (i.e., if the P value associated with the factor in the model was < 0.20). Associations between categorical data were assessed by the Fisher's exact test. The time from treatment initiation to the occurrence of a serious toxicity was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier approach and compared between the two arms by the log-rank test. All statistical tests were carried out at the 95% level of significance.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Baseline characteristics

The characteristics of the subjects enrolled are summarized in Table 1. One hundred forty subjects with ADC stage 1 (n = 107) and stage 2/3 (n = 33) were randomized to memantine or placebo. There were no differences in age or educational levels between the memantine and placebo treated groups. Most subjects (82%) did not report previous or current injecting drug use. Although the protocol required a 6-week stable antiretroviral regimen prior to enrollment, most subjects enrolled (88.6%) had been on the same regimen for at least 12 weeks. Eighty-eight percent were receiving combined antiretroviral therapies, including a protease inhibitor at baseline. Some recent data suggest that antiretroviral drugs with better central nervous system (CNS) penetration may improve cognitive performance [48]. In this regard, 92% of the subjects were taking at least one drug with good CNS penetration (ZDV, lamivudine, abacavir, indinavir, nevirapine, efavirenz and stavudine). The proportion of subjects on these antiretroviral drugs was not statistically significant between the two treatment groups (P > 0.999). The cohort enrolled had moderate immune suppression, as indicated by a median CD4 lymphocyte count of 274 cells/μl. However, HIV replication was relatively well-controlled; median plasma HIV RNA concentration was 123 copies/ml while the median CSF HIV RNA concentration was below the limits of quantitation (Roche Ultrasensitive Amplicor, limits of quantitation ≥ 50 copies/ml).

Neurological assessment showed that most subjects (76%) had mild neurological disease (ADC stage 1) with a median NPZ-8 score of –1.21. As expected, subjects with advanced ADC (stages 2 and 3) had a median NPZ-8 score of −2.16, which was significantly lower than subjects with mild ADC (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in any neuropsychological measurement between the two arms at baseline.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Primary outcome

Of 140 subjects, 128 remained on study at week 8, 122 at week 16, and 106 at week 20. Reasons for discontinuation are listed in Fig. 1. The majority of patients in both arms completed protocol evaluations. The reasons for treatment discontinuation were similar in both groups. Complete neuropsychological data (including full baseline and follow-up evaluation) were available on 106 subjects at week 8, 93 at week 16, and 94 at week 20 (Table 2). The percent difference of the NPZ-8 data from baseline to week 16 was consistently higher in the memantine arm, and the mean difference between the two arms reached 43% at week 16 (60% versus 17% improvement, respectively) while the median NPZ-8 difference was only 4%, reflecting a higher than expected variability in the NPZ-8 observations in the memantine arm (201% versus the expected 34%; Table 2).

Back to Top | Article Outline

LOCF analysis of neuropsychological performance

Results from the LOCF analyses were consistent with the available-data analyses (Table 2). The mean NPZ-8 difference between the two arms at week 16 was 37%, while the median NPZ-8 difference was 5%. There was no association between maximum dose at week 16 and neuropsychological performance in the memantine and placebo arms.

Analysis of covariance showed no statistically significant associations either between week 16 CD4 cell counts or HIV RNA concentration in plasma or CSF, or their change from baseline to week 16 and the change in NPZ-8 from baseline to week 16 or 20.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Secondary outcomes

Week 20 analysis of neuropsychological performance

In the observed data analysis, at week 20, following the 4-week washout period, the median NPZ-8 difference from baseline between the two arms was 9% (Table 2), yielding a trend favoring the memantine arm (Kruskal–Wallis test, P = 0.054) while in the LOCF analysis (Table 2) the median NPZ-8 difference increased to 10%, reaching significance (P = 0.024).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Response to therapy among mild versus moderate to severe ADC patients

Response to treatment was further assessed by comparing the change in NPZ-8 in subjects with mild ADC and those with moderate to severe impairment (ADC stage 2 or greater) (data not shown). Based on the available data, the results of these analyses were consistent with those shown in Table 2 including the greater variability in NPZ-8 performance among the memantine treated subjects. In contrast, among subjects with ADC stage 2/3, the observed variability in NPZ-8 performance was much reduced.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Response to therapy according to virological indices

In post hoc analyses, the possibility that memantine could benefit a subgroup of ADC subjects was examined by stratifying subjects by their baseline HIV RNA concentration in the CSF and plasma. ADC stage worsened at some point during follow-up in more subjects with detectable virus in the CSF at baseline (8/35, 23%) compared to those with undetectable CSF virus at baseline (6/75, 8%; odds ratio, 3.41; P = 0.021). There was no relationship between worsening ADC and baseline HIV plasma concentration. CD4 cell count was a significant predictor of ADC worsening only among patients with detectable CSF HIV RNA concentration at baseline (P = 0.042).

In those with detectable CSF HIV RNA (n = 35), memantine-treated subjects showed a lesser worsening of ADC stage compared to placebo-treated subjects in the first 12 weeks (P = 0.003, Fig. 2). This trend continued but was not significant at week 16 and 20.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Effects of memantine on brain metabolism and neuronal dysfunction

A proton MRS substudy at baseline and week 16 was performed in 51 subjects (26 in the memantine and 25 in the placebo arm). Significant increases in NAA/Cr were observed among individuals receiving memantine compared to placebo in the frontal white matter and the parietal cortex (P = 0.040, P = 0.023, respectively; Table 3). A trend towards an increase in Cho/Cr in the basal ganglia was also observed in the memantine group compared to placebo (P = 0.065). Analysis of the percent change in NPZ-8 from baseline to week 16 in these 51 subjects showed no difference between the memantine and placebo arms.

We examined baseline factors that may have predicted the effect on NAA/Cr at week 16. Subjects with milder cognitive impairment (ADC stage 1) showed larger NAA/Cr increases in the parietal cortex (P = 0.040), while subjects with lower baseline CSF HIV RNA levels experienced significantly higher NAA/Cr increases in the frontal white matter (P = 0.011). In all cases, the main predictive factor was baseline NAA/Cr level which correlated with higher NAA/Cr levels in both the frontal white matter and parietal cortex. In contrast, race/ethnicity, baseline educational level and CD4 cell counts showed no effect.

Analysis was repeated by treating HIV RNA concentration in the plasma or CSF as a covariate in 33 subjects with available baseline and week 16 HIV RNA data, as reductions in CSF HIV RNA concentration have been shown to improve metabolite levels [33]. The effect of memantine on NAA/Cr remained significant in the white matter and parietal cortex after adjustment for baseline and week 16 CSF and plasma HIV RNA concentration (P = 0.040).

Back to Top | Article Outline


Sixty-one percent of subjects (36/59 subjects) in the memantine arm tolerated the maximum dose of 40 mg/day during week 16; 17% (n = 10) received 30 mg; 19% (n = 11) 20 mg, and the remaining 2% (n = 2) 10 mg. The proportion of subjects reaching the 40 mg dose in the memantine group was significantly lower than in the placebo arm (P = 0.001), in which 46/52 subjects (88.5%) received 40 mg/4 pills; 3 (6%) 30 mg/3 pills; 2 (4%) 20 mg/2 pills; and 1 (2%) 10 mg/1 pill. A total of 116 adverse events were recorded in the placebo arm and 106 in the memantine arm. There were nine subjects in the memantine arm who experienced Grade 1 toxicity during the study and none in the placebo arm. Twenty-four subjects in the memantine arm and 20 in the placebo experienced Grade 2 or higher toxicity, including one memantine and two placebo-treated subjects who experienced Grade 4 toxicity. None of the Grade 4 toxicities were drug-related. There were two deaths during the first 16 weeks, both in the placebo arm. No significant differences between the treatment arms were observed with respect to the frequency of a Grade 2 or greater toxicity, or to the time from treatment initiation until such toxicity developed. The dose of memantine was not associated with the frequency of these events. There were 182 dose modifications (excluding study-prescribed dose escalation and washout), of which 101 occurred in the memantine arm and 81 in the placebo arm. There were no differences in the frequency of or reasons for dose modifications between the two groups with the exception of a small disparity in cases involving disorientation, agitation, insomnia, lightheadedness, photosensitivity and tremors which were observed exclusively among 12 subjects receiving memantine.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Memantine was safe and relatively well tolerated by the cohort of HIV infected individuals with cognitive impairment enrolled in this clinical trial. Its better toxicity profile when compared to other NMDA receptor antagonists such as eliprodil and CNS 1102 likely reflects its ability to effectively block neurotoxic levels of glutamate agonists with relative sparing of neurotransmission [17].

Based on the primary neuropsychological outcome measure, the NPZ-8, we found no significant difference between the memantine and the placebo arms. The study was powered to detect a 17% difference between the two arms at week 16, which was considered clinically meaningful based on the variability of the neuropsychological measures observed in two previous AACTG trials for ADC [37,45]. While the mean difference in neuropsychological improvement was substantially higher in the memantine arm versus the placebo arm (43%) the median difference was only 4%. This large variability in the NPZ-8 was observed particularly among mildly impaired subjects (ADC stage 1). Such variability may have reflected a number of factors, including differences in demographics or disease-related indices, or the heterogeneity of the disorder among mildly impaired subjects.

Since there were no differences in the demographics or in the virological and immunological indices between the memantine and placebo arms (Table 1), we performed additional analyses that could explain the NPZ-8 variability. These analyses showed that more subjects with detectable CSF HIV RNA at baseline experienced ADC worsening over the course of the study compared to those with undetectable CSF levels at baseline, yielding a 30% annualized risk of cognitive decline in such individuals.

When comparing memantine to placebo-treated subjects with baseline detectable CSF HIV RNA, the rate of cognitive worsening tended to be greater in the placebo arm. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, given the small number of subjects included in this analysis, they raise the possibility that to observe a benefit from a neuroprotective agent, especially in a short trial, subjects with progressive decline need to be enrolled. This is consistent with a recent proposal to reclassify the phenotype of ADC into sub-acute (classical ADC), inactive and active ADC [49]. Alternatively, when combined with the virological data, these findings could argue that optimization of antiretroviral regimens to include CNS penetrating agents (e.g. ZDV, indinavir, abacavir, lamivudine, efavirenz, nevirapine, stavudine) could be considered as a first step in treating HIV subjects with cognitive impairment [50].

In the washout period there was a trend toward improvement at week 20 which reached significance in the LOCF analysis. The latter result may have reflected either the observations carried forward from weeks 8 or 16, or recovery from memantine-associated toxicity. Fewer memantine-treated subjects were able to tolerate the maximum dose compared to placebo, but there were no significant differences in grade 2 or higher toxicity between the two groups. Alternatively, the possible response may have been due to a delayed effect of treatment, arguing for studies of longer duration (24 weeks) as found in recent trials of Alzheimer's disease [21,22]. Consistent with the latter observation is the drug's known long half-life coupled with the expected prolonged effect of a neuroprotective agent [17].

We recently showed that decreases in NAA, a marker of neuronal metabolism, including axonal transport in the white matter, may provide a critical step in the pathogenesis of ADC [7,35]. Although the effects were modest, our results complement in vitro studies that have demonstrated that memantine can prevent HIV-associated neuronal injury and suggest that memantine may restore or stabilize neuronal metabolism.

Several conclusions can be drawn from this study. Memantine was safe and relatively well tolerated by patients with HIV-associated cognitive impairment; however, no significant cognitive benefit was observed in the 16 weeks of treatment. Although there was no significant cognitive benefit, proton MRS data suggested that memantine may have a neuroprotective effect. The results of this study emphasize that efficacy clinical trials aimed at neuroprotection for HIV-associated cognitive impairment need to identify subjects at higher risk of cognitive decline (i.e. subjects with detectable CSF HIV RNA despite optimal HAART) and significantly increase the study duration to differentially assess the effect of the putative neuroprotective agent from that of placebo.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The authors thank D. Rausch for generous NIMH support for the ACTG 301 study, A.C. Perkins for administrative assistance, H.J. Moebius, Merz Pharmaceuticals and S. Chen, CNS Medical Affairs, Forest Laboratories. The authors thank Michelle D. Gaugh and Patricia L. Lee for her assistance with manuscript preparation and editing.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Participating Members and Sites

Team Members

AACTG Operations Office: Stacy A. Bradley. CCG Representatives: Michael Donnelly, James Weihe. Emory University Hospital: Angela Caliendo. San Francisco General Hospital: Richard Price. Stanford University Medical Center: Terrence F. Blaschke. NIAID, DAIDS: Ana I. Martinez, Marjorie Dehlinger. NIH, NIMH, DSIR: Benedetto Vitiello. Neurobiological Technology Inc: Lisa Carr.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Partcipating sites

Beth Israel Medical Center (NY): Daniel MacGowan, Donna Mildvan. Harbor-UCLA: Gildon Beall, Mario Guerrero, Jorge Jovicich, Oliver Speck, Mallory Witt. Harvard/Massachusetts General Hospital ACTU: Igor Koralinik, Carol Delaney, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Sandford Auerback, Boston Medical Center; Nagagopal Venna, Gilbert Roy, Jr. Teri Flynn, Massachusetts General Hospital. Harvard School of Public Health: Marc Vallée, Natasa Rajicic. Mount Sinai Medical Center: Garnett Simpson, Pieter Gerits. Northwestern University Medical Center: Bruce Cohen, Catherine Cooper. Rush Medical College, Cook County Hospital: David Barker, Russell Bartt. State University of New York at Buffalo: Ross G. Hewiit, Holly Ingelfinger-Lopez. University of California at Los Angeles: Suzette A. Chafey. University of California at San Diego: Ron Snyder, Jill Kunkel, Julie Rippeth. University of Hawaii: Debbie Ogata-Arakaki, Nancy Hanks, Scott Souza, Queen's Medical Center. University of Kentucky: Richard Greenberg. University of Miami: Karl Goodkin, Margaret Fischl. University of Nebraska Medical Center: Susan Swindells, Howard E. Gendelman. University of Pennsylvania Medical Center: Robert Lenkinski. University of Rochester:Richard Reichman, Jianhui Zhong, Mary Shoemaker. University of Texas Medical Center, Galveston: Robert R. McKendall, Leena Ketonen, Richard B. Pollard, Michael Borucki, Karen Waterman, Gloria Carrera. University of Washington: Margot Schwartz, N. Jeanne Conley, Ann C. Collier, Washington University: David B. Clifford, Lisa Kessels, Mary Gould.

Sponsorship: The MRS consortium is supported by R01NS36524. Support was also provided from R01NS34626, R01RR13213, R01NS38834, AI-38855, The University of Rochester CRC 5MO1 RR00044 and the NIAID from AI38858 and AI03855.

Normative data were collected by the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) with centers (Principal Investigators) at The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health (Joseph B. Margolick, Alvaro Muñoz), Howard Brown Health Center and Northwestern University Medical School (John Phair), University of California, Los Angeles (Roger Detels, Beth Jamieson), and University of Pittsburgh (Charles Rinaldo, PhD). The MACS is funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, with additional supplemental funding from the National Cancer Institute. UO1-AI-35042, 5-MO1-RR-00722 (GCRC), UO1-AI-35043,UO1-AI-37984, UO1-AI-35039, UO1-AI-35040, UO1-AI-37613, UO1-AI-35041.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Hammer SM, Squires KE, Hughes MD, Grimes JM, Demeter LM, Currier JS, et al. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:725–733.
2. Brodt HR, Kamps BS, Gute P, Knupp B, Staszewski S, Helm EB. Changing incidence of AIDS-defining illnesses in the era of antiretroviral combination therapy. AIDS 1997; 11:1731–1738.
3. Palella FJ Jr, Delaney KM, Moorman AC, Loveless MO, Fuhrer J, Satten GA, et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:853–860.
4. Ferrando S, van GW, McElhiney M, Goggin K, Sewell M, Rabkin J. Highly active antiretroviral treatment in HIV infection: benefits for neuropsychological function. AIDS 1998; 12:F65–F70.
5. Sacktor N. The epidemiology of human immunodeficiency virus-associated neurological disease in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Neurovirol 2002; 8(Suppl 2):115–121.
6. Robertson KR, Robertson WT, Ford S, Watson D, Fiscus S, Harp AG, et al. Highly active antiretroviral therapy improves neurocognitive functioning. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 36:562–566.
7. Chang L, Lee PL, Yiannoutsos CT, Ernst T, Marra CM, Richards T, et al. A multicenter in vivo proton-MRS study of HIV-associated dementia and its relationship to age. Neuroimage 2004; 23:1336–1347.
8. Dore GJ, Correll PK, Li Y, Kaldor JM, Cooper DA, Brew BJ. Changes to AIDS dementia complex in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 1999; 13:1249–1253.
9. Sacktor N, McDermott MP, Marder K, Schifitto G, Selnes OA, McArthur JC, et al. HIV-associated cognitive impairment before and after the advent of combination therapy. J NeuroVirol 2002; 8:136–142.
10. Neuenburg JK, Brodt HR, Herndier BG, Bickel M, Bacchetti P, Price RW, et al. HIV-related neuropathology, 1985 to 1999: rising prevalence of HIV encephalopathy in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 31:171–177.
11. Toggas SM, Masliah E, Mucke L. Prevention of HIV-1 gp120-induced neuronal damage in the central nervous system of transgenic mice by the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine. Brain Res 1996; 706:303–307.
12. Lipton SA. Memantine prevents HIV coat protein-induced neuronal injury in vitro. Neurology 1992; 42:1403–1405.
13. Nath A, Haughey NJ, Jones M, Anderson C, Bell JE, Geiger JD. Synergistic neurotoxicity by Human Immunodeficiency Virus proteins Tat and gp120: protection by memantine. Ann Neurol 2000; 47:186–194.
14. Anderson ER, Gendelman HE, Xiong H. Memantine protects hippocampal neuronal function in murine human immunodeficiency virus type 1 encephalitis. J Neurosci 2004; 24:7194–7198.
15. Chen H-SV, Pellegrini JW, Aggarwal SK, Lei SZ, Warach S, Jensen FE, et al. Open-channel block of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) responses by memantine: therapeutic advantage against NMDA receptor-mediated neurotoxicity. J Neurosci 1992; 12:4427–4436.
16. Chen H-SV, Wang YF, Rayudu PV, Edgecomb P, Neill JC, Segal MM, et al. Neuroprotective concentrations of the N-methyl-D-aspartate open-channel blocker memantine are effective without cytoplasmic vacuolation following post-ischemic administration and do not block maze learning or long-term potentiation. Neuroscience 1998; 86:1121–1132.
17. Lipton SA. Paradigm shift in neuroprotection by NMDA receptor blockade: memantine and beyond. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5(2):160–170.
18. Fleischhacker WW, Buchgeher A, Schubert H. Memantine in the treatment of senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 1986; 10:87–93.
19. Winblad B, Poritis N. Memantine in severe dementia: results of the 9M-Best Study (Benefit and efficacy in severely demented patients during treatment with memantine). Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 14:135–146.
20. Rabey JM, Nissipeanu P, Korczyn AD. Efficacy of memantine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. J Neural Transm Park Dis Dement Sect 1992; 4:277–282.
21. Reisberg B, Doody R, Stoffler A, Schmitt F, Ferris S, Mobius HJ, et al. Memantine in moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:1333–1341.
22. Tariot PN, Farlow MR, Grossberg GT, Graham SM, McDonald S, Gergel I. Memantine treatment in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer disease already receiving donepezil: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004; 291:317–324.
23. Meyerhoff DJ, MacKay S, Bachman L, Poole N, Dillon WP, Weiner MW, et al. Reduced brain N-acetylaspartate suggests neuronal loss in cognitively impaired Human Immunodeficiency Virus-seropositive individuals: In vivo 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging. Neurology 1993; 43:509–515.
24. Chong WK, Paley M, Wilkinson ID, Hall-Craggs MA, Sweeney B, Harrison MJ, et al. Localized cerebral proton MR spectroscopy in HIV infection and AIDS. Am J Neuroradiol 1994; 15:21–25.
25. Meyerhoff DJ, MacKay S, Poole N, Dillon WP, Weiner MW, Fein G. N-acetylaspartate reductions measured by 1H MRSI in cognitively impaired HIV-seropositive individuals. Magn Reson Imaging 1994; 12:653–659.
26. Barker PB, Lee RR, McArthur JC. AIDS dementia complex: evaluation with proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1995; 195:58–64.
27. Jarvik JG, Lenkinski RE, Saykin AJ, Jaans A, Frank I. Proton spectroscopy in asymptomatic HIV-infected adults: initial results in a prospective cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1996; 13:247–253.
28. Tracey I, Carr CA, Guimaraes AR, Worth JL, Navia BA, Gonzalez RG. Brain choline-containing compounds are elevated in HIV-positive patients before the onset of AIDS dementia complex: A proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic study. Neurology 1996; 46:783–788.
29. Lopez-Villegas D, Lenkinski RE, Frank I. Biochemical changes in the frontal lobe of HIV-infected individuals detected by magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997; 94:9854–9859.
30. Salvan AM, Vion-Dury J, Confort-Gouny S, Nicoli F, Lamoureux S, Cozzone PJ. Brain proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in HIV-related encephalopathy: identification of evolving metabolic patterns in relation to dementia and therapy. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1997; 13:1055–1066.
31. Meyerhoff DJ, Bloomer C, Cardenas V, Norman D, Weiner MW, Fein G. Elevated subcortical choline metabolites in cognitively and clinically asymptomatic HIV+ patients. Neurology 1999; 52:995–1003.
32. Chang L, Ernst T, Leonido-Yee M, Walot I, Singer E. Cerebral metabolite abnormalities correlate with clinical severity of HIV-1 cognitive motor complex. Neurology 1999; 52:100–108.
33. Chang L, Ernst T, Leonido-Yee M, Witt M, Speck O, Walot I, et al. Highly active antiretroviral therapy reverses brain metabolite abnormalities in mild HIV dementia. Neurology 1999; 53:782–789.
34. Lee PL, Yiannoutsos CT, Ernst T, Chang L, Marra CM, Jarvik JG, et al. A multi-center 1H MRS study of the AIDS dementia complex: validation and preliminary analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003; 17:625–633.
35. Yiannoutsos CT, Ernst T, Chang L, Lee PL, Richards T, Marra CM, et al. Regional patterns of brain metabolites in AIDS dementia complex. Neuroimage 2004; 23:928–935.
36. Price RW, Sidtis JJ. Evaluation of the AIDS dementia complex in clinical trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1990; 3(Suppl 2):S51–S60.
37. Sidtis JJ, Gatsonis C, Price RW, Singer EJ, Collier AC, Richman DD, et al. Zidovudine treatment of the AIDS dementia complex: results of a placebo-controlled trial. AIDS Clinical Trials Group. Ann Neurol 1993; 33:343–349.
38. Tross S, Price RW, Navia B, Thaler HT, Gold J, Hirsch DA, et al. Neuropsychological characterization of the AIDS dementia complex: a preliminary report. AIDS 1988; 2:81–88.
39. Miller EN, Selnes OA, McArthur JC, Satz P, Becker JT, Cohen BA, et al. Neuropsychological performance in HIV-1-infected homosexual men: The Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS). Neurology 1990; 40:197–203.
40. Miller EN, Satz P, Visscher B. Computerized and conventional neuropsychological assessment of HIV-1 infected homosexual men. Neurology 1991; 41:1608–1616.
41. Heaton RK, Grant I, Butters N, White DA, Kirson D, Atkinson JH, et al. The HNRC 500-neuropsychology of HIV infection at different disease stages. HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 1995; 1:231–251.
42. Selnes OA, Jacobson L, Machado AM, Becker JT, Wesch J, Miller EN, et al. Normative data for a brief neuropsychological screening battery. Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. Percept Mot Skills 1991; 73:539–550.
43. Haase A, Frahm J, Hanicke W, Matthaei D. 1H NMR chemical shift selective (CHESS) imaging. Phys Med Biol 1985; 30:341–344.
44. Webb PG, Sailasuta N, Kohler SJ, Raidy T, Moats RA, Hurd RE. Automated single-voxel proton MRS: technical development and multisite verification. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31:365–373.
45. Navia BA, Dafni U, Simpson D, Tucker T, Singer E, McArthur JC, et al. A phase I/II trial of nimodipine for HIV-related neurologic complications. Neurology 1998; 51:221–228.
46. Price RW, Yiannoutsos CT, Clifford DB, Zaborski L, Tselis A, Sidtis JJ, et al. Neurological outcomes in late HIV infection: adverse impact of neurological impairment on survival and protective effect of antiviral therapy. AIDS Clinical Trial Group and Neurological AIDS Research Consortium study team. AIDS 1999; 13:1677–1685.
47. Liang K-Y, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73:13–22.
48. Cysique LAJ, Maruff PP, Brew BJM. Variable benefit in neuropsychological function in HIV-infected HAART-treated patients. Neurology 2006; 66:1447–1450.
49. McArthur JC, Haughey N, Gartner S, Conant K, Pardo C, Nath A, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus-associated dementia: an evolving disease. J Neurovirol 2003; 9:205–221.
50. De LA, Ciancio BC, Larussa D, Murri R, Cingolani A, Rizzo MG, et al. Correlates of independent HIV-1 replication in the CNS and of its control by antiretrovirals. Neurology 2002; 59:342–347.

HIV dementia; dementia; neuroprotection; neuroimaging; AIDS; HIV; memantine

© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.