Haemorheological pattern in initial mental deterioration: results of a long-term study using piracetam and pentoxifylline. A controlled trial of piracetam in intellectually impaired patients with Parkinson's disease. [The effect of piracetam on involuntary movements in Huntington's disease. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study]. Piracetam in elderly psychiatric patients with mild diffuse cerebral impairment. Piracetam in elderly motorists. Piracetam in chronic brain failure. On the efficacy of piracetam in geriatric patients with acute cerebral ischemia: a clinically controlled double-blind study. Long-term and high-dose piracetam treatment of Alzheimer's disease. [The significance of quantified EEG in Alzheimer's disease. Changes induced by piracetam].
A group of 80 elderly subjects affected with recent onset (less than 6 mth) slight to moderate mental deterioration was observed before and after oral drug treatment for a period of 28 wk. The study consisted of four randomized groups of subjects homogeneous for age, sex and life habits. The first group received a placebo, the second group received piracetam (1600 mg 3 times a day), the third group received pentoxifylline (400 mg 3 times a day), and the fourth group received a combination of piracetam and pentoxifylline. At the beginning and end of each phase of the study, neuropsychological and haemorheological parameters were evaluated in all subjects. The results show that the most evident improvement in psycho-intellectual performance, associated with an increase of whole blood filtration values, was obtained in the group treated with the two-drug combination. Twenty patients with Parkinson's disease and marked intellectual impairment or dementia participated in a double-blind placebo controlled trial of the nootropic, piracetam. A standardized neurological examination, a neuropsychological test battery, and a functional scale, The Sickness Impact Profile, were completed for all patients. They were then assigned by blind randomization to drug or placebo conditions receiving 3.2 g of piracetam or an identical amount of placebo for 12 weeks. The dose was increased to 4.8 g for an additional 12 weeks. Neurological, psychological, and functional measures were rated as improved, unchanged, or worsened in comparison to baseline performance. Twenty-five percent of the patients did not complete the trial for reasons unrelated to the medication. Although there was a significant improvement on one subtest of the functional scale, no significant effects were demonstrated in cognitive or neurological measures. Piracetam and its derivatives, a group of "nootropic" drugs thought to act as metabolic enhancers in the brain, have been widely used to treat a variety of cognitive disorders. Two studies have reported that this compound reduces the severity of involuntary movements in acute onset hemichorea. We therefore randomly assigned 11 patients with Huntington's disease to receive high doses of intravenous piracetam (12 g in 250 ml of saline) or placebo on different days. A blinded observer then rated the severity of involuntary movements over a period of 4 hours. Significant aggravation (p < 0.05) of chorea was seen in patients taking piracetam, in comparison with ratings for both baseline and placebo, 4 hours after administration but not during earlier assessments. Although the mechanism causing this effect is unidentified, we believe that our findings indicate that piracetam should not be used to treat the cognitive disorders accompanying Huntington's disease. In a 12-week double-blind study, piracetam at two dose levels (2.4 and 4.8 g/day) was compared to placebo in the treatment of 60 elderly psychiatric patients with mild diffuse cerebral impairment, but no signs of focal brain lesion. The psychiatric illness, schizophrenia or affective disorder, of patients selected was in remission at the time of the study. Monthly evaluations by the nurse revealed that piracetam improved overall functioning, particularly alertness, socialization, and cooperation, relative to the control group. Patients treated with 2.4 g/day piracetam also showed significant improvement in scores for the full IQ and the memory quotient on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence and Memory Scales; greater response was seen in those with lower initial scores. Piracetam at 4.8 g/day had a more rapid onset of action on behavioral variables than 2.4 g/day, but its therapeutic effect tended to diminish at 12 weeks, possibly as the result of overstimulation. Piracetam did not appear to interfere with concomitant psychotropic maintenance medication or affect the psychiatric illness itself. 101 elderly motorists with reduced reaction capacity were examined under real traffic conditions with regard to their driving ability. They were given a daily dose of 4.8 g piracetam or placebo over a six-week period in a randomised double-blind study. The percentage of correctly solved sign-observance items, which reflects orientation and perception in real traffic conditions, increased in the placebo-treated test-group from 79.86% in the pretest to 80.07% in the retest, whereas the test subjects of the piracetam-treated group improved their performance from 77.08% to 84.16%. After being treated with piracetam for 6 weeks, the drivers showed a significantly better performance than the placebo-group. Of particular interest is the finding that the test-subjects who had scored less than 80% in the pretest improved without exception in the retest after treatment with piracetam. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was carried out on 109 aged patients with minimal or with moderate chronic brain failure to assess the effectiveness of piracetam (2.4 g per day) in preventing the progression of dementia. Patients received piracetam or placebo each for 6 weeks, the order of treatment being at random. The results of 19 psychological tests, repeated at 6-weekly intervals, showed that piracetam produced statistically significant improvement in only one of them and then only during the first 6 weeks of treatment. These findings, therefore, do not support the usefulness of piracetam in the treatment of such patients. Using a randomized, double blind group comparison, the efficacy and tolerance of piracetam as an additional therapy of hydroxyethyl starch, venous infusion and low dose heparin treatment, which are the basis of therapy in our hospital, has been studied in patients displaying acute cerebral ischemia. A total of 56 patients were enrolled, of whom 27 were given piracetam and 29 served as a control during a 28-day period. Using single photon emission computer tomography (SPECT) analysis, we observed that in 23 piracetam-treated patients (85.2%) a reduction in the area of brain regions displaying an impaired flow rate occurred (P < 0.001; Fisher's exact two-sided test). Only six of placebo-treated patients (20.7%) showed an improved flow rate. Analysis of the recorded computer tomography map gave an improvement coefficient >2 (flow rate marginally or better improved) for 23 piracetam patients as compared with 5 placebo patients (P < 0.001, Uleman test). Preclinical research suggests that piracetam (a nootropic drug) may improve cognitive functions, but previous studies have failed to demonstrate a clear benefit for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We report a 1-year, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study with a high dose of piracetam (8 g/d per os) in 33 ambulant patients with early probable AD. Thirty subjects completed the 1-year study. No improvement occurred in either group, but our results support the hypothesis that long-term administration of high doses of piracetam might slow the progression of cognitive deterioration in patients with AD. The most significant differences concerned the recall of pictures series and recent incident and remote memory. The drug was well-tolerated. One study was performed in 12 patients with presenile Alzheimer's disease (group I), the other one in 16 patients with mild senile dementia of Alzheimer type (group II). In each study, patients were divided into two randomized parallel groups, one receiving placebo, the other piracetam (9 g daily in group I piracetam and 2.4 g daily in group II piracetam) during three months, piracetam induced a decrease in EEG power on the 2-6 Hz range (group I piracetam), 3-5 Hz and 7 Hz (group II piracetam) and an increase of EEG power in the 9-11 Hz range (group I piracetam) and in the 10 Hz and 13 Hz frequencies (group II piracetam). There was also a significant improvement in the Trail Making Test part A in group II piracetam. Correlations between decreased EEG low frequency components and improvement in some psychometric tests were found significant in the two groups. It seems that the main effect of piracetam was to induce increased alertness. The same results were found in both studies; the good reproducibility suggests that EEG spectral analysis is a reliable tool in the assessment of psychotropic drug effects.
There is some suggestion (but no statistically significant result) of an unfavourable effect of piracetam on early death, but this may have been caused by baseline differences in stroke severity in the trials. There is not enough evidence to assess the effect of piracetam on dependence.