did 35% on memantine vs 7.1% of controls rate very much improved in a 44-patient ocd study?
“So 35% of the MEMINTINE group were related is very much improved. Only 7.1% of control subjects were related is improved.”
a guest, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh said on Psychopharmacology and Psychiatry Updates, 2026-10-14, at 04:04. hear it in context → the speaker cited: a study at the OCD Institute.
the episode: Glutamatergic Augmentation in OCD (at 04:04). we link the show's own page; we do not re-host audio.
first, the part that holds
the study is real and the design matches the description: a single-blind case-control study of 44 patients with severe ocd in the mclean/massachusetts general hospital intensive residential treatment program, 22 of whom also got memantine. global improvement was measured on the clinical global impression scale, and every outcome we could read favored the memantine group.
what we found when we went and looked
we read the pubmed abstract of the 2010 journal of clinical psychopharmacology paper (pmid 20075645) and two systematic reviews that summarize it. the abstract confirms 44 subjects, 22 on memantine, raters blinded to augmentation status, and a cgi outcome. it reports yale-brown (y-bocs) score drops of 27.0% for memantine vs 16.5% for controls. one review adds that 22.7% vs 4.5% had a 50% or larger drop in symptoms (p=0.04). none of the sources we could open reports the 35% vs 7.1% 'very much improved' cgi figures, and the full text is behind a paywall, so we could not check them. the arithmetic says those percentages can't be counts out of 22 patients per arm, so they must come from a smaller number of rated patients than the 44.
assertion by assertion
| assertion | verdict | what the record says |
|---|---|---|
| the study was single-blind and enrolled 44 patients in a residential program | confirmed | the abstract describes 44 subjects receiving standard treatment at the mclean/mgh intensive residential treatment program, 22 of whom also got memantine. outcomes were 'collected by raters blinded to augmentation status'. it was not randomized: controls were matched on sex, starting ocd severity, functioning and admission timing. [1][2] |
| 35% of memantine-treated patients were rated very much improved on the cgi | unverifiable | the abstract says the cgi 'captured global clinical change' but gives no cgi percentages, and neither review reports them. 35% is not a whole-number fraction of 22 (7/22 = 31.8%, 8/22 = 36.4%), so if the paper reports it, it was measured on fewer than 22 cases. we could not open the full text. [1][2][3] |
| 7.1% of controls were rated very much improved on the cgi | unverifiable | not reported in the abstract or in either review we read. 7.1% cannot be a count out of 22 controls (1/22 = 4.5%, 2/22 = 9.1%). it matches 1 of 14, which points to a smaller group of rated controls than the 44-patient total implies. [1][2][3] |
| the study came from the ocd institute | confirmed | the abstract names the setting as the mclean/massachusetts general hospital intensive residential treatment program. it does not use the words 'ocd institute', so we are matching the speaker's name for the program to the abstract's description, not to an exact phrase. [1] |
| memantine augmentation outperformed controls on the study's main symptom measures | confirmed | y-bocs dropped 7.2 points (27.0%) with memantine vs 4.6 points (16.5%) without. 22.7% vs 4.5% had a 50% or larger drop (chi-squared 4.27, p=0.04). the authors call this 'preliminary supportive evidence' and ask for randomized double-blind trials. [1][2] |
both directions
for the speaker: the direction of the claim holds everywhere we looked. the memantine group improved more on y-bocs (27.0% vs 16.5%), on the 50%-drop responder measure (22.7% vs 4.5%, p=0.04) and, per one review, on depression scores. the setting, the 44-patient sample and the blinded raters all match what the speaker described. a 2026 systematic review still lists this study as supportive evidence.
against: the cgi figures quoted are not in any primary record we could read, and they can't be fractions of the 22 patients per arm. so they come from a smaller rated group, which a listener hearing 'a study of 44 patients' would not know. on the main measure the groups differed by 27.0% vs 16.5%, a much smaller gap than 35% vs 7.1% suggests. 'single-blind' here means only the raters were blinded: patients and treating clinicians knew who got memantine, controls were matched rather than randomized, and the authors themselves call the result preliminary.
what this cannot say
we could not read the full paper (it is behind a paywall), so the 35% and 7.1% figures may well be in a table or the results section we could not reach. the unverifiable verdict reflects our access, not proof the numbers are wrong. the reviews we read give secondhand summaries of the paper. the denominator reasoning is our own arithmetic, not a figure from the paper. one study with 22 treated patients and no randomization cannot by itself establish whether memantine works for ocd.
sources, each one fetched and read
- mclean/massachusetts general hospital research team, 'a single-blinded case-control study of memantine in severe obsessive-compulsive disorder', journal of clinical psychopharmacology, 2010, pmid 20075645, doi 10.1097/JCP.0b013e3181c856de (pubmed abstract) What we read there: 44 subjects receiving standard treatment at the mclean/massachusetts general hospital intensive residential treatment (irt) program, 22 of whom also received memantine augmentation; raters were blinded to augmentation status; yale-brown scores fell 27.0% among cases vs 16.5% among controls; no cgi percentages are given in the abstract. Fetched 2026-10-16 (HTTP 203). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20075645/
- 'clinical effectiveness of n-methyl-d-aspartate (nmda) receptor antagonists in adult obsessive-compulsive disorder (ocd) treatment: a systematic review', cureus, 2023, 15(4):e37833 What we read there: y-bocs fell 7.2 points (27%) with memantine vs 4.6 (16.5%) for controls; case group responders were more likely to have a 50% ocd severity decrease (22.7% vs 4.5%, chi-squared = 4.27, p = 0.04). Fetched 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10198239/
- 'memantine for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and narrative synthesis', bmc psychiatry, 2026 What we read there: single-blind case-control study, 44 patients with severe ocd in intensive residential treatment, memantine 5 mg/day titrated to 18 mg/day; greater ocd symptom improvement (27% vs 16.5%) and depression reduction vs controls; summarized as 'supportive but rcts needed'; no cgi percentages given. Fetched 2026-10-16 (HTTP 200). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12882437/
speakers are described by role, not named. one sentence is quoted under fair use, with attribution and a link to the original at the timestamp; we do not re-host audio or video. nothing on this page is a reason to start, stop or change a medication. if you have the file behind anything marked unverifiable, the research board is where people can answer. adam