Agitation is common, persistent, and associated with adverse consequences for patients with Alzheimer disease. Pharmacological treatment options, including antipsychotics are not satisfactory.
The ...primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy of citalopram for agitation in patients with Alzheimer disease. Key secondary objectives examined effects of citalopram on function, caregiver distress, safety, cognitive safety, and tolerability.
The Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer Disease Study (CitAD) was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial that enrolled 186 patients with probable Alzheimer disease and clinically significant agitation from 8 academic centers in the United States and Canada from August 2009 to January 2013.
Participants (n = 186) were randomized to receive a psychosocial intervention plus either citalopram (n = 94) or placebo (n = 92) for 9 weeks. Dosage began at 10 mg per day with planned titration to 30 mg per day over 3 weeks based on response and tolerability.
Primary outcome measures were based on scores from the 18-point Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A) and the modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC). Other outcomes were based on scores from the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), ability to complete activities of daily living (ADLs), caregiver distress, cognitive safety (based on scores from the 30-point Mini Mental State Examination MMSE), and adverse events.
Participants who received citalopram showed significant improvement compared with those who received placebo on both primary outcome measures. The NBRS-A estimated treatment difference at week 9 (citalopram minus placebo) was -0.93 (95% CI, -1.80 to -0.06), P = .04. Results from the mADCS-CGIC showed 40% of citalopram participants having moderate or marked improvement from baseline compared with 26% of placebo recipients, with estimated treatment effect (odds ratio OR of being at or better than a given CGIC category) of 2.13 (95% CI, 1.23-3.69), P = .01. Participants who received citalopram showed significant improvement on the CMAI, total NPI, and caregiver distress scores but not on the NPI agitation subscale, ADLs, or in less use of rescue lorazepam. Worsening of cognition (-1.05 points; 95% CI, -1.97 to -0.13; P = .03) and QT interval prolongation (18.1 ms; 95% CI, 6.1-30.1; P = .01) were seen in the citalopram group.
Among patients with probable Alzheimer disease and agitation who were receiving psychosocial intervention, the addition of citalopram compared with placebo significantly reduced agitation and caregiver distress; however, cognitive and cardiac adverse effects of citalopram may limit its practical application at the dosage of 30 mg per day.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00898807.
Vitamin D supplementation may prevent falls in older persons, but evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of dosage differences.
To compare the effects of 4 doses of vitamin D
supplements on ...falls.
2-stage Bayesian, response-adaptive, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02166333).
2 community-based research units.
688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D 25-(OH)D level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L.
200 (control), 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU of vitamin D
per day. During the dose-finding stage, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 vitamin D
doses, and the best noncontrol dose for preventing falls was determined. After dose finding, participants previously assigned to receive noncontrol doses received the best dose, and new enrollees were randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d or the best dose.
Time to first fall or death over 2 years (primary outcome).
During the dose-finding stage, the primary outcome rates were higher for the 2000- and 4000-IU/d doses than for the 1000-IU/d dose, which was selected as the best dose (posterior probability of being best, 0.90). In the confirmatory stage, event rates were not significantly different between participants with experience receiving the best dose (events and observation time limited to the period they were receiving 1000 IU/d;
= 308) and those randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d (
= 339) (hazard ratio HR, 0.94 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15;
= 0.54). Analysis of falls with adverse outcomes suggested greater risk in the experience-with-best-dose group versus the 200-IU/d group (serious fall: HR, 1.87 CI, 1.03 to 3.41; fall with hospitalization: HR, 2.48 CI, 1.13 to 5.46).
The control group received 200 IU of vitamin D
per day, not a placebo. Dose finding ended before the prespecified thresholds for dose suspension and dose selection were reached.
In older persons with elevated fall risk and low serum 25-(OH)D levels, vitamin D
supplementation at doses of 1000 IU/d or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/d. Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D
doses of 1000 IU/d or higher.
National Institute on Aging.
In a recent crossover trial, methylphenidate treatment decreased apathy in Alzheimer's disease. We further assessed this finding in the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET).
Six-week, ...randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial enrolling Alzheimer's disease participants (NINCDS-ADRDA criteria) with apathy assigned to methylphenidate 20 mg daily or placebo, conducted from June 2010 to December 2011. Primary outcomes were change in Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) score and modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGI-C). Secondary outcomes included change in Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) apathy score, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score, and safety.
60 participants were randomly assigned (29 methylphenidate, 31 placebo). At baseline, mean (SD) age = 76 (8) years, MMSE score = 20 (5), AES score = 51 (12), NPI total score = 16 (8), and 62% of the participants (n = 37) were female. After 6 weeks' treatment, mean (SD) change in AES score was -1.9 (1.5) for methylphenidate and 0.6 (1.4) for placebo (P = .23). Odds ratio for improvement in ADCS-CGI-C was 3.7 (95% CI, 1.3 to 10.8) (P = .02), with 21% of methylphenidate versus 3% of placebo rated as moderately or markedly improved. NPI apathy score improvement was 1.8 points (95% CI, 0.3 to 3.4) greater on methylphenidate than on placebo (P = .02). MMSE trended toward improvement on methylphenidate (P = .06). There were trends toward greater anxiety and weight loss > 2% in the methylphenidate-treated group.
Methylphenidate treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease was associated with significant improvement in 2 of 3 efficacy outcomes and a trend toward improved global cognition with minimal adverse events, supporting the safety and efficacy of methylphenidate treatment for apathy in Alzheimer's disease.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01117181.
A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety communication in August 2011 warned that citalopram was associated with a dose dependent risk of QT prolongation and recommended dose restriction in ...patients over the age of 60 but did not provide data for this age group.
CitAD was a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Participants were assigned to citalopram (target dose of 30 mg/day) or placebo in a 1 ∶ 1 ratio. 186 people, 181 of whom were over the age of 60, having probable AD with clinically significant agitation were recruited from September 2009 to January 2013. After the FDA safety communication about citalopram, ECG was added to the required study procedures before enrollment and repeated at week 3 to monitor change in QTc interval. Forty-eight participants were enrolled after enhanced monitoring began.
Citalopram treatment was associated with a larger increase in QTc interval than placebo (difference in week 3 QTc adjusting for baseline QTc: 18.1 ms 95% CI: 6.1, 30.1; p = 0.004). More participants in the citalopram group had an increase ≥ 30 ms from baseline to week 3 (7 in citalopram versus 1 in placebo; Fisher's exact p = 0.046), but only slightly more in the citalopram group met a gender-specific threshold for prolonged QTc (450 ms for males; 470 ms for females) at any point during follow-up (3 in citalopram versus 1 in placebo, Fisher's exact p = 0.611). One of the citalopram participants who developed prolonged QTc also displayed ventricular bigeminy. No participants in either group had a cardiovascular-related death.
Citalopram at 30 mg/day was associated with improvement in agitation in patients with AD but was also associated with QT prolongation.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00898807.
Citalopram has been shown to improve agitation in patients with Alzheimer's disease. The authors evaluated whether other neuropsychiatric symptoms improve with citalopram treatment compared with ...placebo.
In this planned secondary analysis of the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease study, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram on the 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). They compared caregiver-reported NPI scores at week 9 in patients receiving citalopram (30 mg/day) or placebo with regard to both the presence or absence of individual neuropsychiatric symptoms and individual domain scores (reflecting severity) in participants who had symptoms at week 9.
At week 9, participants treated with citalopram were significantly less likely to be reported as showing delusions (odds ratio=0.40), anxiety (odds ratio=0.43), and irritability/lability (odds ratio=0.38). A comparison of median scores of participants with symptoms present at week 9 showed significant differences favoring citalopram for hallucinations and favoring placebo for sleep/nighttime behavior disorders.
While dosage constraints must be considered because of citalopram's adverse effect profile, this agent's overall therapeutic effects in patients with Alzheimer's disease and agitation, in addition to efficacy for agitation/aggression, included reductions in the frequency of irritability, anxiety, and delusions; among patients who had these symptoms at week 9, they included a reduction in the severity of hallucinations but an increase in the severity of sleep/nighttime behavior disorders.
Depression is common in Alzheimer disease (AD), and antidepressants are commonly used for its treatment, however, evidence for antidepressant efficacy in this population is lacking. The authors ...conducted a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial titled "Depression in Alzheimer's Disease-2" to assess the efficacy and tolerability of sertraline for depression in AD.
One hundred thirty-one participants from five U.S. medical centers with mild-to-moderate AD (Mini-Mental State Examination scores 10-26) and depression of AD were randomized to double-blinded treatment with sertraline (N = 67) or placebo (N = 64), with a target dosage of 100 mg daily. Efficacy was assessed using logistic regressions and mixed effects models in an intention-to-treat analysis with imputation of missing data. Principal outcome measures were modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC), change in Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) scores, and remission defined by both mADCS-CGIC score <or=2 and CSDD score <or=6.
mADCS-CGIC ratings (odd ratio OR = 1.01, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.52-1.97, p = 0.98), CSDD scores (median difference at 12 weeks 1.2, 95% CI: 1.65-4.05, p = 0.41), and remission at 12 weeks of follow-up (OR = 2.06, 95% CI: 0.84-5.04, p = 0.11) did not differ between sertraline (N = 67) and placebo (N = 64). Sertraline-treated patients experienced more adverse events, most notably gastrointestinal and respiratory, than placebo-treated patients.
Sertraline did not demonstrate efficacy for the treatment depression symptoms in patients with AD. In addition, its use was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Thus, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors may be of limited value for treating depression in patients with AD.
To evaluate whether the progression of individual motor features was influenced by early deep brain stimulation (DBS), a post hoc analysis of Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-III (UPDRS-III) ...score (after a 7-day washout) was conducted from the 2-year DBS in early Parkinson disease (PD) pilot trial dataset.
The prospective pilot trial enrolled patients with PD aged 50-75 years, treated with PD medications for 6 months-4 years, and no history of dyskinesia or other motor fluctuations, who were randomized to receive optimal drug therapy (ODT) or DBS plus ODT (DBS + ODT). At baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, all patients stopped all PD therapy for 1 week (medication and stimulation, if applicable). UPDRS-III "off" item scores were compared between the ODT and DBS + ODT groups (n = 28); items with significant between-group differences were analyzed further.
UPDRS-III "off" rest tremor score change from baseline to 24 months was worse in patients receiving ODT vs DBS + ODT (
= 0.002). Rest tremor slopes from baseline to 24 months favored DBS + ODT both "off" and "on" therapy (
< 0.001,
= 0.003, respectively). More ODT patients developed new rest tremor in previously unaffected limbs than those receiving DBS + ODT (
= 0.001).
These results suggest the possibility that DBS in early PD may slow rest tremor progression. Future investigation in a larger cohort is needed, and these findings will be tested in the Food and Drug Administration-approved, phase III, pivotal, multicenter clinical trial evaluating DBS in early PD.
This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with early PD, DBS may slow the progression of rest tremor.
Several lines of evidence suggest that inflammatory mechanisms may be involved in the severity and progression of depression. One pathway implicated is the production of prostaglandins via the enzyme ...cyclooxygenase (COX). Although late-life depression in particular has been associated with inflammation, we know of no published studies using COX inhibitors, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in the treatment of depressive syndromes in this population.
To evaluate the effect of the NSAIDs celecoxib and naproxen on depressive symptoms in older adults.
The Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial conducted at six U.S. memory clinics. Cognitively normal volunteers age 70 and older with a family history of Alzheimer-like dementia were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib 200 mg twice daily, naproxen sodium 220 mg twice daily, or placebo. The 30-item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) was administered to all participants at enrollment and at yearly follow-up visits. Participants with a GDS score greater than 5 at baseline were classified as depressed.
Of 2,528 participants enrolled, 2,312 returned for at least one follow-up visit. Approximately one-fifth had significant depressive symptoms at baseline. Mean GDS score, and the percentage with significant depressive symptoms, remained similar over time across all three treatment groups. Furthermore, there was no treatment effect on GDS scores over time in the subgroup of participants with significant depressive symptoms at baseline. In longitudinal analysis using generalized estimating equations (GEE) regression, higher baseline GDS scores, a prior psychiatric history, older age, time in the study, and lower cognition interacting with time, but not treatment assignment, were associated with significantly higher GDS scores over time.
Treatment with celecoxib or naproxen did not improve depressive symptoms over time compared with placebo. While inflammation has been implicated in late-life depression, these results do not support the hypothesis that inhibition of the COX pathway with these NSAIDs at these doses alleviates depressive symptoms in older adults.
Depression and antidepressant use are common in Alzheimer disease (AD), but the effect of antidepressant treatment for depression on longer term outcomes is unknown. The authors report the Week-24 ...outcomes of patients who participated in a 12-week efficacy study of sertraline for depression of AD.
One hundred thirty-one participants (sertraline = 67, placebo = 64) with mild-moderate AD and depression participated in the study. Patients who showed improvement on the modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression-Change (mADCS-CGIC) after 12 weeks of randomized treatment with sertraline or placebo continued double-blinded treatment for an additional 12 weeks. Depression response and remission at 24 weeks were based on mADCS-CGIC score and change in Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score. Secondary outcome measures included time to remission, nonmood neuropsychiatric symptoms, global cognition, function, and quality of life.
One hundred seventeen (89.3%) participants completed all study assessments and 74 (56.5%; sertraline = 38, placebo = 36) completed all 24 weeks on randomized treatment. By 24 weeks, there were no between-group differences in depression response (sertraline = 44.8%, placebo = 35.9%; odds ratio 95% CI = 1.23 0.64-2.35), change in CSDD score (median difference = 0.6 95% CI: -2.26 to 3.46, chi2 df = 2 = 1.03), remission rates (sertraline = 32.8%, placebo = 21.8%; odds ratio 95% CI = 1.61 0.70-3.68), or secondary outcomes. Common selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-associated adverse events, specifically diarrhea, dizziness, and dry mouth, and pulmonary serious adverse events were more frequent in sertraline-randomized patients than in placebo subjects.
Sertraline treatment is not associated with delayed improvement between 12 and 24 weeks of treatment and may not be indicated for the treatment of depression of AD.
In a randomized crossover trial, each participant is randomized to a sequence of treatments and treatment effect is estimated based on within-individual difference because each participant serves as ...his/her own control. This feature makes the design and reporting of randomized crossover trials different from that of parallel trials. Our objective was to characterize phase 3 crossover trials with results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify issues and best practices for reporting.
We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 randomized crossover trials that provided results, registered at least one primary outcome, and included at least one link to a results publication in the record by August 6, 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and extracted information from each record into an electronic form developed and maintained in the Systematic Review Data Repository.
Of the 124 crossover trials analyzed, two thirds were a simple "Intervention A then B" or "Intervention B then A" (AB|BA) design. Most trials (78%, 97/124) provided enough information to understand the participant flow throughout the trial. Baseline characteristics were most often reported for all participants as a single group (52%, 65/124). Primary outcomes and adverse events were most commonly reported "per intervention" (85%, 105/124, and 80%, 99/124, respectively).
The registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials must account for the paired nature of the design. Our observations and recommendations informed the development of guidelines for good reporting practices in the registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials.
PDF
