Heterogeneity of Response to Methylphenidate in Apathetic Patients in the ADMET 2 Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial 2 (ADMET 2) found that methylphenidate was effective in treating apathy with a small-to-medium effect size but showed heterogeneity in response. We assessed clinical predictors of response to help determine individual likelihood of treatment benefit from methylphenidate. DESIGN: Univariate and multivariate analyses of 22 clinical predictors of response chosen a priori. SETTING: Data from the ADMET 2 randomized, placebo controlled multi-center clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Alzheimer's disease patients with clinically significant apathy. MEASUREMENTS: Apathy assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory apathy domain (NPI-A). RESULTS: In total, 177 participants (67% male, mean [SD] age 76.4 [7.9], mini-mental state examination 19.3 [4.8]) had 6-months follow up data. Six potential predictors met criteria for inclusion in multivariate modeling. Methylphenidate was more efficacious in participants without NPI anxiety (change in NPI-A -2.21, standard error [SE]:0.60) or agitation (-2.63, SE:0.68), prescribed cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) (-2.44, SE:0.62), between 52 and 72 years of age (-2.93, SE:1.05), had 73-80 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure (-2.43, SE: 1.03), and more functional impairment (-2.56, SE:1.16) as measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living scale. CONCLUSION: Individuals who were not anxious or agitated, younger, prescribed a ChEI, with optimal (73-80 mm Hg) diastolic blood pressure, or having more impaired function were more likely to benefit from methylphenidate compared to placebo. Clinicians may preferentially consider methylphenidate for apathetic AD participants already prescribed a ChEI and without baseline anxiety or agitation.

Efficacy of non-invasive brain stimulation on global cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have shown some promise in improving cognitive and neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and its prodromal stage, mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, data from clinical trials involving NIBS have shown inconsistent results. This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy of NIBS, specifically repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) compared to sham stimulation on global cognition and NPS in people with AD and MCI. METHOD: Multi-session randomized sham-controlled clinical trials were identified through MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Embase until June 2021. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) between the active and sham treatments were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Included studies reported outcome measures for global cognition and/or NPS. Heterogeneity, from different NIBS techniques, disease populations, or tests used to assess global cognition or NPS, was measured using chi-square and I2, and investigated using subgroup analyses. Possible effects of covariates were also investigated using meta-regressions. RESULT: The pooled meta-analyses included 19 studies measuring global cognition (Nactive=288, Nsham=264), and 9 studies investigating NPS (Nactive=165, Nsham=140). NIBS significantly improved global cognition (SMD=1.14; 95% CI=0.49,1.78; p = 0.001; I2 = 90.2%) and NPS (SMD=0.82; 95% CI=0.13, 1.50; p = 0.019; I2 = 86.1%) relative to sham stimulation in patients with AD and MCI. Subgroup analyses found these effects were restricted to rTMS but not tDCS, and to patients with AD but not MCI. Meta-regression showed that age was significantly associated with global cognition response (Nstudies=16, p = 0.020, I2 = 89.51%, R2 = 28.96%), with larger effects sizes in younger populations. All significant meta-analyses had large effect sizes (SMD ≥0.8), suggesting clinical utility of NIBS in the short term. There remained substantial heterogeneity across all subgroup analyses and meta-regressions (all I2 > 50%). Egger's tests showed no evidence of publication biases. CONCLUSION: rTMS improved global cognition and NPS in those with AD. Further studies in MCI and using tDCS will help to fully evaluate the specific NIBS techniques and populations most likely to benefit on global cognition and NPS measures. Additional research should investigate the long term clinical utility of NIBS in these populations.