Pharmacotherapies for sleep disturbances in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia, and are associated with significant carer distress, increased healthcare costs, and institutionalisation. Although non-drug interventions are recommended as the first-line approach to managing these problems, drug treatment is often sought and used. However, there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this clinically vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 19 February 2020, using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, rest-activity, and sundowning. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a drug with placebo, and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with dementia who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias, and results. We used the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect, and where possible, synthesised results using a fixed-effect model. Key outcomes to be included in our summary tables were chosen with the help of a panel of carers. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found nine eligible RCTs investigating: melatonin (5 studies, n = 222, five studies, but only two yielded data on our primary sleep outcomes suitable for meta-analysis), the sedative antidepressant trazodone (1 study, n = 30), the melatonin-receptor agonist ramelteon (1 study, n = 74, no peer-reviewed publication), and the orexin antagonists suvorexant and lemborexant (2 studies, n = 323). Participants in the trazodone study and most participants in the melatonin studies had moderate-to-severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD); those in the ramelteon study and the orexin antagonist studies had mild-to-moderate AD. Participants had a variety of common sleep problems at baseline. Primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy or polysomnography. In one study, melatonin treatment was combined with light therapy. Only four studies systematically assessed adverse effects. Overall, we considered the studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that melatonin doses up to 10 mg may have little or no effect on any major sleep outcome over eight to 10 weeks in people with AD and sleep disturbances. We could synthesise data for two of our primary sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (TNST) (MD 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59; 2 studies, n = 184), and the ratio of day-time to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03; 2 studies; n = 184). From single studies, we found no evidence of an effect of melatonin on sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset, number of night-time awakenings, or mean duration of sleep bouts. There were no serious adverse effects of melatonin reported. We found low-certainty evidence that trazodone 50 mg for two weeks may improve TNST (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0; 1 study, n = 30), and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53%, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1; 1 study, n = 30) in people with moderate-to-severe AD. The effect on time awake after sleep onset was uncertain due to very serious imprecision (MD -20.41 minutes, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6; 1 study, n = 30). There may be little or no effect on number of night-time awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8; 1 study, n = 30) or time asleep in the day (MD 5.12 minutes, 95% CI -28.2 to 38.4). There were no serious adverse effects of trazodone reported. The small (n = 74), phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg was reported only in summary form on the sponsor's website. We considered the certainty of the evidence to be low. There was no evidence of any important effect of ramelteon on any nocturnal sleep outcomes. There were no serious adverse effects. We found moderate-certainty evidence that an orexin antagonist taken for four weeks by people with mild-to-moderate AD probably increases TNST (MD 28.2 minutes, 95% CI 11.1 to 45.3; 1 study, n = 274) and decreases time awake after sleep onset (MD -15.7 minutes, 95% CI -28.1 to -3.3: 1 study, n = 274) but has little or no effect on number of awakenings (MD 0.0, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.5; 1 study, n = 274). It may be associated with a small increase in sleep efficiency (MD 4.26%, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.26; 2 studies, n = 312), has no clear effect on sleep latency (MD -12.1 minutes, 95% CI -25.9 to 1.7; 1 study, n = 274), and may have little or no effect on the mean duration of sleep bouts (MD -2.42 minutes, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.7; 1 study, n = 38). Adverse events were probably no more common among participants taking orexin antagonists than those taking placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.99; 2 studies, n = 323). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to guide decisions about drug treatment of sleep problems in dementia. In particular, we found no RCTs of many widely prescribed drugs, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks for these common treatments. We found no evidence for beneficial effects of melatonin (up to 10 mg) or a melatonin receptor agonist. There was evidence of some beneficial effects on sleep outcomes from trazodone and orexin antagonists and no evidence of harmful effects in these small trials, although larger trials in a broader range of participants are needed to allow more definitive conclusions to be reached. Systematic assessment of adverse effects in future trials is essential.

Aromatherapy for dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological symptoms, or behaviour that challenges) which are also often the most distressing aspect of the disorder for caregivers. Complementary therapies, including aromatherapy, are attractive to patients, practitioners and families, because they are perceived as being unlikely to cause adverse effects. Therefore there is interest in whether aromatherapy might offer a safe means of alleviating distressed behaviours in dementia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 5 May 2020 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. In addition, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thompson Web of Science), LILACS (via BIREME), CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) on 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies, involving other authors to reach consensus decisions where necessary. We did not perform any meta-analyses because of heterogeneity between studies, but presented a narrative synthesis of results from the included trials. Because of the heterogeneity of analysis methods and inadequate or absent reporting of data from some trials, we used statistical significance (P ≤ or > 0.5) as a summary metric when synthesising results across studies. As far as possible, we used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the results of the trials, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were lavender (eight studies); lemon balm (four studies); lavender and lemon balm, lavender and orange, and cedar extracts (one study each). For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66), reducing our confidence in the results. Our primary outcomes were agitation, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms, and adverse effects. Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the five trials for which our confidence in the results was moderate or low, four trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other five trials either reported no useable data or our confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and we had moderate or low confidence in the results of five of them. Of these, four reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect. Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. We did not find evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. Our confidence in the results of these studies was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. Supplementation of the diet with various vitamins and minerals has been suggested as a means of maintaining cognitive function, or even of preventing dementia, in later life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function in cognitively healthy people aged 40 years or more. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP from inception to 26th January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the cognitive effects on people aged 40 years or more of any vitamin or mineral supplements taken by mouth for at least three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were done in duplicate. Vitamins were considered broadly in the categories of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and combinations of both. Minerals were considered separately, where possible. If interventions and outcomes were considered sufficiently similar, then data were pooled. In order to separate short-term cognitive effects from possible longer-term effects on the trajectory of cognitive decline, data were pooled for various treatment durations from 3 months to 12 months and up to 10 years or more. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 28 studies with more than 83,000 participants. There were some general limitations of the evidence. Most participants were enrolled in studies which were not designed primarily to assess cognition. These studies often had no baseline cognitive assessment and used only brief cognitive assessments at follow-up. Very few studies assessed the incidence of dementia. Most study reports did not mention adverse events or made only very general statements about them. Only 10 studies had a mean follow-up > 5 years. Only two studies had participants whose mean age was < 60 years at baseline. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low, other than a risk of attrition bias for longer-term outcomes. We considered the certainty of the evidence behind almost all results to be moderate or low.We included 14 studies with 27,882 participants which compared folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, or a combination of these to placebo. The majority of participants were aged over 60 years and had a history of cardio- or cerebrovascular disease. We found that giving B vitamin supplements to cognitively healthy adults, mainly in their 60s and 70s, probably has little or no effect on global cognitive function at any time point up to 5 years (SMD values from -0.03 to 0.06) and may also have no effect at 5-10 years (SMD -0.01). There were very sparse data on adverse effects or on incidence of cognitive impairment or dementia.We included 8 studies with 47,840 participants in which the active intervention was one or more of the antioxidant vitamins: ß-carotene, vitamin C or vitamin E. Results were mixed. For overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of benefit associated with ß-carotene after a mean of 18 years of treatment (MD 0.18 TICS points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35) and of vitamin C after 5 years to 10 years (MD 0.46 TICS points, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78), but not at earlier time points. From two studies which reported on dementia incidence, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of an antioxidant vitamin combination or of vitamin E, either alone or combined with selenium. One of the included studies had been designed to look for effects on the incidence of prostate cancer; it found a statistically significant increase in prostate cancer diagnoses among men taking vitamin E.One trial with 4143 participants compared vitamin D3 (400 IU/day) and calcium supplements to placebo. We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence of no effect of vitamin D3 and calcium supplements at any time-point up to 10 years on overall cognitive function (MD after a mean of 7.8 years -0.1 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.61) or the incidence of dementia (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24). A pilot study with 60 participants used a higher dose of vitamin D3 (4000 IU on alternate days) and found preliminary evidence that this dose probably has no effect on cognitive function over six months.We included data from one trial of zinc and copper supplementation with 1072 participants. There was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no effect on overall cognitive function (MD 0.6 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.39) or on the incidence of cognitive impairment after 5 years to 10 years. A second smaller trial provided no usable data, but reported no cognitive effects of six months of supplementation with zinc gluconate.From one study with 3711 participants, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of approximately five years of selenium supplementation on the incidence of dementia (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13).Finally, we included three trials of complex supplements (combinations of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals) with 6306 participants. From the one trial which assessed overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on the TICS (MD after a mean of 8.5 years 0.12, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that any vitamin or mineral supplementation strategy for cognitively healthy adults in mid or late life has a meaningful effect on cognitive decline or dementia, although the evidence does not permit definitive conclusions. There were very few data on supplementation starting in midlife (< 60 years); studies designed to assess cognitive outcomes tended to be too short to assess maintenance of cognitive function; longer studies often had other primary outcomes and used cognitive measures which may have lacked sensitivity. The only positive signals of effect came from studies of long-term supplementation with antioxidant vitamins. These may be the most promising for further research.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for preventing dementia or delaying cognitive decline in people with mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals have many functions in the nervous system which are important for brain health. It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. In this review, we sought to examine the evidence for this in people who already had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACs, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated orally administered vitamin or mineral supplements in participants with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and which assessed the incidence of dementia or cognitive outcomes, or both. We were interested in studies applicable to the general population of older people and therefore excluded studies in which participants had severe vitamin or mineral deficiencies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We sought data on our primary outcomes of dementia incidence and overall cognitive function and on secondary outcomes of episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, quality of life, functional performance, clinical global impression, adverse events, and mortality. We conducted data collection and analysis according to standard Cochrane systematic review methods. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We grouped vitamins and minerals according to their putative mechanism of action and, where we considered it to be clinically appropriate, we pooled data using random-effects methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with 879 participants which investigated B vitamin supplements. In four trials, the intervention was a combination of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid; in one, it was folic acid only. Doses varied. We considered there to be some risks of performance and attrition bias and of selective outcome reporting among these trials. Our primary efficacy outcomes were the incidence of dementia and scores on measures of overall cognitive function. None of the trials reported the incidence of dementia and the evidence on overall cognitive function was of very low-quality. There was probably little or no effect of B vitamins taken for six to 24 months on episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, or quality of life. The evidence on our other secondary clinical outcomes, including harms, was very sparse or very low-quality. There was evidence from one study that there may be a slower rate of brain atrophy over two years in participants taking B vitamins. The same study reported subgroup analyses based on the level of serum homocysteine (tHcy) at baseline and found evidence that B vitamins may improve episodic memory in those with tHcy above the median at baseline.We included one trial (n = 516) of vitamin E supplementation. Vitamin E was given as 1000 IU of alpha-tocopherol twice daily. We considered this trial to be at risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. There was probably no effect of vitamin E on the probability of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's dementia over three years (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; n = 516; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of an effect at intermediate time points. The available data did not allow us to conduct analyses, but the authors reported no significant effect of three years of supplementation with vitamin E on overall cognitive function, episodic memory, speed of processing, clinical global impression, functional performance, adverse events, or mortality (five deaths in each group). We considered this to be low-quality evidence.We included one trial (n = 256) of combined vitamin E and vitamin C supplementation and one trial (n = 26) of supplementation with chromium picolinate. In both cases, there was a single eligible cognitive outcome, but we considered the evidence to be very low-quality and so could not be sure of any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on vitamin and mineral supplements as treatments for MCI is very limited. Three years of treatment with high-dose vitamin E probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia, but we have no data on this outcome for other supplements. Only B vitamins have been assessed in more than one RCT. There is no evidence for beneficial effects on cognition of supplementation with B vitamins for six to 24 months. Evidence from a single study of a reduced rate of brain atrophy in participants taking vitamin B and a beneficial effect of vitamin B on episodic memory in those with higher tHcy at baseline warrants attempted replication.

Pharmacotherapies for sleep disturbances in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia, and are associated with significant caregiver distress, increased healthcare costs, and institutionalisation. Drug treatment is often sought to alleviate these problems, but there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with dementia, through identification and analysis of all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, in March 2013 and again in March 2016, using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, rest-activity, sundowning. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a drug with placebo, and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with dementia who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline. Trials could also include non-pharmacological interventions, as long as both drug and placebo groups had the same exposure to them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias, and results from the included study reports. We obtained additional information from study authors where necessary. We used the mean difference as the measure of treatment effect, and where possible, synthesized results using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We found six RCTs eligible for inclusion for three drugs: melatonin (222 participants, four studies, but only two yielded data on our primary sleep outcomes suitable for meta-analysis), trazodone (30 participants, one study), and ramelteon (74 participants, one study, no peer-reviewed publication, limited information available).The participants in the trazodone study and almost all participants in the melatonin studies had moderate-to-severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD); those in the ramelteon study had mild-to-moderate AD. Participants had a variety of common sleep problems at baseline. All primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy. In one study of melatonin, drug treatment was combined with morning bright light therapy. Only two studies made a systematic assessment of adverse effects. Overall, the evidence was at low risk of bias, although there were areas of incomplete reporting, some problems with participant attrition, related largely to poor tolerance of actigraphy and technical difficulties, and a high risk of selective reporting in one trial that contributed very few participants. The risk of bias in the ramelteon study was unclear due to incomplete reporting.We found no evidence that melatonin, at doses up to 10 mg, improved any major sleep outcome over 8 to 10 weeks in patients with AD who were identified as having a sleep disturbance. We were able to synthesize data for two of our primary sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (mean difference (MD) 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59; N = 184; two studies), and the ratio of daytime sleep to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03; N = 184; two studies). From single studies, we found no difference between melatonin and placebo groups for sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset, or number of night-time awakenings. From two studies, we found no effect of melatonin on cognition or performance of activities of daily living (ADL). No serious adverse effects of melatonin were reported in the included studies. We considered this evidence to be of low quality.There was low-quality evidence that trazodone 50 mg given at night for two weeks improved total nocturnal sleep time (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0; N = 30; one study), and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53%, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1; N = 30; one study) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, but it did not affect the amount of time spent awake after sleep onset (MD -20.41, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6; N = 30; one study), or the number of nocturnal awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8; N = 30; one study). No effect was seen on daytime sleep, cognition, or ADL. No serious adverse effects of trazodone were reported.Results from a phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg administered at night were available in summary form in a sponsor's synopsis. Because the data were from a single, small study and reporting was incomplete, we considered this evidence to be of low quality in general terms. Ramelteon had no effect on total nocturnal sleep time at one week (primary outcome) or eight weeks (end of treatment) in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. The synopsis reported few significant differences from placebo for any sleep, behavioural, or cognitive outcomes; none were likely to be of clinical significance. There were no serious adverse effects from ramelteon. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to help guide drug treatment of sleep problems in dementia. In particular, we found no RCTs of many drugs that are widely prescribed for sleep problems in dementia, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks associated with these common treatments. From the studies we identified for this review, we found no evidence that melatonin (up to 10mg) helped sleep problems in patients with moderate to severe dementia due to AD. There was some evidence to support the use of a low dose (50 mg) of trazodone, although a larger trial is needed to allow a more definitive conclusion to be reached on the balance of risks and benefits. There was no evidence of any effect of ramelteon on sleep in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to AD. This is an area with a high need for pragmatic trials, particularly of those drugs that are in common clinical use for sleep problems in dementia. Systematic assessment of adverse effects is essential.

Dopamine transporter imaging for the diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies.

BACKGROUND: Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is a common cause of neurodegenerative dementia of old age. Its accurate recognition can be important in clinical management and is essential for the development of disease-modifying treatments. The current clinical diagnostic criteria are limited particularly by relatively poor sensitivity. Dopamine transporter (DAT) imaging using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is the most highly developed supplementary test for DLB, and is now incorporated as a suggestive feature in the consensus diagnostic criteria. However, there is uncertainty about its accuracy and its place in clinical practice. It is most commonly used in people who are already suspected of having DLB. OBJECTIVES: We had two objectives in this review: (A) to estimate the accuracy of DAT imaging for the diagnosis of DLB in people with dementia in secondary care (specialist dementia services), and (B) to estimate the accuracy of DAT imaging for the diagnosis of DLB in people with dementia in secondary care who are already suspected of having DLB on the basis of a prior clinical work-up. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (1946 to February 2013), Embase (1980 to February 2013), BIOSIS Previews (1926 to February 2013), PsycINFO (1806 to February 2013), CINAHL (1982 to February 2013), LILACS (February 2013) and Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Science) (1945 to February 2013). Several of these sources contain conference abstracts. We also searched four specialised databases containing diagnostic reviews: Meta-analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek (MEDION; February 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; February 2013), Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA; February 2013), and Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF; February 2013). We checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews for potential additional studies. Terms for electronic database searching were devised in conjunction with the team at the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group. STUDY DESIGN: We included test accuracy studies with delayed verification, diagnostic case-control studies, and two-gate studies with alternative diagnosis controls. PARTICIPANTS: (A) participants with dementia in secondary care, (B) participants in secondary care meeting consensus clinical criteria (other than the DAT imaging criterion) for possible or probable DLB, or both. INDEX TEST: SPECT or positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain dopamine transporters. Reference standard: Neuropathological diagnosis at autopsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted data. We extracted results into a 2x2 table, showing the binary test results cross-classified with the binary reference standard. We used this data to calculate sensitivities, specificities, and their 95% confidence intervals. We used the QUADAS-2 tool plus some additional items to assess methodological quality. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study that was applicable to our first objective (A). It reported data on 22 participants who met consensus clinical criteria for DLB or National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria for Alzheimer's disease, or both (a two-gate design with alternative diagnosis controls). The index test was SPECT scanning using the ligand (123)I-FP-CIT. We considered the study to be at high risk of bias in the participant selection and index test domains (QUADAS-2). (123)I-FP-CIT SPECT analysed semiquantitatively had a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.00) and a specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.00) for the diagnosis of DLB (n = 22, 1 study). Analysed visually, the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.98) (n = 19, 1 study).We considered that the study also provided the best available data to address our second objective (B). At baseline, 15 participants were clinically suspected of having DLB. In this group, (123)I-FP-CIT SPECT scanning analysed semiquantitatively had a sensitivity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.00) and a specificity of 1.00 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.00) for the diagnosis of DLB (n = 15, 1 study). Analysed visually, accuracy in this group was lower with a sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00) and a specificity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.96) (n = 13, 1 study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study has used a neuropathological reference standard to assess the accuracy of DAT imaging for the diagnosis of DLB. The small size of the included study means that sensitivity and specificity estimates are imprecise. However, data from this study suggest that DAT imaging is more accurate than clinical diagnosis. Clinical diagnosis is therefore unsuitable to use as a reference standard for assessing the accuracy of DAT imaging.No studies using a neuropathological reference standard have directly addressed the common clinical scenario where the use of DAT imaging is considered as a diagnostic test in a person with possible DLB, or assessed the accuracy of DAT imaging in people with mild dementia. However, the data from the included study suggest that, where there is moderately severe dementia and a strong pre-existing suspicion of DLB (probable DLB), then a normal (123)I-FP-CIT SPECT scan may be an accurate means of excluding the diagnosis.Semiquantitative ratings of (123)I-FP-CIT SPECT scans appeared to be more accurate than visual ratings in all analyses.

Pharmacotherapies for sleep disturbances in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD), and are associated with significant caregiver distress, increased healthcare costs and institutionalisation. Drug treatment is often sought to alleviate these problems, but there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with Alzheimer's disease through identification and analysis of all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 31 March 2013 using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, "rest-activity", sundowning. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that compared a drug with placebo and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with Alzheimer's disease who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline. Trials could also include non-pharmacological interventions as long as both drug and placebo groups had the same exposure to them. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors working independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias and results from the included study reports. Additional information was obtained from study authors where necessary. We used the mean difference as the measure of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesized results using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: We found RCTs eligible for inclusion for three drugs: melatonin (209 participants, three studies, but only two yielded data suitable for meta-analysis), trazodone (30 participants, one study) and ramelteon (74 participants, one study, no peer-reviewed publication, very limited information available).The melatonin and trazodone studies were of people with moderate-to-severe AD; the ramelteon study was of people with mild-to-moderate AD. In all studies participants had a variety of common sleep problems. All primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy. In one study of melatonin, drug treatment was combined with morning bright light therapy. Only two studies made a systematic assessment of adverse effects. Overall, the published studies were at low risk of bias, although there were areas of incomplete reporting and some problems with participant attrition, related largely to poor tolerance of actigraphy and technical difficulties. The risk of bias in the ramelteon study was unclear due to incomplete reporting.We found no evidence that melatonin, either immediate- or slow-release, improved any major sleep outcome in patients with AD. We were able to synthesize data for two sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (MD 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59, two studies), and the ratio of daytime sleep to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03, two studies). Other outcomes were reported in single studies. We found no difference between intervention and control groups for sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset or number of night-time awakenings, nor in cognition or performance of activities of daily living (ADLs). No serious adverse effects of melatonin were reported in the included studies.Trazodone 50 mg administered at night for two weeks significantly improved total nocturnal sleep time (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0, one study) and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1, one study), but there was no clear evidence of any effect on the amount of time spent awake after sleep onset (MD -20.41, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6, one study) or the number of nocturnal awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8, one study). No effect was seen on daytime sleep, nor on cognition or ADLs. No serious adverse effects were reported.Results from a phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg administered at night were available in summary form in a sponsor's synopsis. Ramelteon had no effect on total nocturnal sleep time at one week (primary outcome) or eight weeks (end of treatment). The synopsis reported few significant differences from placebo for any sleep, behavioural or cognitive outcomes; none were likely to be of clinical significance. There were no serious adverse effects of ramelteon. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to help guide drug treatment of sleep problems in AD. In particular, we found no RCTs of many drugs that are widely prescribed for sleep problems in AD, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks associated with these common treatments. From the studies we identified for this review, we found no evidence that melatonin is beneficial to AD patients with moderate to severe dementia and sleep problems. There is some evidence to support the use of a low dose (50 mg) of trazodone, although a larger trial is needed to allow a more definitive conclusion to be reached on the balance of risks and benefits. There was no evidence of any effect of ramelteon on sleep in patients with mild to moderate dementia due to AD. This is an area with a high need for pragmatic trials, particularly of those drugs that are in common clinical use for sleep problems in AD. Systematic assessment of adverse effects is essential.