The Effects of Four Doses of Vitamin D Supplements on Falls in Older Adults : A Response-Adaptive, Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D supplementation may prevent falls in older persons, but evidence is inconsistent, possibly because of dosage differences. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 4 doses of vitamin D3 supplements on falls. DESIGN: 2-stage Bayesian, response-adaptive, randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02166333). SETTING: 2 community-based research units. PARTICIPANTS: 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. INTERVENTION: 200 (control), 1000, 2000, or 4000 IU of vitamin D3 per day. During the dose-finding stage, participants were randomly assigned to 1 of the 4 vitamin D3 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. MEASUREMENTS: Time to first fall or death over 2 years (primary outcome). RESULTS: 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; n = 308) and those randomly assigned to receive 200 IU/d (n = 339) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.15]; P = 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]). LIMITATIONS: The control group received 200 IU of vitamin D3 per day, not a placebo. Dose finding ended before the prespecified thresholds for dose suspension and dose selection were reached. CONCLUSION: In older persons with elevated fall risk and low serum 25-(OH)D levels, vitamin D3 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 D3 doses of 1000 IU/d or higher. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute on Aging.

Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (S-CitAD): Methods and design of an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a disabling, common cause of dementia, and agitation is one of the most common and distressing symptoms for patients with AD. Escitalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (S-CitAD) tests a novel, clinically derived therapeutic approach to treat agitation in patients with AD. METHODS: S-CitAD is a NIH-funded, investigator-initiated, randomized, multicenter clinical trial. Participants receive a structured psychosocial intervention (PSI) as standard of care. Participants without sufficient response to PSI are randomized to receive 15 mg escitalopram/day or a matching placebo in addition to PSI. Primary outcome is the Modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC). DISCUSSION: S-CitAD will provide information about a practical, immediately available approach to treating agitation in patients with AD. S-CitAD may become a model of how to evaluate and predict treatment response in patients with AD and agitation as a neuropsychiatric symptom (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03108846).

R- and S-citalopram concentrations have differential effects on neuropsychiatric scores in elders with dementia and agitation.

AIMS: The aim was to determine the relationship between (R) and (S)-citalopram enantiomer exposure (AUC(0,24 h)) and therapeutic response in agitated individuals greater than 60 years old with Alzheimer's dementia (AD). METHODS: Citalopram enantiomer exposures (AUC(0,24 h)) derived from an established population pharmacokinetic analysis were utilized to explore the relationship between (R)- and (S)-citalopram area under the curve (AUC(0,24 )) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neurobehavioural Rating Scale-Agitation Subscale (NBRS-A), modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory Agitation subscale (NPIA) scores. Time dependent changes in these scores (disease progression) were accounted for prior to exploring the exposure effect relationship for each enantiomer. These relationships were evaluated using a non-linear-mixed effects modelling approach as implemented in nonmem v7.3. RESULTS: (S)-AUC(0,24 h) and (R)-AUC(0,24 h) each contributed to improvement in NBRS-A scores (k3(R) -0.502; k4(S) -0.712) as did time in treatment. However, increasing (R)-AUC(0,24 h) decreased the probability of patient response (maximum Δ -0.182%/AUC(0,24 h)) based on the CGIC while (S)-AUC(0,24 h) improved the probability of response (maximum Δ 0.112%/AUC(0,24 h)). (R)-AUC(0,24 h) was also associated with worsening in MMSE scores (-0.5 points). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that citalopram enantiomers contributed differentially to treatment outcomes. (R)-citalopram accounted for a greater proportion of the adverse consequences associated with racemic citalopram treatment in patients with AD including a decreased probability of treatment response as measured by the CGIC and a reduction in MMSE scores. The S-enantiomer was associated with increased probability of response based on the CGIC.

Citalopram for the Treatment of Agitation in Alzheimer Dementia: Genetic Influences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess potential genetic influences on citalopram treatment efficacy for agitation in individuals with Alzheimer dementia (AD). Six functional genetic variants were studied in the following genes: serotonin receptor 2A (HTR2A-T102C), serotonin receptor 2C (HTR2C-Cys23Ser), serotonin transporter (5HTT-LPR), brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF-Val66Met), apolipoprotein E (ε2, ε3, ε4 variants), and cytochrome P450 (CYP2C19). Treatment response by genotype was measured by (1) the agitation domain of the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale, (2) the modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change scale (mADCS-CGIC), (3) the agitation domain of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and (4) the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. METHOD: We utilized data from the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease (CitAD) database. CitAD was a 9-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial showing significant improvement in agitation and caregiver distress in patients treated with citalopram. Proportional odds logistic regression and mixed effects models were used to examine the above-mentioned outcome measures. RESULTS: Significant interactions were noted on the NPI agitation domain for HTR2A (likelihood ratio [LR] = 6.19, df = 2, P = .04) and the mADCS-CGIC for HTR2C (LR = 4.33, df = 2, P = .02) over 9 weeks. DISCUSSION: Treatment outcomes in CitAD showed modest, although statistically significant, influence of genetic variation at HTR2A and HTR2C loci. Future studies should continue to examine the interaction of known genetic variants with antidepressant treatment in patients with AD having agitation.

Benefits of Systemic Anti-inflammatory Therapy versus Fluocinolone Acetonide Intraocular Implant for Intermediate Uveitis, Posterior Uveitis, and Panuveitis: Fifty-four-Month Results of the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment (MUST) Trial and Follow-up Study.

PURPOSE: To compare the benefits of fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy versus systemic corticosteroid therapy supplemented (when indicated) with immunosuppression for intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis. DESIGN: Additional follow-up of a randomized comparative effectiveness trial cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-five patients with intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, or panuveitis randomized to implant or systemic therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), visual field mean deviation (MD), activity of uveitis, and presence of macular edema (per reading center grading) ascertained prospectively. METHODS: Trial participants were followed-up for 54 months from original randomization. RESULTS: The visual function trajectory in uveitic eyes demonstrated a similar (P = 0.73) degree of modest (not statistically significant) improvement from baseline to 54 months in both groups (mean improvement in BCVA at 54 months, 2.4 and 3.1 letters in the implant and systemic groups, respectively). Many had excellent initial visual acuity, limiting the potential for improvement. The mean automated perimetry MD score remained similar to baseline throughout 48 months of follow-up in both groups. Overall control of inflammation was superior in the implant group at every time point assessed (P < 0.016), although most eyes in the systemic therapy arm also showed substantial improvement, achieving complete control or low levels of inflammation. Although macular edema improved significantly more often with implant treatment within the first 6 months, the systemic group gradually improved over time such that the proportions with macular edema converged in the 2 groups by 36 months and overlapped thereafter (P = 0.41 at 48 months). CONCLUSIONS: Visual outcomes of fluocinolone acetonide implant and systemic treatment for intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, and panuveitis were similarly favorable through 54 months. The implant maintained a clear advantage in controlling inflammation through 54 months. Nevertheless, with systemic therapy, most patients also experienced greatly improved inflammatory status. Macular edema improved equally with longer follow-up. Based on cost effectiveness and side-effect considerations, systemic therapy may be indicated as the initial treatment for many bilateral uveitis cases. However, implant therapy is a reasonable alternative, especially for unilateral cases and when systemic therapy is not feasible or is not successful.

Time to Response to Citalopram Treatment for Agitation in Alzheimer Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Agitation is a common and significant problem in Alzheimer disease (AD). In the recent Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease (CitAD) study, citalopram was efficacious for the treatment of AD agitation. Here we examined the time course and predictors of response to treatment. METHODS: Response in CitAD was defined as a modified Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) score of 1 or 2 or a Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A) score reduction ≥ 50% from baseline. "Stable early response" was defined as meeting the aforementioned criteria at both weeks 3 and 9, "late response" was response at week 9 but not at week 3, and "unstable response" was response at week 3 but not at week 9. RESULTS: In the primary analyses, citalopram was superior to placebo on both the CGIC and the NBRS-A response measures. Little between-group differences were found in response rates in the first 3 weeks of the study (21% versus 19% on the CGIC). Citalopram patients were more likely than placebo patients to be a late responder (18% versus 8% on CGIC, Fisher's exact p = 0.09; 31% versus 15% on NBRS-A, Fisher's exact p = 0.02). Approximately half of citalopram responders (45%-56%) at end of study achieved response later in the study compared with 30%-44% of placebo responders. CONCLUSION: Treatment with citalopram for agitation in AD needs to be at least 9 weeks in duration to allow sufficient time for full response. Study duration is an important factor to consider in the design of clinical trials for agitation in AD.

Change in agitation in Alzheimer's disease in the placebo arm of a nine-week controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Placebo responses raise significant challenges for the design of clinical trials. We report changes in agitation outcomes in the placebo arm of a recent trial of citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (CitAD). METHODS: In the CitAD study, all participants and caregivers received a psychosocial intervention and 92 were assigned to placebo for nine weeks. Outcomes included Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A), modified AD Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC), Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Agitation/Aggression domain (NPI A/A) and Total (NPI-Total) and ADLs. Continuous outcomes were analyzed with mixed-effects modeling and dichotomous outcomes with logistic regression. RESULTS: Agitation outcomes improved over nine weeks: NBRS-A mean (SD) decreased from 7.8 (3.0) at baseline to 5.4 (3.2), CMAI from 28.7 (6.7) to 26.7 (7.4), NPI A/A from 8.0 (2.4) to 4.9 (3.8), and NPI-Total from 37.3 (17.7) to 28.4 (22.1). The proportion of CGI-C agitation responders ranged from 21 to 29% and was significantly different from zero. MMSE improved from 14.4 (6.9) to 15.7 (7.2) and ADLs similarly improved. Most of the improvement was observed by three weeks and was sustained through nine weeks. The major predictor of improvement in each agitation measure was a higher baseline score in that measure. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant placebo response which may be due to regression to the mean, response to a psychosocial intervention, natural course of symptoms, or nonspecific benefits of participation in a trial.

Cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 3-year incremental cost-effectiveness of fluocinolone acetonide implant versus systemic therapy for the treatment of noninfectious intermediate, posterior, and panuveitis. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with active or recently active intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis enrolled in the Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment Trial. METHODS: Data on cost and health utility during 3 years after randomization were evaluated at 6-month intervals. Analyses were stratified by disease laterality at randomization (31 unilateral vs 224 bilateral) because of the large upfront cost of the implant. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over 3 years: the ratio of the difference in cost (in United States dollars) to the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs of medications, surgeries, hospitalizations, and regular procedures (e.g., laboratory monitoring for systemic therapy) were included. We computed QALYs as a weighted average of EQ-5D scores over 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The ICER at 3 years was $297,800/QALY for bilateral disease, driven by the high cost of implant therapy (difference implant - systemic [Δ]: $16,900; P < 0.001) and the modest gains in QALYs (Δ = 0.057; P = 0.22). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.003 and 0.04, respectively. The ICER for unilateral disease was more favorable, namely, $41,200/QALY at 3 years, because of a smaller difference in cost between the 2 therapies (Δ = $5300; P = 0.44) and a larger benefit in QALYs with the implant (Δ = 0.130; P = 0.12). The probability of the ICER being cost-effective at thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 0.53 and 0.74, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fluocinolone acetonide implant therapy was reasonably cost-effective compared with systemic therapy for individuals with unilateral intermediate, posterior, or panuveitis but not for those with bilateral disease. These results do not apply to the use of implant therapy when systemic therapy has failed or is contraindicated. Should the duration of implant effect prove to be substantially >3 years or should large changes in therapy pricing occur, the cost-effectiveness of implant versus systemic therapy would need to be reevaluated.

Is sertraline treatment or depression remission in depressed Alzheimer patients associated with improved caregiver well being? Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study 2.

OBJECTIVE: We wanted to assess if sertraline treatment (versus placebo) or remission of depression at 12 weeks (versus nonremission) in Alzheimer patients is associated with improved caregiver well being. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sertraline for the treatment of depression in individuals with Alzheimer disease in five clinical research sites across the United States. Participants were caregivers of patients enrolled in the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study 2 (N = 131). All caregivers received standardized psychosocial support throughout the study. Caregiver outcome measures included depression (Beck Depression Inventory), distress (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), burden (Zarit Burden Interview), and quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of caregivers were spouses, 63.4% were women, and 64.1% were white. Caregivers of patients in both treatment groups had significant reductions in distress scores over the 24-week study period, but there was not a greater benefit for caregivers of patients taking sertraline. However, caregivers of patients whose depression was in remission at week 12 had greater declines in distress scores over the 24 weeks than caregivers of patients whose depression did not remit by week 12. CONCLUSION: Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. Distress but not level of depression or burden lessened for all caregivers regardless of remission status and even more so for those who cared for patients whose depression remitted. Results imply an interrelationship between caregiver distress and patient psychiatric outcomes.

The transitioning from trials to extended follow-up studies.

BACKGROUND: Investigators may elect to extend follow-up of participants enrolled in a randomized clinical trial after the trial comes to its planned end. The additional follow-up may be initiated to learn about longer term effects of treatments, including adverse events, costs related to treatment, or for reasons unrelated to treatment such as to observe the natural course of the disease using the established cohort from the trial. PURPOSE: We examine transitioning from trials to extended follow-up studies when the goal of additional follow-up is to observe longer term treatment effects. METHODS: We conducted a literature search in selected journals from 2000 to 2012 to identify trials that extended follow-up for the purpose of studying longer term treatment effects and extracted information on the operational and logistical issues in the transition. We also draw experience from three trials coordinated by the Johns Hopkins Coordinating Centers that made transitions to extended follow-up: the Alzheimer's Disease Anti-inflammatory Prevention Trial, Multicenter Uveitis Steroid Treatment trial, and Childhood Asthma Management Program. RESULTS: Transitions are not uncommon in multicenter clinical trials, even in trials that continued to the planned end of the trial. Transitioning usually necessitates new participant consents. If study infrastructure is not maintained during the transition, participants will be lost and re-establishing the staff and facilities will be costly. Merging data from the trial and follow-up study can be complicated by changes in data collection measures and schedules. LIMITATIONS: Our discussion and recommendations are limited to issues that we have experienced in transitions from trials to follow-up studies. DISCUSSION: We discuss issues such as maintaining funding, institutional review board and consent requirements, contacting participants, and combining data from the trial and follow-up phases. We conclude with a list of recommendations to facilitate transitions from a trial to an extended follow-up study.

Effect of methylphenidate on attention in apathetic AD patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of methylphenidate (MPH) on attention in Alzheimer's disease (AD). MPH has shown to improve apathy in AD, and both apathy and attention have been related to dopaminergic function. The goal was to investigate MPH effects on attention in AD and assess the relationship between attention and apathy responses. METHODS: MPH (10 mg PO twice daily) or placebo was administered for six weeks in a randomized, double-blind trial in mild-to-moderate AD outpatients with apathy (Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) Apathy ≥ 4). Attention was measured with the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale--Digit Span (DS) subtest (DS forward, selective attention) and apathy with the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES). A mixed effects linear regression estimated the difference in change from baseline between treatment groups, defined as δ (MPH (DS week 6-DS baseline)) - (placebo (DS week 6-DS baseline)). RESULTS: In 60 patients (37 females, age = 76 ± 8, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) = 20 ± 5, NPI Apathy = 7 ± 2), the change in DS forward (δ = 0.87 (95% CI: 0.06-1.68), p = 0.03) and DS total (δ = 1.01 (95% CI: 0.09-1.93), p = 0.03) favored MPH over placebo. Of 57 completers, 17 patients had improved apathy (≥3.3 points on the AES from baseline to end point) and 40 did not. There were no significant associations between AES and NPI Apathy with DS change scores in the MPH, placebo, AES responder, or non-responder groups. DS scores did not predict apathy response to MPH treatment. CONCLUSION: These results suggest MPH can improve attention and apathy in AD; however, the effects appear independent in this population.

Effect of citalopram on agitation in Alzheimer disease: the CitAD randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Agitation is common, persistent, and associated with adverse consequences for patients with Alzheimer disease. Pharmacological treatment options, including antipsychotics are not satisfactory. OBJECTIVE: 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. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: 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. INTERVENTIONS: 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. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00898807.

Evaluation of hepatitis C virus as a risk factor for HIV-associated neuroretinal disorder.

BACKGROUND: Both hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) penetrate the central nervous system. HIV-associated neuroretinal disorder (HIV-NRD), a visual impairment of reduced contrast sensitivity and reading ability, is associated with cytokine dysregulation and genetic polymorphisms in the anti-inflammatory interleukin 10 (IL-10) signaling pathway. We investigated associations between HCV and HIV-NRD and between HCV and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the IL-10 receptor 1 (IL10R1) gene. METHODS: Logistic and Cox regression analysis were used to analyze risk factors for HIV-NRD in 1576 HIV-positive patients who did not have an ocular opportunistic infection at enrollment. Median follow-up was 4.9 years (interquartile range, 2.4-8.8 years). Four IL10R1 SNPs were examined in a subset of 902 patients. RESULTS: The group included 290 patients with chronic HCV infection, 74 with prior infection, and 1212 with no HCV markers. There were 244 prevalent cases of HIV-NRD and 263 incident cases (rate = 3.9/100 person-years). In models adjusted for demographics, HIV treatment and status, liver function, and immune status, both the prevalence and incidence of HIV-NRD were significantly higher in patients with chronic HCV infection (odds ratio = 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.31 and hazard ratio = 1.62; 95% CI, 1.13-2.34, respectively), compared to patients with no HCV markers. Chronic HCV was associated with rs2228055 and 2 additional IL-10R1 SNPs expected to reduce IL-10 signaling. HIV-NRD was not significantly associated with these SNPs. CONCLUSIONS: HCV is a possible risk factor for HIV-NRD. Genetic analysis suggests that alterations in the IL-10 signaling pathway may increase susceptibility to HIV-NRD and HCV infection. Inflammation may link HCV and HIV-NRD.

Designing a trial to evaluate potential treatments for apathy in dementia: the apathy in dementia methylphenidate trial (ADMET).

BACKGROUND: Research on efficacious treatments for apathy in Alzheimer disease has been hindered by a lack of consensus diagnosis, difficulties in measurement, and studies with small sample sizes. METHODS: In designing the Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET), a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer disease, we encountered the following issues: defining and measuring apathy, distinguishing apathy and depression, determining an appropriate test treatment, selecting relevant secondary outcomes, recruiting participants, and deciding on a suitable method for treatment unmasking. ADMET is a 6-week randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial with two parallel treatment groups assigned in a 1:1 ratio with randomization stratified by clinical center. The recruitment goal is 60 randomized participants over 2 years. The primary outcomes are change in apathy severity as measured by the Apathy Evaluation Scale and the Alzheimer Disease Cooperative Study-Clinical Global Impression of Change. CONCLUSION: The design decisions made for ADMET are important elements to be considered in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of medications for clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer disease.

Cognitive outcomes after sertaline treatment in patients with depression of Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVES: Although many depressed patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) are treated with antidepressants, the effect of such treatment on cognitive performance in these patients is not known. The authors report cognitive outcomes in patients with depression of AD (dAD) after a 24-week trial of sertraline or placebo. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: Outpatient memory clinics at five academic medical centers in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 131 patients with dAD (60 men) and Mini-Mental State Examination scores of 10-26. INTERVENTION: Sertraline (n = 67), target dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo (n = 64). Caregivers received standardized psychosocial intervention throughout the trial. MEASUREMENTS: Mini-Mental State Examination, cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale, letter fluency, backward digit span, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and Finger Tapping Test, administered at baseline, and 8, 16, and 24 weeks following baseline. RESULTS: A series of linear models indicated no effect of treatment or of depression remission on cognitive test performance at 24 weeks. Regardless of treatment condition, very little change in cognitive test performance was noted in general. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with sertraline in patients with dAD is not associated with greater improvement in cognition at week 24 than treatment with placebo.

Citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease: design and methods.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is one of the most common neuropsychiatric symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD), and is associated with serious adverse consequences for patients and caregivers. Evidence-supported treatment options for agitation are limited. The citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease (CitAD) study was designed to evaluate the potential of citalopram to ameliorate these symptoms. METHODS: CitAD is a randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial, with two parallel treatment groups assigned in a 1:1 ratio and randomization stratified by clinical center. The study included eight recruiting clinical centers, a chair's office, and a coordinating center located in university settings in the United States and Canada. A total of 200 individuals having probable AD with clinically significant agitation and without major depression were recruited for this study. Patients were randomized to receive citalopram (target dose of 30 mg/d) or matching placebo. Caregivers of patients in both treatment groups received a structured psychosocial therapy. Agitation was compared between treatment groups using the NeuroBehavioral Rating Scale and the AD Cooperative Study- Clinical Global Impression of Change, which are the primary outcomes. Functional performance, cognition, caregiver distress, and rates of adverse and serious adverse events were also measured. CONCLUSION: The authors believe the design elements in CitAD are important features to be included in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of psychotropic medications for clinically significant agitation in AD.

Sertraline for the treatment of depression in Alzheimer disease: genetic influences.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential for genetic influences on sertraline treatment efficacy for depression of Alzheimer disease (dAD). Four functional genetic variants were studied: 2 serotonin receptors (HTR2A-T102C and HTR2C-Cys23Ser), the serotonin transporter (5HTT-LPR), and brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF-Val66Met). Treatment response by genotype was measured by (1) the modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change, (2) the Cornell scale for Depression in Dementia, and (3) remission of depression. METHODS: We utilized data from the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study 2 (DIADS-2), a 24-week, randomized, multicenter trial showing no significant treatment effect of sertraline on dAD. Proportional odds logistic regression and mixed effects models were used to examine the above mentioned outcome measures. RESULTS: No significant interactions were seen between any of the genetic polymorphisms and the selected outcomes above at 12 or 24 weeks. DISCUSSION: Treatment outcomes in the DIADS-2 trial were not significantly influenced by genetic variation at the loci that were assessed. Future studies should continue to examine the interaction of depression-related genetic variants with antidepressant treatment in Alzheimer disease patients with depression.

Do treatment effects vary among differing baseline depression criteria in depression in Alzheimer's disease study ± 2 (DIADS-2)?

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the effect of sertraline in the depression in Alzheimer's disease study - 2 (DIADS-2) differed in subgroups of patients defined by baseline depression criteria. METHODS: DIADS-2 was a randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sertraline (target dose of 100 mg/day) for the treatment of depression in patients with Alzheimer's disease. DIADS-2 enrolled 131 patients who met criteria for the depression of Alzheimer's disease (dAD). Analyses reported here examined if the effect of sertraline differed in various subgroups, including those meeting criteria for major depressive episode (MaD), minor depressive episode (MiD), and Alzheimer's-associated affective disorder (AAAD) at baseline. RESULTS: At baseline, 52 of 131 participants (39.7%) met criteria for MaD, 54 (41.2%) for MiD, and 90 (68.7%) for AAAD. For the primary outcome of modified Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Clinical Global Impression of Change (mADCS-CGIC) scores at 12 weeks of follow-up, the odds of being at or better than a given mADCS-CGIC category did not significantly differ between the two treatment groups for those patients with MaD at baseline (OR(sertraline) = 0.66 [95% CI: 0.24, 1.82], p = 0.42); tests for interactions between treatment group and baseline depression diagnostic subgroup were not significant for MaD versus MiD versus neither (χ(2) = 1.05 (2df), p = 0.59) or AAAD versus no AAAD (χ(2) = 0.06 (1df), p = 0.81). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that sertraline treatment was more efficacious in those patients meeting baseline criteria for MaD compared to MiD or to neither.

Sertraline for the treatment of depression in Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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

Sertraline for the treatment of depression in Alzheimer disease: week-24 outcomes.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.