Diagnostic criteria for apathy in neurocognitive disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Apathy is common in neurocognitive disorders (NCD) but NCD-specific diagnostic criteria are needed. METHODS: The International Society for CNS Clinical Trials Methodology Apathy Work Group convened an expert group and sought input from academia, health-care, industry, and regulatory bodies. A modified Delphi methodology was followed, and included an extensive literature review, two surveys, and two meetings at international conferences, culminating in a consensus meeting in 2019. RESULTS: The final criteria reached consensus with more than 80% agreement on all parts and included: limited to people with NCD; symptoms persistent or frequently recurrent over at least 4 weeks, a change from the patient's usual behavior, and including one of the following: diminished initiative, diminished interest, or diminished emotional expression/responsiveness; causing significant functional impairment and not exclusively explained by other etiologies. DISCUSSION: These criteria provide a framework for defining apathy as a unique clinical construct in NCD for diagnosis and further research.

Agitation and impulsivity in mid and late life as possible risk markers for incident dementia.

To identify knowledge gaps regarding new-onset agitation and impulsivity prior to onset of cognitive impairment or dementia the International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment Neuropsychiatric Syndromes (NPS) Professional Interest Area conducted a scoping review. Extending a series of reviews exploring the pre-dementia risk syndrome Mild Behavioral Impairment (MBI), we focused on late-onset agitation and impulsivity (the MBI impulse dyscontrol domain) and risk of incident cognitive decline and dementia. This scoping review of agitation and impulsivity pre-dementia syndromes summarizes the current biomedical literature in terms of epidemiology, diagnosis and measurement, neurobiology, neuroimaging, biomarkers, course and prognosis, treatment, and ongoing clinical trials. Validations for pre-dementia scales such as the MBI Checklist, and incorporation into longitudinal and intervention trials, are needed to better understand impulse dyscontrol as a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment and dementia.

Investigating the safety and efficacy of nabilone for the treatment of agitation in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease: Study protocol for a cross-over randomized controlled trial.

Agitation is a prevalent and difficult-to-treat symptom in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). Though there are nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions recommended for the treatment of agitation, the efficacy of these are modest and not always consistent. Furthermore, the safety profiles of currently prescribed medications are questionable. Nabilone, a synthetic cannabinoid, has a distinct pharmacological profile that may provide a safer and more effective treatment for agitation, while potentially having benefits for weight and pain. Additionally, emerging evidence suggests nabilone may have neuroprotective effects. We describe a clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of nabilone for the treatment of agitation in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. This will be a double-blind, randomized cross-over study comparing 6 weeks of nabilone (0.5-2 mg) and placebo, with a 1-week washout preceding each phase. Study outcomes will be measured at baseline and end of treatment for each treatment phase. The primary outcome measure will be agitation as assessed by the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory. The secondary outcomes include safety, behaviour (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), cognition (standardized Mini Mental Status Exam and either Severe Impairment Battery or Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale) and global impression (Clinician's Global Impression of Change). Exploratory outcomes include pain (Pain Assessment in Advanced AD), nutritional status (Mini-Nutritional Assessment-Short Form), caregiver distress (NPI caregiver distress), and blood-based biomarkers. A safe and efficacious pharmacological intervention for agitation, with effects on pain and weight loss in patients with moderate-to-severe AD could increase quality-of-life, reduce caregiver stress and avoid unnecessary institutionalization and related increases in health care costs. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT02351882.

Pharmacological interventions for apathy in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.

Latrepirdine for Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) provide modest symptomatic relief but do not slow the progression of the disease. Latrepirdine may modulate several targets involved in AD pathology, including lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial permeability, voltage-gated calcium ion channels as well as neurotransmitter receptor activity, and thus potentially represents both a symptomatic and disease-modifying intervention. Several randomized, placebo-controlled trials have sought to evaluate the effect of latrepirdine on cognition, function and behaviour in patients with AD. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of latrepirdine for the treatment of AD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 4 June 2014 using the terms: latrepirdine OR dimebon OR dimebolin OR 2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-2,8-dimethyl-5- (2-(6-methyl-3-pyridyl)ethyl)-1H-pyrido(4,3-b)indole. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials where latrepirdine was administered to patients with mild, moderate or severe AD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the quality of studies and two authors extracted data. We calculated mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis for all relevant outcome measures. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials involving a total of 1697 participants were found and six were included in the quantitative analyses. No data were available from the seventh trial. Three trials involving 1243 patients were included in analyses of efficacy outcomes, and four trials involving 1034 patients were included in analyses of safety and tolerability outcomes. We judged five trials to be at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting and three to be at high risk of attrition bias. There was low quality evidence favouring latrepirdine on the Clinician's Interview - Based Impression of Change Plus Caregiver Input after 26 weeks (CIBIC-Plus) (MD -0.60, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.31, 1 study, P < 0.001). Due to imprecision in the results, it was not possible to determine whether latrepirdine had any effect on cognition measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) (MD -1.49, 95% CI -3.47 to 0.49, 3 studies, P = 0.14) or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (MD 0.59, 95% CI -0.94 to 2.11, 3 studies, P = 0.45), or on function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study - Activities of Daily Living scale (ADCS-ADL) (MD 1.00, 95% CI -1.15 to 3.15, 3 studies, P = 0.36) at study endpoint (26 or 52 weeks). We considered the evidence provided on these outcomes to be of overall low quality. However, there was some high quality evidence showing a very small benefit of latrepirdine on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.77, 95% CI -3.09 to -0.45, 3 studies, P = 0.009) at study endpoint (26 or 52 weeks). Additionally, moderate quality evidence suggested that latrepirdine and placebo were comparable in adverse events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14, P = 0.51), serious adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.35, P = 0.52), dropouts (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27, P = 0.57) and dropouts due to adverse events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.67, P = 0.93). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies, imprecision, inconsistencies between studies and likelihood of bias. Nevertheless, the evidence to date suggests that while not associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with placebo, there is no effect of latrepirdine on cognition and function in mild-to-moderate AD patients, though there appears to be a modest benefit for behaviour. Further studies should investigate the potential benefit of latrepirdine on neuropsychiatric symptoms in AD.