Alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) for depression.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a mood disorder with a prevalence of approximately 1% to 3% worldwide, representing the fourth leading cause of disease burden globally. The current standard treatments of psychological therapy and antidepressant medications are not effective for everyone, and psychotropic drugs may be associated with significant adverse effects. Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) treatment, in which a low intensity electrical current is administered through the use of a small, portable electrical device, has been reported to have efficacy in the treatment of depression with minimal adverse effects. This systematic review investigated the scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of CES in treatment of acute depression compared to sham, or simulated, CES treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternating current cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) compared with sham CES for acute depression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis review group's specialized register (CCDANCTR-Studies and CCDANCTR-References) to February 24, 2014 This register contains relevant randomized controlled trials from: The Cochrane Library (all years), MEDLINE (1950 to date), EMBASE (1974 to date), and PsycINFO (1967 to date). We examined reference lists of review papers and books on CES. We contacted authors, other experts in the field and CES manufacturing companies for knowledge of suitable published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of CES versus sham CES for the acute treatment of depressive disorder in adults aged 18 to 75 years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We planned to extract data from the original reports of included studies independently by two authors. The main outcomes to be assessed were:(1) the efficacy of CES in reducing symptoms of depression as reflected in change scores on standardized depression rating scales.(2) the tolerability of CES treatment to participants, as reflected in rates of discontinuation due to adverse effects.We planned to analyze data using Review Manager 5. MAIN RESULTS: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient methodologically rigorous studies of CES in treatment of acute depression. There is a need for double-blind randomized controlled trials of CES in the treatment of acute depression.

Attitude Toward Own Aging and Mental Health in Post-menopausal Women.

INTRODUCTION: Attitudes toward own aging (ATOA) refers to expectations about the personal experience of aging. As of now, there is limited literature that addresses the impact of ATOA on indicators of psychological, physical, and social health. In this study, we examine associations between ATOA and several measures associated with successful aging. METHODS: A detailed cross-sectional survey questionnaire on successful aging was completed by 1,973 older women enrolled in the San Diego site of the Women's Health Initiative study. ATOA was measured using the Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale (PGMS) RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1151 women. The mean ATOA score was 3.8 indicating generally positive ATOA. Positive ATOA score was significantly associated with younger age, lower income, being married, higher SF-36 Physical Composite scores, higher SF-36 Mental composite scores, lower depression scores, and higher resilience scores. Approximately 40% of variance in ATOA scores was explained by successful aging-related domain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Better physical and emotional functioning, greater resilience and lower depression are associated with more positive ATOA. Associations with sociodemographic traits are complex. Modifying ATOA may have potential to impact a broad range of health and successful aging related outcomes.

Psychological protective factors across the lifespan: implications for psychiatry.

Although there are many challenges in operationally defining and measuring positive psychological constructs, there is accumulating evidence that optimism, resilience, positive attitudes toward aging, and spirituality are related to reduced risk for morbidity and mortality in older age. This article reviews the definition, measurement, associations, and putative mechanisms of selected positive psychological constructs on subjective and objective indicators of health with a focus on the latter half of the lifespan.

Responsiveness and construct validity of the health utilities index in patients with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is important for cost-effectiveness analyses, but the validity of generic HRQOL instruments has not been adequately evaluated in persons with dementia. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the validity (including responsiveness to change) of the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 (HUI2) and Mark 3 (HUI3), 2 commonly used generic HRQOL measures, in patients with dementia. SUBJECTS: Four hundred eight patient-caregiver dyads in an 18-month dementia care management trial. METHODS: We assessed construct validity by evaluating correlations of proxy (caregiver)-reported HUI2 and HUI3 with the Blessed Dementia Rating Scale, the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and a behavior rating scale. Responsiveness was estimated using effect size (ES) statistics for behavior scale change (unchanged, small, medium, large change) and for residential status change (home to skilled nursing facility), as a global external change criterion. RESULTS: The HUI2 and HUI3 were responsive to behavioral worsening (multiattribute ES range: -0.48 to -0.78) and global decline (multiattribute ES range: -0.50 to -0.76), but not improvement. The HUI2 was more responsive than the HUI3. Correlations with the Blessed Dementia Rating Scale (r = -0.69 with both HUI2 and HUI3 multiattribute scores) and behavior scale (r = 0.44 and 0.41, respectively, for HUI2 and HUI3 multiattribute scores) supported the validity of the HUI in patients with dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the construct validity of the proxy-rated HUI2/3 in patients with moderate to severe dementia, but responsiveness results were mixed. Further studies are needed of the HUI2/3's validity, including responsiveness, in patients across the full range of dementia severity, using both self and proxy report, with particular attention to the impact of general population preference weights. When possible, multiple HRQOL measures need to be used to confirm the robustness of the findings. The proxy-rated HUI should be used in patients with moderate to severe dementia, but the self-rated HUI may be appropriate for subjects with milder cognitive impairment.

Memantine: a comprehensive review of safety and efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Memantine is an uncompetitive antagonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate glutamate receptor. It is now approved only for treatment of moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, as a growing body of evidence indicates that disturbed glutamate neurotransmission may be central to the pathophysiology of such conditions as obesity, schizophrenia, depression, substance abuse, pain disorders and glaucoma, clinical trials have explored the role of memantine in these and other disorders. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of memantine across the range of clinical applications in which it has been studied. METHODS: A search was done on Pubmed using keyword 'memantine' to identify clinical trials of memantine. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: At present, clinical trial evidence supports the use of memantine in only moderate-to-severe AD. Preliminary studies suggest benefit in frontotemporal dementia, alcohol dependence, post-traumatic stress disorder, headache and obesity, but rigorous clinical trials are needed to confirm these results. Available data indicate that across a range of clinical applications, memantine is a safe and well-tolerated drug.

Efficacy and adverse effects of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in vascular dementia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine do not have regulatory approval in most of the world for treatment of vascular dementia. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the evidence for efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in vascular dementia. METHODS: PubMed, BIOSIS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials on cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with vascular dementia. Trial methods, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were extracted and checked. Meta-analytic methods using fixed-effects models were used to give summaries of each drug's effects. FINDINGS: Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. Trials were of 6-month duration with similar vascular dementia criteria and outcome measures. Cognitive effects on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment scale were significant for all drugs, ranging from a -1.10 point mean difference (95% CI -2.15 to -0.05) for rivastigmine to -2.17 for 10 mg daily donepezil (95% CI -2.98 to -1.35). Only 5 mg daily donepezil had an effect on the Clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale (odds ratio 1.51 [95% CI 1.11-2.07]). No behavioural or functional benefits were observed, except for a -0.95 point difference (95% CI -1.74 to -0.16) with 10 mg daily donepezil on the Alzheimer's Disease Functional Assessment and Change Scale. Compared with placebo, more dropouts and adverse events (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and insomnia) occurred with the cholinesterase inhibitors, but not with memantine. INTERPRETATION: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine produce small benefits in cognition of uncertain clinical significance in patients with mild to moderate vascular dementia. Data are insufficient to support widespread use of these drugs in vascular dementia. Individual patient analyses are needed to identify subgroups of patients with vascular dementia who might benefit.