4.6 Review

Treatment for mild cognitive impairment: systematic review

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
Volume 203, Issue 4, Pages 255-264

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.113.127811

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIMH
  2. NIA
  3. Associated Jewish Federation of Baltimore
  4. Weinberg Foundation
  5. Forest
  6. GlaxoSmithKline
  7. Eisai
  8. Pfizer
  9. AstraZeneca
  10. Lilly
  11. Ortho-McNeil
  12. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  13. Novartis
  14. National Football League (NFL)
  15. Elan
  16. Functional Neuromodulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background More people are presenting with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), frequently a precursor to dementia, but we do not know how to reduce deterioration. Aims To systematically review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of any intervention for MCI on cognitive, neuropsychiatric, functional, global outcomes, life quality or incident dementia. Method We reviewed 41 studies fitting predetermined criteria, assessed validity using a checklist, calculated standardised outcomes and prioritised primary outcome findings in placebo-controlled studies. Results The strongest evidence was that cholinesterase inhibitors did not reduce incident dementia. Cognition improved in single trials of: a heterogeneous psychological group intervention over 6 months; piribedil, a dopamine agonist over 3 months; and donepezil over 48 weeks. Nicotine improved attention over 6 months. There was equivocal evidence that Huannao Yicong improved cognition and social functioning. Conclusions There was no replicated evidence that any intervention was effective. Cholinesterase inhibitors and rofecoxib are ineffective in preventing dementia. Further good-quality RCTs are needed and preliminary evidence suggests these should include trials of psychological group interventions and piribedil.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available