4.5 Article

Association between Neuropsychiatric Improvement and Neurocognitive Change in Alzheimer's Disease: Analysis of the CATIE-AD Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 139-148

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-180304

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; antipsychotic; CATIE-AD; neurocognitive impairment; neuropsychiatric symptom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Objective: To assess associations between improvements in neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and neurocognitive change in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) during treatment using the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness-Alzheimer Disease (CATIE-AD) dataset. Methods: AD outpatients with NPS who needed pharmacological treatment (n = 421) were followed up with antipsychotics, citalopram, or placebo for up to 36 weeks (mean +/- SD = 252 +/- 52 days). The study aim was to investigate associations between improvement in each NPS evaluating scale (by Clinical Global Impression of Change [CGI-C], Neuropsychiatric Inventory [NPI], or Brief Psychiatric Scale [BPRS]) at endpoint (week 36 or early termination [ET], n = 340) and neurocognitive change (change score in the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] between endpoint and baseline during the treatment). Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed on the associations between each NPS improvement and neurocognitive change as well as socio-clinico-demographic variables of interest. Results: At endpoint, NPS improvement rates were 76.1%, 70.8%, and 58.1% in CGI-C, NPI, and BPRS, respectively, while MMSE score change was -2.3 +/- 3.8. NPS improvement was significantly related to more severe psychotic symptoms at baseline and preserved levels of neurocognition (smaller MMSE score change) among several variables. Conclusions: Our findings suggested that neurocognitive preservation may be associated with attaining optimal benefits from any treatment against NPSs in a longitudinal treatment course of patients with AD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据