4.7 Article

Citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer's disease: Design and methods

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 121-130

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2011.01.007

关键词

Alzheimer dementia; Citalopram; Agitation; Randomized trial

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [R01AG031348]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 he included in trials assessing the safety and efficacy of psychotropic medications for clinically significant agitation in AD. (C) 2012 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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