4.5 Article

Caregiver preference for rivastigmine patch relative to capsules for treatment of probable Alzheimer's disease

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1806

关键词

Alzheimer's disease (AD); caregiver; patch; randomized clinical trial (RCT); transdermal; treatment preference

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Family caregivers comprise a critical component in the care of Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients. Among their many tasks, caregivers are responsible for administering and managing medications. Effective interventions incorporate the needs of both the AD patient and the caregiver, and understanding treatment preferences may maximize intervention effectiveness. Transdermal patches may offer advantages over conventional oral formulations. Methods A 24-week randomized controlled trial compared the rivastigmine patch to the rivastigmine capsule and placebo in patients with probable AD. At baseline and Weeks 8 and 24, the AD Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) was used to evaluate caregiver expectations, preferences and satisfaction with treatment. Double-dummy treatment blinding ensured that caregiver preference for the patch or capsule was not confounded by perceptions of efficacy or tolerability. Reasons for preference were also elicited. The analytic sample included caregivers who completed the ADCPQ at Weeks 8 and/or 24. Results One thousand and fifty-nine caregivers completed the ADCPQ. More than 70% of caregivers preferred the rivastigmine patch to the capsule. The patch was significantly preferred to the capsule with respect to ease of following the schedule and ease of use. Caregivers indicated greater satisfaction overall, greater satisfaction with administration, and less interference with daily life with the patch versus the capsule (all p <= 0.01). Conclusion Caregivers of AD patients preferred the patch to the capsule for drug delivery. Preference for the rivastigmine patch could potentially lead to improved compliance and improved clinical benefits. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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