Efficacy of memantine for agitation in Alzheimer's dementia:a randomised double-blind placebo controlled trial

Background - Agitation in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is common and associated with poor patient life-quality and carer distress. The best evidence-based pharmacological treatments are antipsychotics which have limited benefits with increased morbidity and mortality. There are no memantine trials in clinically significant agitation but post-hoc analyses in other populations found reduced agitation. We tested the primary hypothesis, memantine is superior to placebo for clinically significant agitation, in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Methods and Findings - We recruited 153 participants with AD and clinically significant agitation from care-homes or hospitals for a double-blind randomised-controlled trial and 149 people started the trial of memantine versus placebo. The primary outcome was 6 weeks mixed model autoregressive analysis of Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Secondary outcomes were: 12 weeks CMAI; 6 and 12 weeks Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPI), Clinical Global Impression Change (CGI-C), Standardised Mini Mental State Examination, Severe Impairment Battery. Using a mixed effects model we found no significant differences in the primary outcome, 6 weeks CMAI, between memantine and placebo (memantine lower -3.0; -8.3 to 2.2, p = 0.26); or 12 weeks CMAI; or CGI-C or adverse events at 6 or 12 weeks. NPI mean difference favoured memantine at weeks 6 (-6.9; -12.2 to -1.6; p = 0.012) and 12 (-9.6; -15.0 to -4.3 p = 0.0005). Memantine was significantly better than placebo for cognition. The main study limitation is that it still remains to be determined whether memantine has a role in milder agitation in AD. Conclusions - Memantine did not improve significant agitation in people with in moderate-to-severe AD. Future studies are urgently needed to test other pharmacological candidates in this group and memantine for neuropsychiatric symptoms.

'He was like a zombie':off-label prescription of antipsychotic drugs in dementia

This paper explores the legal position of the off-label prescription of antipsychotic medications to people with dementia who experience behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Dementia is a challenging illness, and BPSD can be very difficult for carers to manage, with evidence that this contributes to carer strain and can result in the early institutionalisation of people with dementia. As a result, the prescription of antipsychotic and other neuroleptic medications to treat BPSD has become commonplace, in spite of these drugs being untested and unlicensed for use to treat older people with dementia. In recent years, it has become apparent through clinical trials that antipsychotic drugs increase the risk of cerebrovascular accident (stroke) and death in people with dementia. In addition, these types of medication also have other risk factors for people with dementia, including over-sedation and worsening of cognitive function. Drawing on recent questionnaire (n = 185), focus group (n = 15), and interview (n = 11) data with carers of people with dementia, this paper explores the law relating to off-label prescription, and the applicability of medical negligence law to cases where adverse events follow the use of antipsychotic medication. It is argued that the practice of off-label prescribing requires regulatory intervention in order to protect vulnerable patients. © The Author [2012]. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

Cholinesterase inhibitors for Parkinson's disease dementia

Background - The loss of cholinergic, dopaminergic and noradrenergic innervations seen in Parkinson's Disease Dementia (PDD) suggest a potential role for cholinesterase inhibitors. Concerns have been expressed about a theoretical worsening of Parkinson's disease related symptoms, particularly movement symptoms. Objectives - To assess the efficacy, safety, tolerability and health economic data relating to the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in PDD. Search methods - The trials were identified from the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 19 April 2005 using the search term parkinson*. This register contains records from major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases and is updated regularly. Comprehensive searches of abstracts from major scientific meetings were performed. Pharmaceutical companies were approached for information regarding additional and ongoing studies. Selection criteria - Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies assessing the effectiveness of cholinesterase inhibitors in PDD. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were stated to limit bias. Data collection and analysis - Two reviewers (IM, CF) independently reviewed the quality of the studies utilizing criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. Medications were examined separately and as a group. The outcome measures assessed were in the following domains: neuropsychiatric features, cognition, global impression, daily living activities, quality of life, burden on caregiver, Parkinsonian related symptoms, treatment acceptability as determined by withdrawal from trials, safety as determined by the frequency of adverse events, institutionalisation, death and health economic factors. Main results - A detailed and systematic search of relevant databases identified one published randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (Emre 2004) involving 541 patients that compared rivastigmine with placebo. Rivastigmine produced statistically significant improvements in several outcome measures. On the primary cognitive measure, the ADAS-Cog, rivastigmine was associated with a 2.80 point ADAS-Cog improvement [WMD -2.80, 95% Cl -4.26 to -1.34, P = 0.0002] and a 2.50 point ADCS-ADL improvement [95% Cl 0.43 to 4.57, P = 0.02] relative to placebo. Clinically meaningful (moderate or marked) improvement occurred in 5.3% more patients on rivastigmine, and meaningful worsening occurred in 10.1% more patients on placebo. Tolerability appeared to be a significant issue. Significantly more patients on rivastigmine dropped out of the study due to adverse events [62/362 versus 14/179, OR 2.44, 95% Cl 1.32 to 4.48, P = 0.004]. Nausea [20/179 versus 105/362, OR 3.25, 95% Cl 1.94 to 5.45, P < 0.00001], tremor [7/179 versus 37/362, OR 2.80, 95% Cl 1.22 to 6.41, P = 0.01] and in particular vomiting [3/179 versus 60/362, OR 11.66, 95% Cl 3.60 to 37.72, P < 0.0001] were significantly more common with rivastigmine. However, significantly fewer patients died on rivastigmine than placebo [4/362 versus 7/179, OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.95, P = 0.04] Authors' conclusions - Rivastigmine appears to improve cognition and activities of daily living in patients with PDD. This results in clinically meaningful benefit in about 15% of cases. There is a need for more studies utilising pragmatic measures such as time to residential care facility and both patient and carer quality of life assessments. Future trials should involve other cholinesterase inhibitors, utilise tools to analyse the data that limit any bias and measure health economic factors. It is unlikely that relying solely on the last observation carried forward (LOCF) is sufficient. Publication of the observed case data in the largest trial would assist (Emre 2004). Adverse events were associated with the cholinergic activity of rivastigmine, but may limit patient acceptability as evidenced by the high drop out rate in the active arm.

Patient-reported outcome measures for asthma:a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are measures of the outcome of treatment(s) reported directly by the patient or carer. There is increasing international policy interest in using these to assess the impact of clinical care. AIMS: To identify suitably validated PROMs for asthma and examine their potential for use in clinical settings. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases from 1990 onwards to identify PROMs for asthma. These were critically appraised, then narratively synthesised. We also identified the generic PROMs commonly used alongside asthma-specific PROMs. RESULTS: We identifi ed 68 PROMs for asthma, 13 of which were selected through screening as being adequately developed to warrant full-quality appraisal: 8 for adults, 4 for children and 1 for a child's caregiver. The PROMs found to be sufficiently well validated to offer promise for use in clinical settings were the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and mini-AQLQ for adults, and Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire for children. Rhinasthma was considered promising in simultaneously assessing the impact of asthma and rhinitis in those with coexistent disease. We identified 28 generic PROMs commonly used in conjunction with asthma-specific instruments. CONCLUSIONS: We identified asthma PROMs that offer the greatest potential for use in clinical settings. Further work is needed to assess whether these are fit-for-purpose for use in clinical practice with individual patients. In particular, there is a need to ensure these are validated for use in clinical settings, acceptable to patients, caregivers and clinicians, and yield meaningful outcomes. © 2014 Primary Care Respiratory Society/Macmillan Publishers Limited.

The importance of detecting and managing comorbidities in people with dementia?

Dementia is a debilitating condition characterised by global loss of cognitive and intellectual functioning, which gradually interferes with social and occupational performance. It is a common worldwide condition with a significant impact on society. There are currently 36 million people worldwide with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias [1]. This is expected to more than double by 2030 (65 million) and reach ∼115 million in 2050, unless a major breakthrough is made. The worldwide societal costs were estimated at USD 604 billion in 2010 and rising [2]. To date research on the specific physical healthcare needs of people with dementia has been neglected. Yet, physical comorbidities are reported as common in people with dementia [3] and have been shown to lead to increased disability and reduced quality of life for the affected person and their carer [4]. Dementia is most frequently associated with older people who often present with other medical conditions, known as co-morbidities. Such co-morbidities include diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, musculoskeletal disorders and chronic cardiac failure and are common, 61% of people with …

Perspectives of carers on medication management in dementia:lessons from collaboratively developing a research proposal

Background: The need for carers to manage medication-related problems for people with dementia living in the community raises dilemmas, which can be identified by carers and people with dementia as key issues for developing carer-relevant research projects.A research planning Public Patient Involvement (PPI) workshop using adapted focus group methodology was held at the Alzheimer's Society's national office, involving carers of people with dementia who were current members of the Alzheimer's Society Research Network (ASRN) in dialogue with health professionals aimed to identify key issues in relation to medication management in dementia from the carer viewpoint. The group was facilitated by a specialist mental health pharmacist, using a topic guide developed systematically with carers, health professionals and researchers. Audio-recordings and field notes were made at the time and were transcribed and analysed thematically. The participants included nine carers in addition to academics, clinicians, and staff from DeNDRoN (Dementias and Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Network) and the Alzheimer's Society. Findings. Significant themes, for carers, which emerged from the workshop were related to: (1) medication usage and administration practicalities, (2) communication barriers and facilitators, (3) bearing and sharing responsibility and (4) weighing up medication risks and benefits. These can form the basis for more in-depth qualitative research involving a broader, more diverse sample. Discussion. The supported discussion enabled carer voices and perspectives to be expressed and to be linked to the process of identifying problems in medications management as directly experienced by carers. This was used to inform an agenda for research proposals which would be meaningful for carers and people with dementia. © 2014 Poland et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Pathway to clozapine use:a comparison between a patient cohort from New Zealand and a cohort from the United Kingdom

Background and Objective: Clozapine has been available since the early 1990s. Studies continue to demonstrate its superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Despite this, numerous studies show under-utilisation, delayed access and reluctance by psychiatrists to prescribe clozapine. This retrospective cross-sectional study compared the prescribing of clozapine in two adult cohorts under the care of large public mental health services in Auckland (New Zealand) and Birmingham (United Kingdom) on 31 March 2007. Method: Time from first presentation to clozapine initiation, prior antipsychotics trialled and antipsychotic co-prescribing were compared. Data included demographics, psychiatric diagnosis, co-morbid conditions, year of first presentation, admissions and pharmacological treatment (clozapine dose, start date, prior antipsychotics, co-prescribed antipsychotic). Results: Overall, 664 people were prescribed clozapine (402 Auckland; 262 Birmingham); mean daily dose of 384 mg (Auckland) and 429 mg (Birmingham). 53 % presented after 1990 and the average duration of time before starting clozapine was significantly longer in the Birmingham cohort (6.5 vs. 5.3 years) but this reduced in both cohorts to a 1-year mean in those presenting within the last 3 years. The average number of antipsychotics trialled pre-clozapine for those presenting since 1990 was significantly higher in the Birmingham cohort (4.3 vs. 3.1) but in both cohorts this similarly reduced in those presenting within the last 3 years. Antipsychotic co-prescribing was significantly higher in the Birmingham cohort (22.9 vs. 10.7 %). Conclusions: There is evidence that access to clozapine has improved over time in both cohorts, with a reduction in the duration between presentation and initiation of clozapine and number of different antipsychotics trialled pre-clozapine. These are very positive findings in terms of optimising outcomes with clozapine and are possibly due to the impact of guideline recommendations, increasing clinician, consumer and carer knowledge, and experience with clozapine and funding changes. © 2014 Springer International Publishing.

Improving the management of behaviour that challenges associated with dementia in care homes:protocol for pharmacy-health psychology intervention feasibility study

INTRODUCTION: The inappropriate use of antipsychotics in people with dementia for behaviour that challenges is associated with an estimated 1800 deaths annually. However, solely focusing on antipsychotics may transfer prescribing to other equally dangerous psychotropics. Little is known about the role of pharmacists in the management of psychotropics used to treat behaviours that challenge. This research aims to determine whether it is feasible to implement and measure the effectiveness of a combined pharmacy-health psychology intervention incorporating a medication review and staff training package to limit the prescription of psychotropics to manage behaviour that challenges in care home residents with dementia. METHODS/ANALYSIS: 6 care homes within the West Midlands will be recruited. People with dementia receiving medication for behaviour that challenges, or their personal consultee, will be approached regarding participation. Medication used to treat behaviour that challenges will be reviewed by the pharmacist, in collaboration with the general practitioner (GP), person with dementia and carer. The behavioural intervention consists of a training package for care home staff and GPs promoting person-centred care and treating behaviours that challenge as an expression of unmet need. The primary outcome measure is the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH). Other outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D and DEMQoL), cognition (sMMSE), health economic (CSRI) and prescribed medication including whether recommendations were implemented. Outcome data will be collected at 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months. Pretraining and post-training interviews will explore stakeholders' expectations and experiences of the intervention. Data will be used to estimate the sample size for a definitive study. ETHICS/DISSEMINATION: The project has received a favourable opinion from the East Midlands REC (15/EM/3014). If potential participants lack capacity, a personal consultee will be consulted regarding participation in line with the Mental Capacity Act. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

Medication review of children on long term medications:a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.

A telephone survey to determine the experiences of children and their parents/carers, following the initiation of a new medicine

Objective: To determine what issues are experienced during the first few weeks of therapy by patients, and their parents/carers, when a child/young person has been prescribed a new medicine. Method: One hundred patients aged ≤18 years of age prescribed a new medicine for ≥6 weeks were recruited from a single UK National Health Service specialist paediatric hospital outpatient pharmacy. Six weeks after the first dispensing of their new medicine the patient or their parent/carer received telephone follow-up by a researcher and verbally completed a questionnaire containing both open and closed questions. Patient or parent/carer experiences were identified and analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: Eighty-six participants were available for telephone follow-up. Six (7%) had not started their medicine. Paediatric patients and their parents/carers experienced a range of issues during the first few weeks after starting a new medicine. These included additional concerns/questions (24/80, 30%), administration issues (21/80, 26.3%), adverse effects (29/80, 36.3%) and obtaining repeat supplies (12/80, 15%). The Morisky Medication Adherence Scale indicated that 34/78 (43.6%) participants had a high adherence rating, 35/78 (44.9%) medium and 9/78 (11.5%) a low rating. Conclusions: Paediatric patients and their parents/carers experience a range of issues during the first few weeks after starting a new medicine. Further research is required to determine the type of interventions that may further support medicines use in this group of patients.