The design, evaluation, and reporting on non- pharmacological, cognition- oriented treatments for older adults: Results of a survey of experts

IntroductionCognitive decline and dementia significantly affect independence and quality of life in older adults; therefore, it is critical to identify effective cognition- oriented treatments (COTs; eg, cognitive training, rehabilitation) that can help maintain or enhance cognitive functioning in older adults, as well as reduce dementia risk or alleviate symptoms associated with pathological processes.MethodsThe Cognitive Intervention Design Evaluation and Reporting (CIDER), a working group from the Non- Pharmacological Interventions Professional Interest Area (NPI- PIA) of the Alzheimer’s Association conducted as survey in 2017 with experts in COTs worldwide. The survey’s aims were three- fold: (1) determine the common attitudes, beliefs, and practices of experts involved in the COTs research targeting older people; (2) identify areas of relative agreement and disagreement among experts in the field; and (3) offer a critical review of the literature, including recommendations for future research.ResultsThe survey identified several areas of agreements among experts on critical features of COTs, and on study design and outcome measures. Nevertheless, there were some areas with relative disagreement. Critically, expert opinions were not always supported by scientific evidence, suggesting that methodologic improvements are needed regarding design, implementation, and reporting of COTs. There was a clear consensus that COTs provide benefits and should be offered to cognitively unimpaired older adults, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and mild dementia, but opinions differed for moderate and severe dementia. In addition, there is no consensus on the potential role of COTs in dementia prevention, indicating that future research should prioritize this aspect.DiscussionEvidence of COTs in older adults is encouraging, but additional evidence is needed to enhance dementia prevention. Consensus building and guidelines in the field are critical to improve and accelerate the development of high- quality evidence for COTs in cognitively unimpaired older adults, and those with MCI and dementia.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155935/1/trc212024_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155935/2/trc212024.pd

Cognitive rehabilitation for people with mild to moderate dementia (Protocol)

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of cognitive rehabilitation on everyday functioning and other outcomes for people with mild to moderate dementia, and on outcomes for caregivers To identify and explore factors that may be associated with the efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Cognitive training for people with mild to moderate dementia (protocol)

This is the final version of the article. Available from Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley via the DOI in this record.The review version is in ORE at: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/36870This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the effects of cognitive training on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers. To compare the effects of cognitive training with those of other non-pharmacological interventions, including cognitive stimulation or rehabilitation. To identify and explore factors related to intervention and trial design that may be associated with the efficacy of cognitive training.Internal sources • Cochrane Incentive Award, UK. External sources • NIHR, UK. This protocol was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Incentive funding Cochrane to the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement group. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, National Health Service or the Department of Health • National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Australi

Cognitive training for people with mild to moderate dementia (review)

This is the final version. Available from Cochrane Collaboration / Wiley via the DOI in this recordThe protocol version is in ORE at: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/33809Background Cognitive impairment, a defining feature of dementia, plays an important role in the compromised functional independence that characterises the condition. Cognitive training (CT) is an approach that uses guided practice on structured tasks with the direct aim of improving or maintaining cognitive abilities. Objectives To assess effects of CT on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers. To compare effects of CT with those of other non-pharmacological interventions, including cognitive stimulation or rehabilitation, for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers. To identify and explore factors related to intervention and trial design that may be associated with the efficacy of CT for people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers. Search methods We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive ImprovementGroup Specialised Register, on 5 July 2018. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified through monthly searches of several major healthcare databases and numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. In addition to this, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's trials portal, ICTRP, to ensure that searches were comprehensive and up-to-date. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that described interventions for peoplewithmild tomoderate dementia and compared CT versus a control or alternative intervention. Data collection and analysis We extracted relevant data from published manuscripts and through contact with trial authors if required.We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool.We divided comparison conditions into active or passive control conditions and alternative treatments. We used a large number of measures and data to evaluate 19 outcomes at end of treatment, as well as 16 outcomes at follow-up in the medium term; we pooled this information in meta-analyses. We calculated pooled estimates of treatment effect using a random-effects model, and we estimated statistical heterogeneity using a standard Chi statistic. We graded the evidence using GradePro. Main results The 33 included trials were published between 1988 and 2018 and were conducted in 12 countries; most were unregistered, parallelgroup, single-site RCTs, with samples ranging from 12 to 653 participants. Interventions were between two and 104 weeks long. We classified most experimental interventions as 'straight CT', but we classified some as 'augmented CT', and about two-thirds as multi-domain interventions. Researchers investigated 18 passive and 13 active control conditions, along with 15 alternative treatment conditions, including occupational therapy, mindfulness, reminiscence therapy, and others. The methodological quality of studies varied, but we rated nearly all studies as having high or unclear risk of selection bias due to lack of allocation concealment, and high or unclear risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. We used data from 32 studies in the meta-analysis of at least one outcome. Relative to a control condition, we found moderate-quality evidence showing a small to moderate effect of CT on our first primary outcome, composite measure of global cognition at end of treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.62), and high-quality evidence showing a moderate effect on the secondary outcome of verbal semantic fluency (SMD 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.81) at end of treatment, with these gains retained in the medium term (3 to 12 months post treatment). In relation to many other outcomes, including our second primary outcome of clinical disease severity in the medium term, the quality of evidence was very low, so we were unable to determine whether CT was associated with any meaningful gains. When compared with an alternative treatment, we found that CT may have little to no effect on our first primary outcome of global cognition at end of treatment (SMD 0.21, 95% CI-0.23 to 0.64), but the quality of evidence was low. No evidence was available to assess our second primary outcome of clinical disease severity in the medium term.We found moderate-quality evidence showing that CT was associated with improved mood of the caregiver at end of treatment, but this was based on a single trial. The quality of evidence in relation to many other outcomes at end of treatment and in the medium term was too low for us to determine whether CT was associated with any gains, but we are moderately confident that CT did not lead to any gains in mood, behavioural and psychological symptoms, or capacity to perform activities of daily living. Authors' conclusions Relative to a control intervention, but not to a variety of alternative treatments, CT is probably associated with small to moderate positive effects on global cognition and verbal semantic fluency at end of treatment, and these benefits appear to be maintained in the medium term. Our certainty in relation to many of these findings is low or very low. Future studies should take stronger measures to mitigate well-established risks of bias, and should provide long-term follow-up to improve our understanding of the extent to which observed gains are retained. Future trials should also focus on direct comparison of CT versus alternative treatments rather than passive or active control conditions.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)National Health and Medical Research Council of Australi

Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: a synthesis of systematic reviews

Objectives: Over the last 10 years there has been a multitude of studies of psychosocial interventions for people with dementia. However, clinical services face a dilemma about which intervention should be introduced into clinical practice because of the inconsistency in some of the findings between different studies and the differences in the study qualities and trustworthiness of evidence. There was a need to provide a comprehensive summary of the best evidence to illustrate what works. Methods: A review of the systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions in dementia published between January 2010 and February 2016 was conducted. Results: Twenty-two reviews (8 physical, 7 cognitive, 1 physical/cognitive and 6 other psychosocial interventions) with a total of 197 unique studies met the inclusion criteria. Both medium to longer-term multi-component exercise of moderate to high intensity, and, group cognitive stimulation consistently show benefits. There is not sufficient evidence to determine whether psychological or social interventions might improve either mood or behaviour due to the heterogeneity of the studies and interventions included in the reviews. Conclusion: There is good evidence that multi-component exercise with sufficient intensity improves global physical and cognitive functions and activities of daily living skills. There is also good evidence that group based cognitive stimulation improves cognitive functions, social interaction and quality of life. This synthesis also highlights the potential importance of group activities to improve social integration for people with dementia. Future research should investigate longer-term specific outcomes, consider the severity and types of dementia, and investigate mechanisms of change

Nonpharmacological interventions to improve depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QoL) in people with dementia: an overview of systematic reviews

This overview aimed to systematically synthesize evidence from existing systematic reviews to signpost practitioners to the current evidence base on nonpharmacological interventions to improve depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QoL) in people with dementia and to discuss priorities for future research. The databases MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched in August 2017 with an updated search in January 2019. Fourteen systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of nonpharmacological interventions were identified. Dementia stage was rated moderate or severe in the majority of the reviews and type of dementia varied. Interventions reported to be effective were cognitive stimulation (QoL: standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.38), music-based therapeutic interventions (depression: SMD = −0.27, anxiety: SMD = −0.43, QoL: SMD = 0.32), and psychological treatments (mainly cognitive behavior therapy; depression: SMD = −0.22, anxiety: MD = −4.57). Although health-care professionals are recommended to continue using these approaches, future research needs to focus on the type and form of interventions that are most effective for different stages and types of dementia

Toward a theory‐based specification of non‐pharmacological treatments in aging and dementia: Focused reviews and methodological recommendations

Introduction: Non‐pharmacological treatments (NPTs) have the potential to improve meaningful outcomes for older people at risk of, or living with dementia, but research often lacks methodological rigor and continues to produce mixed results. Methods: In the current position paper, experts in NPT research have specified treatment targets, aims, and ingredients using an umbrella framework, the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System. Results: Experts provided a snapshot and an authoritative summary of the evidence for different NPTs based on the best synthesis efforts, identified main gaps in knowledge and relevant barriers, and provided directions for future research. Experts in trial methodology provide best practice principles and recommendations for those working in this area, underscoring the importance of prespecified protocols. Discussion: We conclude that the evidence strongly supports various NPTs in relation to their primary targets, and discuss opportunities and challenges associated with a unifying theoretical framework to guide future efforts in this area

Computerized cognitive training for older adults at higher dementia risk due to diabetes: Findings from a randomized controlled trial

To evaluate the effects of adaptive and tailored computerized cognitive training on cognition and disease self-management in older adults with diabetesThis work was supported by Maccabi Health Services (MHS; grant no. 25860 to M.S.B.). The funding source played no role in the design and implementation of the trial, analysis and interpretation of the data, or preparation of the manuscript. The CCT platform was donated by CogniFit. CogniFit or its employees played no role in the design and implementation of the trial, analysis and interpretation of the data, or preparation of the manuscript. R.B. was supported by the Vice-Chancellor Award from Bar Ilan University, Israel. A.B-F. was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council fellowship (grant no. 1072688). M.S.B. was supported by the National Institute on Aging (grant no. R01-AG-034087). A.H. is an employee of MHS who provided funding for this study. The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Toward a theory‐based specification of non‐pharmacological treatments in aging and dementia: Focused reviews and methodological recommendations

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmacological treatments (NPTs) have the potential to improve meaningful outcomes for older people at risk of, or living with dementia, but research often lacks methodological rigor and continues to produce mixed results. METHODS: In the current position paper, experts in NPT research have specified treatment targets, aims, and ingredients using an umbrella framework, the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System. RESULTS: Experts provided a snapshot and an authoritative summary of the evidence for different NPTs based on the best synthesis efforts, identified main gaps in knowledge and relevant barriers, and provided directions for future research. Experts in trial methodology provide best practice principles and recommendations for those working in this area, underscoring the importance of prespecified protocols. DISCUSSION: We conclude that the evidence strongly supports various NPTs in relation to their primary targets, and discuss opportunities and challenges associated with a unifying theoretical framework to guide future efforts in this area

Meditation on the Soles of the Feet Practice Provides Some Control of Aggression for Individuals with Alzheimer’s Disease

Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative condition that affects cognition, mental and physical health, and functionality of older people. As the disease progresses from the mild to moderate stage, there is a concomitant increase in several behavioral variables, chiefly agitation, anger, and aggression. Currently, there are no evidence-based treatments for these behaviors in this population. Three individuals with moderate Alzheimer’s disease were taught an informal mindfulness practice, meditation on the Soles of the Feet (SoF), as a self-management strategy within a multiple-baseline design across participants. All three were able to learn and use the SoF practice to manage their verbal and physical aggression. Their use of the SoF practice was correlated with decreased perceived psychological stress for their spouses and caregivers, as well as for the participants, but to a much smaller degree. In terms of social validity, the participants, their spouses, and caregivers rated the SoF practice as acceptable, effective, with no unintended effects, and indicated that they would recommend the practice to others. However, they also rated SoF as effortful for the participants because it involves the participants remembering to use the practice with rising anger, a requirement particularly challenging for those with memory problems. The SoF practice may enable individuals in the early stages of dementia to manage their anger and aggression. The data were derived from an internally valid experimental design, suggestive of initial proof-of-concept, but needs to be replicated before any clinical implications can be imputed from this study