Memantine and cholinesterase inhibitor combination therapy for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Memantine is licensed for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance does not recommend the use of memantine in combination with cholinesterase inhibitors (acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (AChEI)). The underpinning meta-analysis was disputed by the manufacturer. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of AChEI monotherapy with combination memantine and AChEI therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe AD and to examine the impact of including unpublished data on the results. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Dementia Group trial register, ALOIS, searched for the last time on 3 May 2011. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data from four domains (clinical global, cognition, function, behaviour and mood) were pooled. Sensitivity analyses examined the impact on the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis of restricting data to patients with moderate-to-severe AD and of including an unpublished trial of an extended release preparation of memantine. RESULTS: Pooled data from the trials, which were included in the NICE-commissioned meta-analysis but which were restricted to moderate-to-severe AD only, showed a small effect of combination therapy on cognition (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.29, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.14). Adding data from an unpublished trial of an extended release memantine (total three trials, 1317 participants) showed a small benefit of combination therapy on global scores (SMD=-0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.09), cognition (SMD=-0.25, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.14) and behaviour and mood (SMD=-0.17, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.03) but not on function (SMD=-0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.13) at 6 months. No clinical data have been reported from a 1-year trial, although this found 'no significant benefit' on any clinical measures at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that there may be a small benefit at 6 months of adding memantine to AChEIs. However, the impact on clinical global impression depends on exactly which studies are included, and there is no benefit on function, so its clinical relevance is not robustly demonstrated. Currently available information from randomised controlled trails indicates no benefit of combination therapy over monotherapy at 1 year. Legislation on the form and content of registry posted results is needed in Europe

Are methodological quality and completeness of reporting associated with citation-based measures of publication impact? A secondary analysis of a systematic review of dementia biomarker studies

Objective: To determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies. Methods: We assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses. Outcome measures: We aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures—average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures—the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads. Results: The systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (β=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (β=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (β=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (β=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (β=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (β=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (β=0.15; p<0.05). Conclusions: Citation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the diagnosis of dementia within community dwelling populations

<b>Background</b><p></p> Various tools exist for initial assessment of possible dementia with no consensus on the optimal assessment method. Instruments that use collateral sources to assess change in cognitive function over time may have particular utility. The most commonly used informant dementia assessment is the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE).<p></p> A synthesis of the available data regarding IQCODE accuracy will help inform cognitive assessment strategies for clinical practice, research and policy.<p></p> <b>Objectives</b><p></p> Our primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant based questionnaire IQCODE, for detection of all cause (undifferentiated) dementia in community-dwelling adults with no previous cognitive assessment. We sought to describe the accuracy of IQCODE (the index test) against a clinical diagnosis of dementia (the reference standard).<p></p> Our secondary objective was to describe the effect of heterogeneity on the summary estimates. We were particularly interested in the traditional 26-item scale versus the 16-item short form; and language of administration. We explored the effect of varying the threshold IQCODE score used to define 'test positivity'.<p></p> <b>Search methods</b><p></p> We searched the following sources on 28 January 2013: ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science with Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), LILACS (BIREME). We also searched sources relevant or specific to diagnostic test accuracy: MEDION (Universities of Maastrict and Leuven); DARE (York University); ARIF (Birmingham University). We used sensitive search terms based on MeSH terms and other controlled vocabulary.<p></p> <b>Selection criteria</b><p></p> We selected those studies performed in community settings that used (not necessarily exclusively) the IQCODE to assess for presence of dementia and, where dementia diagnosis was confirmed, with clinical assessment. Our intention with limiting the search to a 'community' setting was to include those studies closest to population level assessment. Within our predefined community inclusion criteria, there were relevant papers that fulfilled our definition of community dwelling but represented a selected population, for example stroke survivors. We included these studies but performed sensitivity analyses to assess the effects of these less representative populations on the summary results.<p></p> <b>Data collection and analysis</b><p></p> We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches and abstracts of all potentially relevant studies were reviewed. Full papers were assessed for eligibility and data extracted by two independent assessors. For quality assessment (risk of bias and applicability) we used the QUADAS 2 tool. We included test accuracy data on the IQCODE used at predefined diagnostic thresholds. Where data allowed, we performed meta-analyses to calculate summary values of sensitivity and specificity with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pre-specified analyses to describe the effect of IQCODE format (traditional or short form) and language of administration for the IQCODE.<p></p> <b>Main results</b><p></p> From 16,144 citations, 71 papers described IQCODE test accuracy. We included 10 papers (11 independent datasets) representing data from 2644 individuals (n = 379 (14%) with dementia). Using IQCODE cut-offs commonly employed in clinical practice (3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6) the sensitivity and specificity of IQCODE for diagnosis of dementia across the studies were generally above 75%.<p></p> Taking an IQCODE threshold of 3.3 (or closest available) the sensitivity was 0.80 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.85); specificity was 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); positive likelihood ratio was 5.2 (95% CI 3.7 to 7.5) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.29).<p></p> Comparative analysis suggested no significant difference in the test accuracy of the 16 and 26-item IQCODE tests and no significant difference in test accuracy by language of administration. There was little difference in sensitivity across our predefined diagnostic cut-points.<p></p> There was substantial heterogeneity in the included studies. Sensitivity analyses removing potentially unrepresentative populations in these studies made little difference to the pooled data estimates. The majority of included papers had potential for bias, particularly around participant selection and sampling. The quality of reporting was suboptimal particularly regarding timing of assessments and descriptors of reproducibility and inter-observer variability.<p></p> <b>Authors' conclusions</b><p></p> Published data suggest that if using the IQCODE for community dwelling older adults, the 16 item IQCODE may be preferable to the traditional scale due to lesser test burden and no obvious difference in accuracy. Although IQCODE test accuracy is in a range that many would consider 'reasonable', in the context of community or population settings the use of the IQCODE alone would result in substantial misdiagnosis and false reassurance. Across the included studies there were issues with heterogeneity, several potential biases and suboptimal reporting quality

Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) for the early diagnosis of dementia across a variety of healthcare settings

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant based questionnaire IQCODE in a population free from dementia for the delayed diagnosis of dementia

(11)C-PIB-PET for the early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

BACKGROUND: According to the latest revised National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) (NINCDS-ADRDA) diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease dementia, the confidence in diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease dementia is raised with the application of imaging biomarkers. These tests, added to core clinical criteria, might increase the sensitivity or specificity of a testing strategy. However, the accuracy of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated. A formal systematic evaluation of the sensitivity, specificity, and other properties of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging with the (11)C-labelled Pittsburgh Compound-B ((11)C-PIB) ligand was performed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the (11)C- PIB-PET scan for detecting participants with MCI at baseline who will clinically convert to Alzheimer's disease dementia or other forms of dementia over a period of time. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent search for this review was performed on 12 January 2013. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We also requested a search of the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (managed by the Cochrane Renal Group).No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used so as to maximise sensitivity. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that had prospectively defined cohorts with any accepted definition of MCI with baseline (11)C-PIB-PET scan. In addition, we only selected studies that applied a reference standard for Alzheimer's dementia diagnosis for example NINCDS-ADRDA or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. The identified full papers were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted to create two by two tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS 2 tool. We used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) model to produce a summary ROC curve. MAIN RESULTS: Conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia was evaluated in nine studies. The quality of the evidence was limited. Of the 274 participants included in the meta-analysis, 112 developed Alzheimer's dementia. Based on the nine included studies, the median proportion converting was 34%. The studies varied markedly in how the PIB scans were done and interpreted.The sensitivities were between 83% and 100% while the specificities were between 46% and 88%. Because of the variation in thresholds and measures of (11)C-PIB amyloid retention, we did not calculate summary sensitivity and specificity. Although subject to considerable uncertainty, to illustrate the potential strengths and weaknesses of (11)C-PIB-PET scans we estimated from the fitted summary ROC curve that the sensitivity was 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87 to 99) at the included study median specificity of 58%. This equated to a positive likelihood ratio of 2.3 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.07. Assuming a typical conversion rate of MCI to Alzheimer's dementia of 34%, for every 100 PIB scans one person with a negative scan would progress and 28 with a positive scan would not actually progress to Alzheimer's dementia.There were limited data for formal investigation of heterogeneity. We performed two sensitivity analyses to assess the influence of type of reference standard and the use of a pre-specified threshold. There was no effect on our findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the good sensitivity achieved in some included studies is promising for the value of (11)C-PIB-PET, given the heterogeneity in the conduct and interpretation of the test and the lack of defined thresholds for determination of test positivity, we cannot recommend its routine use in clinical practice.(11)C-PIB-PET biomarker is a high cost investigation, therefore it is important to clearly demonstrate its accuracy and standardise the process of the (11)C-PIB diagnostic modality prior to it being widely used

AD-8 for diagnosis of dementia across a variety of healthcare settings

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the informant‐based questionnaire AD‐8, in detection of all‐cause (undifferentiated) dementia in adults. We will present data for each healthcare setting where AD‐8 may be employed (community; primary care; secondary care)

Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

BACKGROUND: According to the latest revised National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) (NINCDS-ADRDA) diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease dementia of the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer Association, the confidence in diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer's disease dementia is raised with the application of biomarkers based on measures in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or imaging. These tests, added to core clinical criteria, might increase the sensitivity or specificity of a testing strategy. However, the accuracy of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated. A formal systematic evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and other properties of plasma and CSF amyloid beta (Aß) biomarkers was performed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of plasma and CSF Aß levels for detecting those patients with MCI who would convert to Alzheimer's disease dementia or other forms of dementia over time. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent search for this review was performed on 3 December 2012. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We also requested a search of the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (managed by the Cochrane Renal Group).No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used so as to maximise sensitivity. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected those studies that had prospectively well defined cohorts with any accepted definition of cognitive decline, but no dementia, with baseline CSF or plasma Aß levels, or both, documented at or around the time the above diagnoses were made. We also included studies which looked at data from those cohorts retrospectively, and which contained sufficient data to construct two by two tables expressing plasma and CSF Aß biomarker results by disease status. Moreover, studies were only selected if they applied a reference standard for Alzheimer's dementia diagnosis, for example the NINCDS-ADRDA or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create standard two by two tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Where data allowed, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. MAIN RESULTS: Alzheimer's disease dementia was evaluated in 14 studies using CSF Aß42. Of the 1349 participants included in the meta-analysis, 436 developed Alzheimer's dementia. Individual study estimates of sensitivity were between 36% and 100% while the specificities were between 29% and 91%. Because of the variation in assay thresholds, we did not estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. However, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary ROC curve. At the median specificity of 64%, the sensitivity was 81% (95% CI 72 to 87). This equated to a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.22 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.47) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.31 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).The accuracy of CSF Aß42 for all forms of dementia was evaluated in four studies. Of the 464 participants examined, 188 developed a form of dementia (Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia).The thresholds used were between 209 mg/ml and 512 ng/ml. The sensitivities were between 56% and 75% while the specificities were between 47% and 76%. At the median specificity of 75%, the sensitivity was estimated to be 63% (95% CI 22 to 91) from the meta-analytic model. This equated to a LR+ of 2.51 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.86) and a LR- of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.51).The accuracy of CSF Aß42 for non-Alzheimer's disease dementia was evaluated in three studies. Of the 385 participants examined, 61 developed non-Alzheimer's disease dementia. Since there were very few studies and considerable variation between studies, the results were not meta-analysed. The sensitivities were between 8% and 63% while the specificities were between 35% and 67%.Only one study examined the accuracy of plasma Aß42 and the plasma Aß42/Aß40 ratio for Alzheimer's disease dementia. The sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 81 to 90) was the same for both tests while the specificities were 50% (95% CI 44 to 55) and 70% (95% CI 64 to 75) for plasma Aß42 and the plasma Aß42/Aß40 ratio respectively. Of the 565 participants examined, 245 developed Alzheimer's dementia and 87 non-Alzheimer's disease dementia.There was substantial heterogeneity between studies. The accuracy of Aß42 for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia did not differ significantly (P = 0.8) between studies that pre-specified the threshold for determining test positivity (n = 6) and those that only determined the threshold at follow-up (n = 8). One study excluded a sample of MCI non-Alzheimer's disease dementia converters from their analysis. In sensitivity analyses, the exclusion of this study had no impact on our findings. The exclusion of eight studies (950 patients) that were considered at high (n = 3) or unclear (n = 5) risk of bias for the patient selection domain also made no difference to our findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The proposed diagnostic criteria for prodromal dementia and MCI due to Alzheimer's disease, although still being debated, would be fulfilled where there is both core clinical and cognitive criteria and a single biomarker abnormality. From our review, the measure of abnormally low CSF Aß levels has very little diagnostic benefit with likelihood ratios suggesting only marginal clinical utility. The quality of reports was also poor, and thresholds and length of follow-up were inconsistent. We conclude that when applied to a population of patients with MCI, CSF Aß levels cannot be recommended as an accurate test for Alzheimer's disease

Characteristics of patients expressing an interest in ketamine treatment:results of an online survey

Background: Off-label ketamine treatment has shown acute antidepressant effects that offer hope for patients with therapy-resistant depression. However, its potential for integration into treatment algorithms is controversial, not least because the evidence base for maintenance treatment with repeated ketamine administration is currently weak. Ketamine is also a drug of misuse, which has raised concerns regarding the target population. Little is known about which patients would seek ketamine treatment if it were more widely available. Aims: To explore some of the characteristics of the patients actively seeking ketamine treatment. Method: An online survey containing questions about duration of current depressive episode, number of antidepressants used and other comments was completed by patients who were exploring the internet regarding the possibility of ketamine for depression. Results: Of the 1088 people who registered their interest, 93.3% reported depression, 64.3% reported a chronic course of their symptoms and in the past 10 years, 86.3% had tried at least two antidepressants. Desperation was a common theme, but this appeared to be competently expressed. A small minority (<8%) reported experience of illegal ketamine use. Conclusions: It cannot be ruled out that patients with different degrees of treatment resistance and comorbidities will seek treatment with ketamine. This stresses the urgency to perform larger randomised controlled trials as well as to systematically monitor outcomes and adverse effects of ketamine, that is currently prescribed off-label for patients in need. Declaration of interest: R.M. is consulting and is Principal Investigator for Janssen trials of esketamine and is consulting for Eleusis

Ketamine treatment for individuals with treatment-resistant depression: a longitudinal qualitative interview study of patient experiences

Background Ketamine has recently received considerable attention regarding its antidepressant and anti-suicidal effects. Trials have generally focused on short-term effects of single intravenous infusions. Research on patient experiences is lacking. Aims To investigate the experiences over time of individuals receiving ketamine treatment in a routine clinic, including impacts on mood and suicidality. Method Twelve fee-paying patients with treatment-resistant depression (6 females, 6 males, age 21-70 years; 11 reporting suicidality and six self-harm) who were assessed as eligible for ketamine treatment participated in up to three semi-structured interviews: before treatment started, a few weeks into treatment and two or more months later. Data were analysed thematically. Results Most participants hoped that ketamine would provide respite from their depression. All experienced improvement in mood following initial treatments, ranging from negligible to dramatic, and eight a reduction in suicidality. Improvements were transitory for most participants, although two experienced sustained consistent benefit and two had sustained but limited improvement. Some participants described hopelessness when treatment stopped working, paralleled by increased suicidal ideation for three. The transient nature and cost of treatment were problematic. Eleven participants experienced side-effects, which in two cases were significant. Suggestions for improving treatment included closer monitoring and adjunctive psychological therapy. Conclusions Ketamine treatment was generally experienced as effective in improving mood and reducing suicidal ideation in the short-term, but the lack of longer-term benefit was challenging for participants, as was treatment cost. Informed consent procedures should refer to the possibilities of relapse and of associated increased hopelessness and suicidality

Effects of ketamine treatment on suicidal ideation: a qualitative study of patients’ accounts following treatment for depression in a UK ketamine clinic

Objective It is recognised that ketamine treatment can reduce suicidal ideation (SI) in people with depression, at least in the short term. However, information is lacking on patients’ perspectives on such effects. Studying these can contribute to greater understanding of the mechanisms underlying impact of ketamine treatment on SI. The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ reports of the impact of treatment on their SI, the duration of effects and possible mechanisms. Design and setting This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews with patients who had received ketamine treatment for depression. Interview data were analysed thematically. Participants Fourteen patients (8 females, 6 males, aged 24–64 years) who had received treatment with ketamine for treatment-resistant depression, and had SI at the initiation of treatment. Two participants also had a diagnosis of bipolar type 1 and two of emotionally unstable personality disorder. Eight had a history of self-harm. Results SI reduced following ketamine treatment in 12 out of 14 participants for periods of a few hours following a single treatment to up to three years with ongoing treatment. Reduction of SI was variable in terms of extent and duration, and re-emergence of suicidal thoughts often occurred when treatment ceased. Participants’ accounts indicated that reduced SI was associated with improved mood and reduced anxiety, as were clarity of thought, focus and concentration, and ability to function. Participants reported experiencing some or all of these effects in various orders of occurrence. Conclusion Generally, ketamine treatment was experienced as effective in reducing SI, although duration of effects varied considerably. Patients’ perspectives indicated similarities in the mechanisms of reduction in SI, but some differences in their manifestation, particularly in relation to chronology. Experiences of this cohort suggest that reduced anxiety and improvement in ability to think and function were important mechanisms alongside, or in some cases independently of, improvement in mood. Further studies of patients’ experiences are required to gain enhanced understanding of the variability of effects of ketamine on SI and functionality