-
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Jun 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, associated with the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, associated with the presence of restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Cannabis has been used to alleviate symptoms associated with ASD.
METHOD
We carried out a systematic review of studies that investigated the clinical effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use on ASD, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA checklist). The search was carried out in four databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Scopus, and Web of Science. No limits were established for language during the selection process. Nine studies were selected and analyzed.
RESULTS
Some studies showed that cannabis products reduced the number and/or intensity of different symptoms, including hyperactivity, attacks of self-mutilation and anger, sleep problems, anxiety, restlessness, psychomotor agitation, irritability, aggressiveness perseverance, and depression. Moreover, they found an improvement in cognition, sensory sensitivity, attention, social interaction, and language. The most common adverse effects were sleep disorders, restlessness, nervousness and change in appetite.
CONCLUSION
Cannabis and cannabinoids may have promising effects in the treatment of symptoms related to ASD, and can be used as a therapeutic alternative in the relief of those symptoms. However, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are necessary to clarify findings on the effects of cannabis and its cannabinoids in individuals with ASD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), code 164161.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 34043900
DOI: 10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0149 -
BMJ Open Mar 2017To provide an overview of non-pharmacological interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To provide an overview of non-pharmacological interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD).
DESIGN
Systematic overview of reviews.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO (2009-March 2015).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Systematic reviews (SRs) that included at least one comparative study evaluating any non-pharmacological intervention, to treat BPSD.
DATA EXTRACTION
Eligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by 2 reviewers.The AMSTAR checklist was used to assess the quality of the SRs.
DATA ANALYSIS
Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach.
RESULTS
38 SRs and 129 primary studies were identified, comprising the following categories of non-pharmacological interventions: (1) sensory stimulation interventions (25 SRs, 66 primary studies) that encompassed: shiatsu and acupressure, aromatherapy, massage/touch therapy, light therapy, sensory garden and horticultural activities, music/dance therapy, dance therapy, snoezelen multisensory stimulation therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation; (2) cognitive/emotion-oriented interventions (13 SRs; 26 primary studies) that included cognitive stimulation, reminiscence therapy, validation therapy, simulated presence therapy; (3) behaviour management techniques (6 SRs; 22 primary studies); (4) Multicomponent interventions (3 SR; four primary studies); (5) other therapies (5 SRs, 15 primary studies) comprising exercise therapy, animal-assisted therapy, special care unit and dining room environment-based interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
A large number of non-pharmacological interventions for BPSD were identified. The majority of the studies had great variation in how the same type of intervention was defined and applied, the follow-up duration, the type of outcome measured, usually with modest sample size. Overall, music therapy and behavioural management techniques were effective for reducing BPSD.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anxiety; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Complementary Therapies; Dementia; Home Care Services; Humans; Phototherapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Psychomotor Agitation; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28302633
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012759 -
Neurologia (Barcelona, Spain) May 2017Dementia is characterised by cognitive deterioration and the manifestation of psychological and behavioural symptoms, especially changes in perception, thought content,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dementia is characterised by cognitive deterioration and the manifestation of psychological and behavioural symptoms, especially changes in perception, thought content, mood, and conduct. In addition to drug therapy, non-pharmacological treatments are used to manage these symptoms, and one of these latter treatments is music therapy. Since this novel technique in non-verbal, it can be used to treat patients with dementia at any stage, even when cognitive deterioration is very severe. Patients' responses to music are conserved even in the most advanced stages of the disease DEVELOPMENT: A literature research was carried out using the following databases: Academic Search Complete, PubMed, Science Direct y Dialnet. The period of publication was 2003 to 2013 and the search keywords were 'Music Therapy, Dementia, Behaviour, Behaviour Disorders y Behavioural Disturbances'. Out of the 2188 studies that were identified, 11 studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review.
CONCLUSIONS
Music therapy is beneficial and improves behavior disorders, anxiety and agitation in subjects diagnosed with dementia.
Topics: Anxiety; Dementia; Humans; Music Therapy; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 25553932
DOI: 10.1016/j.nrl.2014.11.001 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological symptoms, or behaviour that challenges) which are also often the most distressing aspect of the disorder for caregivers. Complementary therapies, including aromatherapy, are attractive to patients, practitioners and families, because they are perceived as being unlikely to cause adverse effects. Therefore there is interest in whether aromatherapy might offer a safe means of alleviating distressed behaviours in dementia.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 5 May 2020 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. In addition, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thompson Web of Science), LILACS (via BIREME), CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) on 5 May 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies, involving other authors to reach consensus decisions where necessary. We did not perform any meta-analyses because of heterogeneity between studies, but presented a narrative synthesis of results from the included trials. Because of the heterogeneity of analysis methods and inadequate or absent reporting of data from some trials, we used statistical significance (P ≤ or > 0.5) as a summary metric when synthesising results across studies. As far as possible, we used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the results of the trials, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were lavender (eight studies); lemon balm (four studies); lavender and lemon balm, lavender and orange, and cedar extracts (one study each). For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66), reducing our confidence in the results. Our primary outcomes were agitation, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms, and adverse effects. Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the five trials for which our confidence in the results was moderate or low, four trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other five trials either reported no useable data or our confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and we had moderate or low confidence in the results of five of them. Of these, four reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect. Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. We did not find evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. Our confidence in the results of these studies was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed.
Topics: Aromatherapy; Behavioral Symptoms; Bias; Dementia; Humans; Oils, Volatile; Psychomotor Agitation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 32813272
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003150.pub3 -
Clinical Interventions in Aging 2017Person-centered care is a holistic and integrative approach designed to maintain well-being and quality of life for people with dementia, and it includes the elements of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Person-centered care is a holistic and integrative approach designed to maintain well-being and quality of life for people with dementia, and it includes the elements of care, the individual, the carers, and the family.
AIM
A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of person-centered care for people with dementia.
METHODS
Literature searches were undertaken using six databases including Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database, and KoreaMed using the following keywords: cognition disorder, dementia, person-centered care, patient-centered care, client-centered care, relationship-centered care, and dementia care. The searches were limited to interventional studies written in English and Korean and included randomized controlled studies and noncontrolled studies for people with dementia living in any setting.
RESULTS
Nineteen interventional studies, including 3,985 participants, were identified. Of these, 17 studies were from long-term care facilities and two studies were from homecare settings. The pooled data from randomized controlled studies favored person-centered care in reducing agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depression and improving the quality of life. Subgroup analysis identified greater effectiveness of person-centered care when implemented for people with less severe dementia. For agitation, short-term interventions had a greater effect (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -0.434; 95% conference interval [CI]: -0.701 to -0.166) than long-term interventions (SMD: -0.098; 95% CI: -0.190 to 0.007). Individualized activities resulted in a significantly greater beneficial effect than standard care (SMD: 0.513; 95% CI: -0.994 to -0.032). However, long-term, staff education, and cultural change interventions had a greater effect on improving the quality of life for people with dementia (SMD: 0.191; 95% CI: 0.079 to 0.302).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence for person-centered care in clinical practice for people with dementia. Person-centered care interventions were shown to reduce agitation, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and depression and to improve the quality of life. Person-centered care interventions can effectively reduce agitation for a short term using intensive and activity-based intervention. However, an educational strategy that promotes learning and skill development of internal care staff is needed to enhance patient's quality of life and to ensure the sustainability of the effects of behavioral problems. The feasibility and effectiveness of the intervention, the severity of patient disease, and intervention type and duration should be considered as part of an intervention design.
Topics: Anxiety; Caregivers; Dementia; Depression; Family; Humans; Patient-Centered Care; Psychomotor Agitation; Quality of Life; Self Care; Severity of Illness Index
PubMed: 28255234
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S117637 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018Dementia is a clinical syndrome with a number of different causes which is characterised by deterioration in cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional functions.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a clinical syndrome with a number of different causes which is characterised by deterioration in cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional functions. Pharmacological interventions are available but have limited effect to treat many of the syndrome's features. Less research has been directed towards non-pharmacological treatments. In this review, we examined the evidence for effects of music-based interventions.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of music-based therapeutic interventions for people with dementia on emotional well-being including quality of life, mood disturbance or negative affect, behavioural problems, social behaviour and cognition at the end of therapy and four or more weeks after the end of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) on 19 June 2017 using the terms: music therapy, music, singing, sing, auditory stimulation. Additional searches were carried out on 19 June 2017 in the major healthcare databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS; and in trial registers and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of music-based therapeutic interventions (at least five sessions) for people with dementia that measured any of our outcomes of interest. Control groups either received usual care or other activities with or without music.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors worked independently to screen the retrieved studies against the inclusion criteria and then to extract data and assess methodological quality of the included studies. If necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional data, including relevant subscales, or for other missing information. We pooled data using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 studies with 1097 randomised participants. Twenty-one studies with 890 participants contributed data to meta-analyses. Participants in the studies had dementia of varying degrees of severity, and all were resident in institutions. Seven studies delivered an individual music intervention; the other studies delivered the intervention to groups of participants. Most interventions involved both active and receptive musical elements. The methodological quality of the studies varied. All were at high risk of performance bias and some were at high risk of detection or other bias.At the end of treatment, we found low-quality evidence that the interventions may improve emotional well-being and quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 0.62; 9 studies, 348 participants) and reduce anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14; 13 studies, 478 participants). We found low-quality evidence that music-based therapeutic interventions may have little or no effect on cognition (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.36; 7 studies, 350 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that the interventions reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.09; 11 studies, 503 participants) and overall behaviour problems (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.01; 10 studies, 442 participants), but do not decrease agitation or aggression (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 14 studies, 626 participants). The quality of the evidence on social behaviour was very low, so effects were very uncertain.The evidence for long-term outcomes measured four or more weeks after the end of treatment was of very low quality for anxiety and social behaviour, and for the other outcomes, it was of low quality for little or no effect (with small SMDs, between 0.03 and 0.34).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Providing people with dementia who are in institutional care with at least five sessions of a music-based therapeutic intervention probably reduces depressive symptoms and improves overall behavioural problems at the end of treatment. It may also improve emotional well-being and quality of life and reduce anxiety, but may have little or no effect on agitation or aggression or on cognition. We are uncertain about effects on social behaviour and about long-term effects. Future studies should examine the duration of effects in relation to the overall duration of treatment and the number of sessions.
Topics: Aged; Aggression; Dementia; Depression; Humans; Mental Disorders; Music Therapy; Psychomotor Agitation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30033623
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003477.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2019Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales.
MAIN RESULTS
Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Akathisia, Drug-Induced; Alzheimer Disease; Cognition Disorders; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists; Humans; Memantine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 30891742
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003154.pub6 -
CNS Drugs Jun 2016Pain in patients with Alzheimer's disease is a complex issue; these patients suffer from the common causes of acute and chronic pain, and some also have neuropathic or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Pain in patients with Alzheimer's disease is a complex issue; these patients suffer from the common causes of acute and chronic pain, and some also have neuropathic or nociceptive pain. Whatever the mechanism of pain in these patients, their pain will require careful assessment and management, to insure the correct type and level of analgesia is given. The objective of this systematic review was the identification of studies that have investigated the efficacy of different analgesics on pain intensity or pain-related behavior during nursing home stay and at the end of life.
METHODS
A search using pain, pain treatment, and dementia MESH terms and keywords was conducted (October 15, 2015) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane libraries.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 3138 unique hits, published between 1990 and October 2015. We read titles and abstracts, identified 124 papers for full-text evaluation, and included 12 papers to reflect and synthesize the following questions: (1) Which pain assessment tools for people with dementia are responsive to change in pain intensity scores? (2) Which analgesics are efficacy-tested by controlled trials including people with dementia living in nursing homes, including at the end of life? (3) Which outcome measures have been used to identify pain, pain behavior, and/or treatment efficacy in people with dementia?
CONCLUSION
Despite increased use of analgesics, pain is still prevalent in people with dementia. Validated pain tools are available but not implemented and not fully tested on responsiveness to treatment. Official guidelines for pain assessment and treatment addressing people with dementia living in a nursing home are lacking. The efficacy of analgesic drug use on pain or neuropsychiatric behavior related to dementia has been hardly investigated.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Analgesics; Chronic Pain; Dementia; Humans; Pain Management; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 27240869
DOI: 10.1007/s40263-016-0342-7 -
BioMed Research International 2015Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are defined as a group of symptoms of disturbed perceptive thought content, mood, or behavior that include... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are defined as a group of symptoms of disturbed perceptive thought content, mood, or behavior that include agitation, depression, apathy, repetitive questioning, psychosis, aggression, sleep problems, and wandering. Care of patients with BPSD involves pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. We reviewed studies of nonpharmacological interventions published in the last 10 years.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review in Medline and Embase databases, in the last 10 years, until June 2015. Key words used were (1) non-pharmacological interventions, (2) behavioral symptoms, (3) psychological symptoms, and (4) dementia.
RESULTS
We included 20 studies published in this period. Among these studies, program activities were more frequent (five studies) and the symptoms more responsive to the interventions were agitation.
DISCUSSION
Studies are heterogeneous in many aspects, including size sample, intervention, and instruments of measures.
CONCLUSION
Nonpharmacological interventions are able to provide positive results in reducing symptoms of BPSD. Most studies have shown that these interventions have important and significant efficacy.
Topics: Aggression; Dementia; Depression; Humans; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Psychomotor Agitation; Psychotic Disorders
PubMed: 26693477
DOI: 10.1155/2015/218980 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Dementia is a clinical syndrome with a number of different causes which is characterised by deterioration in cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional functions.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a clinical syndrome with a number of different causes which is characterised by deterioration in cognitive, behavioural, social and emotional functions. Pharmacological interventions are available but have limited effect to treat many of the syndrome's features. Less research has been directed towards non-pharmacological treatments. In this review, we examined the evidence for effects of music-based interventions as a treatment.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of music-based therapeutic interventions for people with dementia on emotional well-being including quality of life, mood disturbance or negative affect, behavioural problems, social behaviour, and cognition at the end of therapy and four or more weeks after the end of treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG) on 14 April 2010 using the terms: music therapy, music, singing, sing, auditory stimulation. Additional searches were also carried out on 3 July 2015 in the major healthcare databases MEDLINE, Embase, psycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS; and in trial registers and grey literature sources. On 12 April 2016, we searched the major databases for new studies for future evaluation.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of music-based therapeutic interventions (at least five sessions) for people with dementia that measured any of our outcomes of interest. Control groups either received usual care or other activities.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers worked independently to screen the retrieved studies against the inclusion criteria and then to extract data and assess methodological quality of the included studies. If necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional data, including relevant subscales, or for other missing information. We pooled data using random-effects models.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies. Sixteen studies with a total of 620 participants contributed data to meta-analyses. Participants in the studies had dementia of varying degrees of severity, but all were resident in institutions. Five studies delivered an individual music intervention; in the others, the intervention was delivered to groups of participants. Most interventions involved both active and receptive musical elements. The methodological quality of the studies varied. All were at high risk of performance bias and some were at high risk of detection or other bias. At the end of treatment, we found low-quality evidence that music-based therapeutic interventions may have little or no effect on emotional well-being and quality of life (standardized mean difference, SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.71; 6 studies, 181 participants), overall behaviour problems (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.17; 6 studies, 209 participants) and cognition (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.45; 6 studies, 257 participants). We found moderate-quality evidence that they reduce depressive symptoms (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.07; 9 studies, 376 participants), but do not decrease agitation or aggression (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.14; 12 studies, 515 participants). The quality of the evidence on anxiety and social behaviour was very low, so effects were very uncertain. The evidence for all long-term outcomes was also of very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Providing people with dementia with at least five sessions of a music-based therapeutic intervention probably reduces depressive symptoms but has little or no effect on agitation or aggression. There may also be little or no effect on emotional well-being or quality of life, overall behavioural problems and cognition. We are uncertain about effects on anxiety or social behaviour, and about any long-term effects. Future studies should employ larger sample sizes, and include all important outcomes, in particular 'positive' outcomes such as emotional well-being and social outcomes. Future studies should also examine the duration of effects in relation to the overall duration of treatment and the number of sessions.
Topics: Aged; Aggression; Dementia; Depression; Humans; Mental Disorders; Music Therapy; Psychomotor Agitation; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28462986
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003477.pub3