T Horr1, B Messinger-Rapport, J A Pillai. 1. J.A. Pillai, MBBS, PhD, Staff Neurologist, Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, 9500 Euclid Ave / U10, Cleveland, OH 44195, Tel: 216 636 9467, Fax: 216 445 7013, E-mail: pillaij@ccf.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological interventions may improve cognition and quality of life, reduce disruptive behaviors, slow progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to dementia, and delay institutionalization. It is important to look at their trial designs as well as outcomes to understand the state of the evidence supporting non-pharmacological interventions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). An analysis of trial design strengths and limitations may help researchers clarify treatment effect and design future studies of non-pharmacological interventions for MCI related to AD. METHODS: A systematic review of the methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) targeting physical activity, cognitive interventions, and socialization among subjects with MCI in AD reported until March 2014 was undertaken. The primary outcome was CONSORT 2010 reporting quality. Secondary outcomes were qualitative assessments of specific methodology problems. RESULTS: 23 RCT studies met criteria for this review. Eight focused on physical activity, fourteen on cognitive interventions, and one on the effects of socialization. Most studies found a benefit with the intervention compared to control. CONSORT reporting quality of physical activity interventions was higher than that of cognitive interventions. Reporting quality of recent studies was higher than older studies, particularly with respect to sample size, control characteristics, and methodology of intervention training and delivery. However, the heterogeneity of subjects identified as having MCI and variability in interventions and outcomes continued to limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The role for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI is promising. Future studies of RCTs for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI related to AD may benefit by addressing design limitations.
BACKGROUND: Non-pharmacological interventions may improve cognition and quality of life, reduce disruptive behaviors, slow progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) to dementia, and delay institutionalization. It is important to look at their trial designs as well as outcomes to understand the state of the evidence supporting non-pharmacological interventions in Alzheimer's disease (AD). An analysis of trial design strengths and limitations may help researchers clarify treatment effect and design future studies of non-pharmacological interventions for MCI related to AD. METHODS: A systematic review of the methodology of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) targeting physical activity, cognitive interventions, and socialization among subjects with MCI in AD reported until March 2014 was undertaken. The primary outcome was CONSORT 2010 reporting quality. Secondary outcomes were qualitative assessments of specific methodology problems. RESULTS: 23 RCT studies met criteria for this review. Eight focused on physical activity, fourteen on cognitive interventions, and one on the effects of socialization. Most studies found a benefit with the intervention compared to control. CONSORT reporting quality of physical activity interventions was higher than that of cognitive interventions. Reporting quality of recent studies was higher than older studies, particularly with respect to sample size, control characteristics, and methodology of intervention training and delivery. However, the heterogeneity of subjects identified as having MCI and variability in interventions and outcomes continued to limit generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: The role for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI is promising. Future studies of RCTs for non-pharmacological interventions targeting MCI related to AD may benefit by addressing design limitations.
Authors: Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Michael C Donohue; Anthony Gamst; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Sarah Walter; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw; Laurel A Beckett; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Arthur W Toga; Andrew J Saykin; John C Morris; Robert C Green; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Kaisu H Pitkala; Pirkko Routasalo; Hannu Kautiainen; Harri Sintonen; Reijo S Tilvis Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Gary W Arendash; Marcos F Garcia; David A Costa; Jennifer R Cracchiolo; Inge M Wefes; H Potter Journal: Neuroreport Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: Linda C W Lam; Rachel C M Chau; Billy M L Wong; Ada W T Fung; Cindy W C Tam; Grace T Y Leung; Timothy C Y Kwok; Tony Y S Leung; Sammy P Ng; Wai M Chan Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2012-05-11 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Raj C Shah; Alicia L Janos; Julia E Kline; Lei Yu; Sue E Leurgans; Robert S Wilson; Peter Wei; David A Bennett; Kenneth M Heilman; Jack W Tsao Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Laura N Gitlin; Catherine Verrier Piersol; Nancy Hodgson; Katherine Marx; David L Roth; Deidre Johnston; Quincy Samus; Laura Pizzi; Eric Jutkowitz; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-06-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Karen D Mumme; Cathryn A Conlon; Pamela R von Hurst; Beatrix Jones; Crystal F Haskell-Ramsay; Jamie V de Seymour; Welma Stonehouse; Anne-Louise M Heath; Jane Coad; Owen Mugridge; Cassandra Slade; Cheryl S Gammon; Kathryn L Beck Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 5.614
Authors: Antoneta Granic; Karen Davies; Ashley Adamson; Thomas Kirkwood; Tom R Hill; Mario Siervo; John C Mathers; Carol Jagger Journal: J Nutr Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 4.798