Jerome A Yesavage1, Joy L Taylor2, Leah Friedman3, Paul B Rosenberg4, Laura C Lazzeroni3, Jeannie-Marie S Leoutsakos4, Lisa M Kinoshita5, Mark J Perlow5, Cynthia A Munro4, D P Devanand6, Lea T Drye7, Jacobo E Mintzer8, Bruce G Pollock9, Anton P Porsteinsson10, Lon S Schneider11, David M Shade7, Daniel Weintraub12, Constantine G Lyketsos4, Art Noda3. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, United States; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States; Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States. Electronic address: yesavage@stanford.edu. 2. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, United States; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, United States. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States. 5. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, United States. 6. Division of Geriatric Psychiatry, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, 10032, United States; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, United States. 7. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, United States. 8. Clinical Biotechnology Research Institute, Roper St. Francis Healthcare, Charleston, SC, 29401, United States; Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, Charleston, SC, 29401, United States. 9. Campbell Institute, CAMH, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada. 10. University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, 14642, United States. 11. University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, United States. 12. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States; Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We developed a composite measure of agitation as a secondary outcome of change over time in the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's disease study (CitAD). CitAD demonstrated a positive effect of citalopram on agitation on the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A). CitAD included additional agitation measures such as the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. METHODS: We performed principal components analyses on change in individual item of these scales for the same, original CitAD subjects. RESULTS: The first principal component accounted for 12.6% of the observed variance and was composed of items that appear to reflect agitation. The effect size for citalopram calculated using this component was 0.53 (95% CI 0.22-0.83) versus 0.32 for the NBRS-A (95% CI 0.01-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a composite measure of change in agitation might be more sensitive than change in a single primary agitation measure. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
BACKGROUND: We developed a composite measure of agitation as a secondary outcome of change over time in the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer's disease study (CitAD). CitAD demonstrated a positive effect of citalopram on agitation on the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale agitation subscale (NBRS-A). CitAD included additional agitation measures such as the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory. METHODS: We performed principal components analyses on change in individual item of these scales for the same, original CitAD subjects. RESULTS: The first principal component accounted for 12.6% of the observed variance and was composed of items that appear to reflect agitation. The effect size for citalopram calculated using this component was 0.53 (95% CI 0.22-0.83) versus 0.32 for the NBRS-A (95% CI 0.01-0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that a composite measure of change in agitation might be more sensitive than change in a single primary agitation measure. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Agitation; Alzheimer's disease; Principal component analysis
Authors: J Tinklenberg; J O Brooks; E D Tanke; K Khalid; S L Poulsen; H C Kraemer; D Gallagher; J E Thornton; J A Yesavage Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 1990 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Lea T Drye; Zahinoor Ismail; Anton P Porsteinsson; Paul B Rosenberg; Daniel Weintraub; Christopher Marano; Gregory Pelton; Constantine Frangakis; Peter V Rabins; Cynthia A Munro; Curtis L Meinert; D P Devanand; Jerome Yesavage; Jacobo E Mintzer; Lon S Schneider; Bruce G Pollock; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Laura E Gibbons; Adam C Carle; R Scott Mackin; Danielle Harvey; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Philip Insel; S McKay Curtis; Dan Mungas; Paul K Crane Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: L S Schneider; J T Olin; R S Doody; C M Clark; J C Morris; B Reisberg; F A Schmitt; M Grundman; R G Thomas; S H Ferris Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 1997 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Anton P Porsteinsson; Lea T Drye; Bruce G Pollock; D P Devanand; Constantine Frangakis; Zahinoor Ismail; Christopher Marano; Curtis L Meinert; Jacobo E Mintzer; Cynthia A Munro; Gregory Pelton; Peter V Rabins; Paul B Rosenberg; Lon S Schneider; David M Shade; Daniel Weintraub; Jerome Yesavage; Constantine G Lyketsos Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: H S Levin; W M High; K E Goethe; R A Sisson; J E Overall; H M Rhoades; H M Eisenberg; Z Kalisky; H E Gary Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1987-02 Impact factor: 10.154