scholarly journals Cognitive training for people with dementia: A Cochrane review

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (S7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Bahar‐Fuchs ◽  
Anthony Martyr ◽  
Anita M Y Goh ◽  
Julieta M Sabates ◽  
Linda Clare
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Tobias Loetscher

BACKGROUND: The majority of people living with Parkinson’s disease will develop impairments in cognition. These impairments are associated with a reduced quality of life. OBJECTIVE: The Cochrane Review aimed to investigate whether cognitive training improves cognition in people with Parkinson’s disease and mild cognitive impairments or dementia. METHODS: A Cochrane Review by Orgeta et al. was summarized with comments. RESULTS: The review included seven studies with a total of 225 participants. There was no evidence for improvements in global cognition when cognitive training was compared to control conditions. Observed improvements in attention and verbal memory measures after cognitive training could not be confirmed in a subsequent sensitivity analysis. There was no evidence for benefits in other cognitive domains or quality of life measures. The certainty of the evidence was low for all comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of cognitive training for people with Parkinson’s disease and cognitive impairments remains inconclusive. There is a pressing need for adequately powered trials with higher methodological quality.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-71
Author(s):  
Nurul Ain Mohd Nizam

SUMMARYThere is urgent need to search for a dementia treatment that can delay its progression and reduce its financial and societal burden. Despite lacking evidence, there is a large number of commercial brain-training products on the market that claim they improve cognition. The Cochrane review under consideration looks at whether cognitive training maintains or improves cognition in those with mild to moderate dementia compared with control and alternative interventions. This commentary puts its findings into clinical perspective.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-66
Author(s):  
Alex Bahar-Fuchs ◽  
Anthony Martyr ◽  
Anita M.Y. Goh ◽  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Linda Clare

2006 ◽  
Vol 14 (7S_Part_31) ◽  
pp. P1627-P1627
Author(s):  
Alex Bahar-Fuchs ◽  
Anthony Martyr ◽  
Anita Goh ◽  
Linda Clare

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (43) ◽  
pp. 1-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Bergman ◽  
Dawn-Marie Walker ◽  
Adriani Nikolakopoulou ◽  
Karla Soares-Weiser ◽  
Clive E Adams

BackgroundAntipsychotic medication can cause tardive dyskinesia (TD) – late-onset, involuntary, repetitive movements, often involving the face and tongue. TD occurs in > 20% of adults taking antipsychotic medication (first-generation antipsychotics for > 3 months), with this proportion increasing by 5% per year among those who continue to use these drugs. The incidence of TD among those taking newer antipsychotics is not different from the rate in people who have used older-generation drugs in moderate doses. Studies of TD have previously been found to be limited, with no treatment approach shown to be effective.ObjectivesTo summarise the clinical effectiveness and safety of treatments for TD by updating past Cochrane reviews with new evidence and improved methods; to undertake public consultation to gauge the importance of the topic for people living with TD/the risk of TD; and to make available all data from relevant trials.Data sourcesAll relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.Review methodsCochrane review methods, network meta-analysis (NMA).DesignSystematic reviews, patient and public involvement consultation and NMA.SettingAny setting, inpatient or outpatient.ParticipantsFor systematic reviews, adults with TD who have been taking a stable antipsychotic drug dose for > 3 months.InterventionsAny, with emphasis on those relevant to UK NHS practice.Main outcome measuresAny measure of TD, global assessments and adverse effects/events.ResultsWe included 112 studies (nine Cochrane reviews). Overall, risk of bias showed little sign of improvement over two decades. Taking the outcome of ‘TD symptoms improved to a clinically important extent’, we identified two trials investigating reduction of antipsychotic dose [n = 17, risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 1.04; very low quality]. Switching was investigated twice in trials that could not be combined (switching to risperidone vs. antipsychotic withdrawal: one RCT,n = 42, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.89; low quality; switching to quetiapine vs. haloperidol: one RCT,n = 45, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.22; low quality). In addition to RCTs, six observational studies compared antipsychotic discontinuation with decreased or increased dosage, and there was no clear evidence that any of these strategies had a beneficial effect on TD symptoms (very low-quality evidence). We evaluated the addition to standard antipsychotic care of several treatments, but not anticholinergic treatments, for which we identified no trials. We found no clear effect of the addition of either benzodiazepines (two RCTs,n = 32, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.09; very low quality) or vitamin E (six RCTs,n = 264, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.01; low quality). Buspirone as an adjunctive treatment did have some effect in one small study (n = 42, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.84; low quality), as did hypnosis and relaxation (one RCT,n = 15, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.94; very low quality). We identified no studies focusing on TD in people with dementia. The NMA model found indirect estimates to be imprecise and failed to produce useful summaries on relative effects of interventions or interpretable results for decision-making. Consultation with people with/at risk of TD highlighted that management of TD remains a concern, and found that people are deeply disappointed at the length of time it has taken researchers to address the issue.LimitationsMost studies remain small and poorly reported.ConclusionsClinicians, policy-makers and people with/at risk of TD are little better informed than they were decades ago. Underpowered trials of limited quality repeatedly fail to provide answers.Future workTD reviews have data from current trials extracted, tabulated and traceable to source. The NMA highlights one context in which support for this technique is ill advised. All relevant trials, even if not primarily addressing the issue of TD, should report appropriate binary outcomes on groups of people with this problem. Randomised trials of treatments for people with established TD are indicated. These should be large (> 800 participants), necessitating accrual through accurate local/national registers, including an intervention with acceptable treatments and recording outcomes used in clinical practice.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD4201502045.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-149
Author(s):  
Amreek Dhindsa

SUMMARYBaillonet al’s Cochrane review included 430 participants with agitation in dementia from five randomised controlled trials. Overall, the reviewers found that valproate was no better than placebo for the treatment of agitation in people with dementia; however, the quality of the studies included was very variable. Adverse effects and events were higher in the treatment group compared with the controls, although these finding were largely based on low-quality data with incomplete reporting; thus, valproate's safety profile is of concern. This review demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to change current treatment guidelines.DECLARATION OF INTERESTNone.


Dementia ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 147130122094127
Author(s):  
Fiona Macleod ◽  
Lesley Storey ◽  
Teresa Rushe ◽  
Katrina McLaughlin

Aim Reminiscence therapy is a popular therapeutic intervention for people with dementia. This review set out to provide a better understanding of reminiscence therapy through a deeper analysis of its contents and delivery. Method This review examined 22 studies from the most recent Cochrane review (Woods, B., O’Philbin, L., Farrell, E. M., Spector, A. E., & Orrell, M. (2018). Reminiscence therapy for dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 3, Article 001120) and addressed the following research questions: (1) What are the components of reminiscence therapy? (2) Who delivers reminiscence therapy? (3) How is reminiscence therapy delivered? (4) Is reminiscence therapy underpinned by a theoretical framework? (5) Is reminiscence therapy delivered according to a programme/model? (6) Are there commonalities in the reminiscence therapy components utilised? Multiple and layered narrative analyses were completed. Findings Thirteen reminiscence therapy components were identified. ‘Memory triggers’ and ‘themes’ were identified as the most common but were found not to be consistently beneficial. Reminiscence therapy was typically delivered in a care setting using a group approach; however, there was no consistency in session composition, intervention duration, as well as the training and supervision provided to facilitators. Operationalisation of theory within reminiscence therapy was not identified. Reminiscence therapy was not consistently delivered according to a programme/model. Lastly, as a result of a small number of studies, the components ‘life stages’, ‘activities’ and ‘family-only sessions’, showed beneficial promise. In summary, this review highlights that reminiscence therapy needs more consistency in content and delivery, in addition to a clear theoretical framework.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document