Pharmacological interventions for apathy in Alzheimer's disease

Use of Methylphenidate in Excessive Daytime Sleepiness in Alzheimer's Patients Treated with Donepezil: Case Series

Sleep disorders, inversion of sleep rhythm, excessive daytime sleepiness, and sleeplessness at night are common in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Sleep disorders in AD have a diverse pathogenesis and their incidence increases as the disease progresses. Some publications indicate possible beneficial effects of methylphenidate on sleep. We presented two cases of patients with diagnosed AD accompanied by sleep disorders which had a significant impact on their functioning. The pathogenesis of sleep disorders was different in those two cases. In both case studies, the use of methylphenidate brought an immediate clinical effect, improving sleep at night and functioning during the day.

Pharmacological interventions for apathy in Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

Despite the high prevalence of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and its harmful effects, there are currently no therapies proven to treat this symptom. Recently, a number of pharmacological therapies have been investigated as potential treatments for apathy in AD.

OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: To assess the safety and efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of apathy in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective 2: To assess the effect on apathy of pharmacotherapies investigated for other primary outcomes in the treatment of AD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (ALOIS), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) portal, ICTRP on 17 May 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) investigating apathy as a primary or secondary outcome in people with AD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data. We assessed the risks of bias of included studies using Cochrane methods, and the overall quality of evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We calculated mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals on an intention-to-treat basis for all relevant outcome measures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies involving a total of 6384 participants in the quantitative analyses. Risk of bias is very low to moderate. All studies reported appropriate methods of randomization and blinding. Most studies reported appropriate methods of allocation concealment. Four studies, three with methylphenidate and one with modafinil, had a primary aim of improving apathy. In these studies, all participants had clinically significant apathy at baseline. Methylphenidate may improve apathy compared to placebo. This finding was present when apathy was assessed using the apathy evaluation scale (AES), which was used by all three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -4.99, 95% CI -9.55 to -0.43, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence, but not when assessed with the neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI)-apathy subscale, which was used by two of the three studies investigating methylphenidate: MD -0.08, 95% CI -3.85 to 3.69, n = 85, 2 studies, low quality of evidence. As well as having potential benefits for apathy, methylphenidate probably also slightly improves cognition (MD 1.98, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.91, n = 145, 3 studies, moderate quality of evidence), and probably improves instrumental activities of daily living (MD 2.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 3.86, P = 0.004, n = 60, 1 study, moderate quality of evidence), compared to placebo. There may be no difference between methylphenidate and placebo in the risk of developing an adverse event: RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.42, n = 145, 3 studies, low quality of evidence. There was insufficient evidence from one very small study of modafinil to determine the effect of modafinil on apathy assessed with the FrSBe-apathy subscale: MD 0.27, 95% CI -3.51 to 4.05, n = 22, 1 study, low quality of evidence. In all other included studies, apathy was a secondary outcome and participants were not selected on the basis of clinically significant apathy at baseline. We considered the evidence on apathy from these studies to be indirect and associated with publication bias. There was low or very low quality of evidence on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) (six studies), ChEI discontinuation (one study), antipsychotics (two studies), antipsychotic discontinuation (one study), antidepressants (two studies), mibampator (one study), valproate (three studies) and semagacestat (one study).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Methylphenidate may demonstrate a benefit for apathy and may have slight benefits for cognition and functional performance in people with AD, but this finding is associated with low-quality evidence. Our meta-analysis is limited by the small number of studies within each drug class, risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies. Additional studies should be encouraged targeting people with AD with clinically significant apathy which investigate apathy as a primary outcome measure, and which have a longer duration and a larger sample size. This could increase the quality of evidence for methylphenidate, and may confirm whether or not it is an effective pharmacotherapy for apathy in AD.

Apathy in Dementia: Systematic Review of Recent Evidence on Pharmacological Treatments

Increasing recognition that apathy is one of the most prevalent behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia and causes substantial caregiver distress has led to trials evaluating psychosocial and pharmacological treatments of apathy in dementia. We evaluated evidence of the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for apathy in dementia from studies since 2013. Previously reported benefits of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine were not replicated in recent studies. Antidepressants had mixed results with positive effects for apathy shown only for agomelatine, while stimulants, analgesics, and oxytocin study results were inconclusive. For some approaches, such as antipsychotic review, positive effects were found only in combination with nonpharmacological approaches. Relatively few studies assessed apathy outcomes specifically, complicating interpretation of potentially positive treatment effects; none dissected outcomes for emotional, motivational and behavioral components of apathy. Better trial design and more detailed analysis are needed in order to evaluate outcomes of pharmacological treatments for apathy.