Efficacy and Safety of Analgesic Treatment for Depression in People with Advanced Dementia: Randomised, Multicentre, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (DEP.PAIN.DEM)

The effect of a music-based caregiving intervention on pain intensity in nursing home patients with dementia: a cluster-randomized controlled study

ABSTRACT

Treatment of chronic pain in patients with dementia is challenging because they have reduced ability to report pain and are particularly vulnerable to side effects of analgesics. Different types of music-based therapy have been recommended and are used as an alternative to analgesics, but the evidence is lacking. Therefore, we performed a cluster-randomized controlled study (RCT) to reduce pain intensity using music-based caregiving (MBC) over 8 weeks in nursing home patients with dementia and chronic pain. We also investigated if the amount of MBC and different chronic pain syndromes would impact on the effect. Of the 645 patients, 498 patients from 36 wards in 12 nursing homes were screened for dementia and pain. Using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale and the Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia Pain Scale (range 0-10), 279 (71% females, 42% severe dementia) nursing home patients were randomized to intervention group (n = 134, 18 wards) or control group (n = 145, 18 wards). The main outcome was change in pain intensity before and after the intervention. The study did not reveal any effect of MBC on pain intensity when compared with the control group (B = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.72 to 0.43]). No significant difference was found within the intervention group analyzing the impact of intervention time (B = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.55 to 2.02]) or chronic primary vs secondary pain syndromes (B = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.05 to 0.96]). Our data from this first RCT on music and pain intensity in patients with dementia and chronic pain did not find an effect of MBC on pain.

A bayesian network meta-analysis to explore modifying factors in randomized controlled trials: what works for whom to reduce depression in nursing home residents?

BACKGROUND

Reviews of depression interventions in nursing home residents resulted in positive findings. However, because of the heterogeneity of the studies, it remains unclear what works for whom. Considering moderator effects may contribute to a comprehensive understanding of depression treatment in residents. Therefore, this study aims to review depression interventions, examining moderator effects of (1) residents' factors, and (2) components specific of interventions.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials primarily aimed at reducing depressive symptoms among residents was conducted. First, intervention types, e.g., exercise interventions, were compared to care as usual. Second, meta-regression analyses were conducted for moderator effects of residents' factors (i.e., severity of depressive symptoms, physical dependency, and cognitive impairment) and components identified as specific to an intervention (e.g., music, creativity, positivity).

RESULTS

Our search across six databases resulted in 118 eligible studies: 16 on neurobiological interventions, 102 on non-pharmacological interventions. Compared to care as usual, cognitive interventions, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and goal-oriented therapy, showed the strongest effects (MD = -1.00, 95% CrI [-1.40 to -0.66]). Furthermore, the severity of depressive symptoms moderated the effect of interventions (ƅ = -0.63, CrI 95% [-1.04 to -0.22]), while none of fifteen identified intervention-specific components did. In residents with a depression diagnosis, there were larger effect sizes for interventions including daily structure, psychoeducation, healthy food, creativity, positivity, and an activating/encouraging environment, whereas interventions focusing on distraction and relaxation had larger effect sizes in those residents without.

CONCLUSIONS

By examining the moderator effects, we provided an integrative perspective on the observed variations in effects across different target groups, and components of depression interventions. This approach underscores the complex nature of interventions, emphasizing the need for continued transdisciplinary research, and the exploration of potential moderators. Future investigations should carefully assess residents' factors and choose interventions and their components accordingly.

Chronic pain in people living with dementia: challenges to recognising and managing pain, and personalising intervention by phenotype

Pain is common in people with dementia, and pain can exacerbate the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. Effective pain management is challenging, not least in people with dementia. Impairments of cognition, communication and abstract thought can make communicating pain unreliable or impossible. It is unclear which biopsychosocial interventions for pain management are effective in people with dementia, and which interventions for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia are effective in people with pain. The result is that drugs, physical therapies and psychological therapies might be either underused or overused. People with dementia and pain could be helped by assessment processes that characterise an individual's pain experience and dementia behaviours in a mechanistic manner, phenotyping. Chronic pain management has moved from a 'one size fits all' approach, towards personalised medicine, where interventions recommended for an individual depend upon the key mechanisms underlying their pain, and the relative values they place on benefits and adverse effects. Mechanistic phenotyping through careful personalised evaluation would define the mechanisms driving pain and dementia behaviours in an individual, enabling the formulation of a personalised intervention strategy. Central pain processing mechanisms are particularly likely to be important in people with pain and dementia, and interventions to accommodate and address these may be particularly helpful, not only to relieve pain but also the symptoms of dementia.

Chronic pain conditions and use of analgesics among nursing home patients with dementia

ABSTRACT

Pain management for patients with dementia is challenging because many experience pain while being unable to communicate their pain. The aim of this study was to describe pain, pain management, and to perform a thorough clinical examination of chronic pain conditions among patients with dementia. Residents (n = 498) from 12 nursing homes were assessed for dementia (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR]) and for pain with the Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia-2 (MOBID-2) assessment form. Of all examined nursing home patients with dementia, 68% had moderate or severe chronic pain. The final study population (n = 262) with a CDR score of ≥1 and a MOBID-2 score of ≥3 were examined by pain expert physicians for chronic pain and categorized according to the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10/-11) classification systems. More than half (54.6%) had chronic pain conditions without underlying disease classified as chronic primary pain by ICD-11. Chronic widespread pain was the most prevalent (14.5%) followed by nonspecific pain from the back (13.4%), whereas the most prevalent chronic secondary pain conditions were chronic pain caused by osteoarthritis (15.4%) and stroke (8.0%). One-fourth received opioids, which was significantly associated with severe pain ( P < 0.001) compared with moderate pain, although no significant association was found between opioid use and the type of pain condition. Although knowledge of the severity and specific types of pain conditions is recommended to direct the choice of treatment, these areas are not sufficiently explored in the nursing home populations with dementia and may hinder a better treatment of pain in this population.

Effectiveness of treatments for people living with severe dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative syndrome that has no cure. Although a significant proportion of people with dementia progress into the severe stages of the disease, evidence on the clinical effectiveness of treatments for people with severe dementia remains limited.

AIMS

To systematically review the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people living with severe dementia and assess the quality of the evidence.

METHOD

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and online clinical trial registers up to January 2022, for Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) in people living with severe dementia. Quality and risk of bias were assessed independently by two authors.

RESULTS

A total of 30 trials met our inclusion criteria of which 14 evaluated the effectiveness of pharmacological treatments, and 16 evaluated a non-pharmacological intervention. Pharmacological treatments: Meta-analyses indicated that pharmacological treatments (donepezil: 10 mg, 5 mg; galantamine: 24 mg; memantine: 10 mg) are associated with better outcomes compared to placebo for: severity of symptoms (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.48; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (SMD 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.26; 5 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and clinical impression of change (Relative Risk (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacological treatments were also more likely to reduce mortality compared to placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40-0.89; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). Non-pharmacological treatments: Five trials were included in the meta-analyses of non-pharmacological interventions (multi-sensory stimulation, needs assessment, and activities-based interventions); results showed that non-pharmacological interventions may reduce neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia compared to usual care (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.06; low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that pharmacological treatments may decrease disease severity and improve function for people with severe dementia. Non-pharmacological treatments are probably effective in reducing neuropsychiatric symptoms but the quality of evidence remains low. There is an urgent need for high-quality evidence for other outcomes and for developing service-user informed interventions for this under-served group.

Algorithm-based pain management for people with dementia in nursing homes

BACKGROUND

People with dementia in nursing homes often experience pain, but often do not receive adequate pain therapy. The experience of pain has a significant impact on quality of life in people with dementia, and is associated with negative health outcomes. Untreated pain is also considered to be one of the causes of challenging behaviour, such as agitation or aggression, in this population. One approach to reducing pain in people with dementia in nursing homes is an algorithm-based pain management strategy, i.e. the use of a structured protocol that involves pain assessment and a series of predefined treatment steps consisting of various non-pharmacological and pharmacological pain management interventions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions to reduce pain and challenging behaviour in people with dementia living in nursing homes. To describe the components of the interventions and the content of the algorithms.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's meta-register the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal on 30 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of algorithm-based pain management interventions for people with dementia living in nursing homes. All interventions had to include an initial pain assessment, a treatment algorithm (a treatment plan consisting of at least two different non-pharmacological or pharmacological treatment steps to reduce pain), and criteria to assess the success of each treatment step. The control groups could receive usual care or an active control intervention. Primary outcomes for this review were pain-related outcomes, e.g. the number of participants with pain (self- or proxy-rated), challenging behaviour (we used a broad definition that could also include agitation or behavioural and psychological symptoms assessed with any validated instrument), and serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of all included studies. We reported results narratively as there were too few studies for a meta-analysis. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three cluster-randomised controlled trials with a total of 808 participants (mean age 82 to 89 years). In two studies, participants had severe cognitive impairment and in one study mild to moderate impairment. The algorithms used in the studies varied in the number of treatment steps. The comparator was pain education for nursing staff in two studies and usual care in one study. We judged the risk of detection bias to be high in one study. The risk of selection bias and performance bias was unclear in all studies. Self-rated pain (i.e. pain rated by participants themselves) was reported in two studies. In one study, all residents in the nursing homes were included, but fewer than half of the participants experienced pain at baseline, and the mean values of self-rated and proxy-rated pain at baseline and follow-up in both study groups were below the threshold of pain that may require treatment. We considered the evidence from this study to be very low-certainty and therefore are uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.05, 170 participants; Verbal Descriptor Scale, range 0 to 3). In the other study, all participants had mild to moderate pain at baseline. Here, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may have little to no effect on self-rated pain intensity compared with pain education (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.58 to 1.38, 246 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12). Pain was rated by proxy in all three studies. Again, we considered the evidence from the study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline to be very low-certainty and were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had an effect on proxy-rated pain intensity compared with pain education. For participants with mild to moderate pain at baseline, we found low-certainty evidence that an algorithm-based pain management intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain intensity in comparison with usual care (MD -1.49, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.87, 1 study, 128 participants; Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale-Chinese version, range 0 to 10), but may not be more effective than pain education (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.39, 1 study, 383 participants; Iowa Pain Thermometer, range 0 to 12). For challenging behaviour, we found very low-certainty evidence from one study in which mean pain scores indicated no pain, or almost no pain, at baseline. We were uncertain whether the algorithm-based pain management intervention had any more effect than education for nursing staff on challenging behaviour of participants (MD -0.21, 95% CI -1.88 to 1.46, 1 study, 170 participants; Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory-Chinese version, range 7 to 203). None of the studies systematically assessed adverse effects or serious adverse effects and no study reported information about the occurrence of any adverse effect. None of the studies assessed any of the other outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no clear evidence for a benefit of an algorithm-based pain management intervention in comparison with pain education for reducing pain intensity or challenging behaviour in people with dementia in nursing homes. We found that the intervention may reduce proxy-rated pain compared with usual care. However, the certainty of evidence is low because of the small number of studies, small sample sizes, methodological limitations, and the clinical heterogeneity of the study populations (e.g. pain level and cognitive status). The results should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should also focus on the implementation of algorithms and their impact in clinical practice.

Understanding Pain and Agitation Through System Analysis Algorithms in People With Dementia. A Novel Explorative Approach by the DIGI.PAIN Study

Background

Many people with dementia (PwD) live and die with undiagnosed and untreated pain and are no longer able to report their suffering. Several pain assessment tools have been developed, tested, and implemented in clinical practice, but nursing home patients are reported to be still in pain. Clinicians and research groups worldwide are seeking novel approaches to encode the prediction, prevalence, and associations to pain in PwD.

Participants

The data in this analysis are acquired from the COSMOS study, a cluster-randomized controlled trial (2014 to 2015), aimed to improve the quality of life in nursing home patients (N = 723) through the implementation of a multicomponent intervention. We utilize baseline data of PwD (N = 219) with complete datasets of pain and agitation.

Method

Systems analysis explores the relationship between pain and agitation using the Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia (MOBID-2) Pain Scale, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), and Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version (NPI-NH). For each patient, the individualized continuous time trajectory, and rates of change of pain and agitation are estimated. We determine the relationship between these rates by analyzing them across the entire group.

Results

We found that the new analysis method can generate individualized estimations for pain and agitation evolution for PwD, as well as their relationship. For 189 of 219 PwD, results show that whenever pain increases or decreases, agitation does too, with the same rate. The method also identifies PwD for whom pain or agitation remains constant while the other varies over time, and patients for whom agitation and pain do not change together. The algorithm is scalable to other variables and compatible with wearable devices and digital sensors.

Conclusion

We presented a new approach to clinical data analysis using systems concepts and algorithms. We found that it is possible to quantify and visualize relationships between variables with a precision only dependent on the precision of measurements. This method should be further validated, but incipient results show great potential, especially for wearable-generated continuous data.

Pharmacological Pain Treatment in 2012 and 2017 Among Older People with Major Neurocognitive Disorder

Background and Objective

Pain is highly prevalent among older people, and treatment is complicated because of comorbidities and polypharmacy. Among people with major neurocognitive disorder additional difficulties might arise. The aim of this study was to describe analgesic drug use in 2012 and 2017 and associated factors among older people with major neurocognitive disorder.

Methods

In this register-based study, the Swedish Dementia Registry and the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register were combined in order to obtain data regarding analgesic drug use among older people with major neurocognitive disorder. One or more filled prescriptions during the timeframe of 6 months (1 July–31 December 2012 and 1 July–31 December 2017) defined drug use during the respective period. A comparison between 2012 and 2017 was made, including a total of 56,101 people (20,889 and 35,212 respectively) with a mean age of 81.9 and 82.7 years, respectively.

Results

The overall use of analgesic drugs increased significantly from 41.6% of individuals to 46.0% between the years 2012 and 2017. Users of opioid analgesics (15.2% vs 17.3%) and paracetamol (37.0% vs 42.3%) increased, while the users of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (4.9% vs 2.7%) declined between the two data collections. Multiple logistic regression analyses were performed for different drugs and drug classes, and it was found that the use of opioids and paracetamol was associated with older age and a longer time since diagnosis. In contrast, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were associated with younger age and a shorter time since diagnosis.

Conclusions

The results indicate that on a population level, pharmacological drug treatment has changed in line with guidelines between 2012 and 2017, with an increase in paracetamol and strong opioids and a decrease in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and tramadol. The relatively high prevalence of opioids warrants concern given the significant risk of adverse effects among older people with major neurocognitive disorder.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40266-021-00897-9.

Sleep and its Association With Pain and Depression in Nursing Home Patients With Advanced Dementia - a Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: Previous research suggests a positive association between pain, depression and sleep. In this study, we investigate how sleep correlates with varying levels of pain and depression in nursing home (NH) patients with dementia.

Materials and methods: Cross-sectional study (n = 141) with sleep-related data, derived from two multicenter studies conducted in Norway. We included NH patients with dementia according to the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE ≤ 20) from the COSMOS trial (n = 46) and the DEP.PAIN.DEM trial (n = 95) whose sleep was objectively measured with actigraphy. In the COSMOS trial, NH patients were included if they were ≥65 years of age and with life expectancy >6 months. In the DEP.PAIN.DEM trial, patients were included if they were ≥60 years and if they had depression according to the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD ≥ 8). In both studies, pain was assessed with the Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia-2 Pain Scale (MOBID-2), and depression with CSDD. Sleep parameters were total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), early morning awakening (EMA), daytime total sleep time (DTS) and time in bed (TiB). We registered use of sedatives, analgesics, opioids and antidepressants from patient health records and adjusted for these medications in the analyses.

Results: Mean age was 86.2 years and 76.3% were female. Hierarchical regressions showed that pain was associated with higher TST and SE (p < 0.05), less WASO (p < 0.01) and more DTS (p < 0.01). More severe dementia was associated with more WASO (p < 0.05) and TiB (p < 0.01). More severe depression was associated with less TST (p < 0.05), less DTS (p < 0.01) and less TiB (p < 0.01). Use of sedative medications was associated with less TiB (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: When sleep was measured with actigraphy, NH patients with dementia and pain slept more than patients without pain, in terms of higher total sleep time. Furthermore, their sleep efficiency was higher, indicating that the patients had more sleep within the time they spent in bed. Patients with more severe dementia spent more time awake during the time spent in bed. Furthermore, people with more severe depression slept less at daytime and had less total sleep time Controlling for concomitant medication use did not affect the obtained results.

Comparative efficacy of interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia who experience depression as a neuropsychiatric symptom of dementia or have a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and grey literature between inception and 15 October 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing drug or non-drug interventions with usual care or any other intervention targeting symptoms of depression in people with dementia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pairs of reviewers screened studies, abstracted aggregate level data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which facilitated the derivation of standardised mean differences and back transformed mean differences (on the Cornell scale for depression in dementia) from bayesian random effects network meta-analyses and pairwise meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Of 22 138 citations screened, 256 studies (28 483 people with dementia) were included. Missing data posed the greatest risk to review findings. In the network meta-analysis of studies including people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder who were experiencing symptoms of depression (213 studies; 25 177 people with dementia; between study variance 0.23), seven interventions were associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of depression compared with usual care: cognitive stimulation (mean difference -2.93, 95% credible interval -4.35 to -1.52), cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor (-11.39, -18.38 to -3.93), massage and touch therapy (-9.03, -12.28 to -5.88), multidisciplinary care (-1.98, -3.80 to -0.16), occupational therapy (-2.59, -4.70 to -0.40), exercise combined with social interaction and cognitive stimulation (-12.37, -19.01 to -5.36), and reminiscence therapy (-2.30, -3.68 to -0.93). Except for massage and touch therapy, cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and cognitive stimulation combined with exercise and social interaction, which were more efficacious than some drug interventions, no statistically significant difference was found in the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded network meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy of interventions specifically for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia and a major depressive disorder (22 studies; 1829 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, non-drug interventions were found to be more efficacious than drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a major depressive disorder.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017050130.

Pain, Complex Chronic Conditions and Potential Inappropriate Medication in People with Dementia. Lessons Learnt for Pain Treatment Plans Utilizing Data from the Veteran Health Administration

Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), pain and chronic complex conditions (CCC) often co-occur leading to polypharmacy and with potential inappropriate medications (PIMs) use, are important risk factors for adverse drug reactions and hospitalizations in older adults. Many US veterans are at high risk for persistent pain due to age, injury or medical illness. Concerns about inadequate treatment of pain-accompanied by evidence about the analgesic efficacy of opioids-has led to an increase in the use of opioid medications to treat chronic pain in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and other healthcare systems. This study aims to investigate the relationship between receipt of pain medications and centrally (CNS) acting PIMs among veterans diagnosed with dementia, pain intensity, and CCC 90-days prior to hospitalization. The final analytic sample included 96,224 (81.7%) eligible older veterans from outpatient visits between October 2012-30 September 2013. We hypothesized that veterans with ADRD, and severe pain intensity may receive inappropriate pain management and CNS-acting PIMs. Seventy percent of the veterans, and especially people with ADRD, reported severe pain intensity. One in three veterans with ADRD and severe pain intensity have an increased likelihood for CNS-acting PIMs, and/or opioids. Regular assessment and re-assessment of pain among older persons with CCC, patient-centered tapering or discontinuation of opioids, alternatives to CNS-acting PIMs, and use of non-pharmacological approaches should be considered.

Psychotropic drug use in residents with dementia living in small-scaled special care facilities; a longitudinal study

Objectives: Over the past decade, a trend has been noticed in the Netherlands to replace large-scaled special care units (SCUs) caring for 20-30 residents with dementia by small-scaled SCUs caring for up to 8 residents. Systematic evaluations, however, have yielded a differentiated picture of the effects. As the impact on psychotropic drug use has hardly been addressed thus far, we examined the (potential) impact of psychotropic drug use when moving residents with dementia from large-scaled to small-scaled SCUs.Methods: We conducted a non-randomized, controlled study with a six-month follow-up. Among 145 residents with dementia living a large-scaled SCUs for dementia caring for 20-30 residents per unit, a total of 77 residents were moved to small-scaled SCUs caring for up to 8 residents per unit. Psychotropic drug use, classified according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) system was monitored at 2 months before replacement, as well as at 3 and 6 months thereafter. Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted for the mean Defined Daily Doses (DDDs) of both groups.Results: No significant differences between both groups in psychotropic medication use were found over a period of 8 months.Conclusion: Prescription of psychotropic drugs does not change after a transfer from a large-scaled SCU to a small-scaled SCU of patients with moderate to severe dementia.Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11151241.

Opioid Use After Hospital Care due to Hip Fracture Among Community-Dwelling Persons With and Without Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are common among persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD), but problems in pain assessment may lead to insufficient analgesia after hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the prevalence of opioid use in the 6 months after discharge from hospital care due to hip fracture among community-dwellers with and without AD.

SETTING AND METHOD

The Medication use and Alzheimer's disease (MEDALZ) cohort was used for this study, consisting of all community-dwelling persons newly diagnosed with AD during 2005-2011 in Finland and their comparison persons without AD matched on age, sex, and region of residence at the time of AD diagnosis. Data were collected from nationwide healthcare registers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We investigated opioid use versus non-use in persons with and without AD in the 6 months after discharge from hospital care due to hip fracture.

RESULTS

Altogether 2342 persons with AD and 1615 persons without AD, discharged to community settings within ≤ 120 days after a hip fracture, were included. A higher percentage of persons with AD used opioids compared to those without AD, 39.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 37.5-41.5] versus 31.2% (95% CI 28.9-33.5). Persons with AD used more frequently strong opioids during the first 3 months and buprenorphine during the 6-month period, and used weak opioids less frequently after the first month after discharge compared to those without AD.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequent opioid use after hospital care due to hip fracture may indicate increased attention to pain among persons with AD. Nevertheless, the benefits and harms of opioid use should be evaluated regularly in community-dwelling older persons.

Management of Late-Life Depression in the Context of Cognitive Impairment: a Review of the Recent Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Evidence regarding the treatment of late-life depression is not necessarily generalizable to persons with a neurocognitive disorder and comorbid depression. Thus, this article reviews recent evidence that pertains to the treatment of depression in older adults with neurocognitive disorders, and synthesizes and critically analyzes this literature to identify methodological issues and gaps for the purpose of future research.

RECENT FINDINGS

Controlled trials and meta-analyses examining depression treatment in neurocognitive disorders, published between 2015 and 2019 (N = 16 reports), can be divided into those addressing pharmacotherapy, psychological and behavioral therapy, and somatic therapy. The evidence generally does not support benefit of antidepressant medication over placebo in treating depressive disorders in dementia. No pharmacological studies since 2015 have examined antidepressant medication in participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Problem adaptation therapy demonstrates efficacy for depression in MCI and mild dementia. Other psychological and behavioral interventions for depressive symptoms in dementia demonstrate mixed findings. The only somatic treatment trials published since 2015 have assessed bright light therapy, with positive findings but methodological limitations. Psychological, behavioral, and somatic treatments represent promising treatment options for depression in neurocognitive disorders, but further studies are needed, particularly in participants with depressive disorders rather than subclinical depressive symptoms. Little is known about the treatment of depression in patients with MCI, and rigorous identification of MCI in late-life depression treatment trials will help to advance knowledge in this area. Addressing methodological issues, particularly the diagnosis and measurement of clinically significant depression in dementia, will help to move the field forward.

Time trends in opioid prescribing among Ontario long-term care residents: a repeated cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Opioids are an important pain therapy, but their use may be associated with adverse events in frail and cognitively impaired long-term care residents. The objective of this study was to investigate trends in opioid prescribing among Ontario long-term care residents over time, given the paucity of data for this setting.

METHODS

We used linked clinical and health administrative databases to conduct a population-based, repeated cross-sectional study of opioid use among Ontario long-term care residents between Apr. 1, 2009, and Mar. 31, 2017. We identified prevalent opioid use by drug type, dosage and coprescription with benzodiazepines, and within certain vulnerable subgroups. We used log-binomial regression to quantify the percent change between 2009/10 and 2016/17.

RESULTS

Among an average of 76 147 long-term care residents per year, the prevalence of opioid use increased from 15.8% in 2009/10 to 19.6% in 2016/17 (p < 0.001). Over the study period, the use of hydromorphone increased by 233.2%, whereas the use of all other opioid agents decreased. The use of high-dose opioids (> 90 mg of morphine equivalents) and the coprescription of opioids with benzodiazepines decreased significantly, by 17.7% (p < 0.001) and 23.8% (p < 0.001), respectively. Increases in opioid prevalence were more notable among frail residents (37.6% v. 18.8% among nonfrail residents, p < 0.001) and those with dementia (38.6% v. 21.6% among those without dementia, p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

Within Ontario long-term care, trends suggest a shift toward increased use of hydromorphone but reduced prevalence of use of other opioid agents and potentially inappropriate opioid prescribing. Further investigation is needed on the impact of these trends on resident outcomes.

Analgesic treatments in people with dementia - how safe are they? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

People with dementia may be unable to verbally express pain and suffer from untreated pain. Use of analgesics in people with dementia has increased during the last decade, in particular opioid analgesics with high potential for adverse effects.

AREAS COVERED

This article presents a systematic review of the current evidence for safety and tolerability of analgesic drugs from randomized controlled trials in people with dementia. Relevant trials were identified by a literature search in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases from inception to November 2018. The search included the main terms 'dementia' and 'analgesic' or their subterms, and was filtered to limit results to clinical trials.

EXPERT OPINION

Although pain treatment is increasingly recognized as an important clinical issue in people with advanced dementia, there is currently a lack of evidence to support safety evaluations of commonly used analgesics in this group. To inform treatment decisions and enable care providers to appropriately monitor patients at risk of adverse effects, it is necessary to conduct well-designed clinical trials to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of analgesics in people with dementia, with particular emphasis on harmful effects of long-term opioid use as well as short-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Tolerability of buprenorphine transdermal system in nursing home patients with advanced dementia: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial (DEP.PAIN.DEM)

Purpose

Buprenorphine transdermal system is increasingly prescribed in people with advanced dementia, but no clinical trial has investigated the safety and factors associated with discontinuation due to adverse events in this population.

Patients and methods

One hundred sixty-two people with advanced dementia and significant depression from 47 nursing homes were included and randomized to active analgesic treatment (acetaminophen/buprenorphine) or identical placebo for 13 weeks. In this secondary analysis, the main outcomes were time to and reasons for discontinuation of buprenorphine due to adverse events. Change in daytime activity as measured by actigraphy was a secondary outcome.

Results

Of the 44 patients who received active buprenorphine 5 µg/hour, 52.3% (n=23) discontinued treatment due to adverse events compared to 13.3% (6 of 45) in the placebo group (p<0.001). Psychiatric and neurological adverse events were the most frequently reported causes of discontinuation (69.6%, n=16). Concomitant use of antidepressants significantly increased the risk of discontinuation (HR 23.2, 95% CI: 2.95–182, p=0.003). Adjusted for age, sex, cognitive function, pain and depression at baseline, active buprenorphine was associated with 24.0 times increased risk of discontinuation (Cox model, 95% CI: 2.45–235, p=0.006). Daytime activity dropped significantly during the second day of active treatment (−21.4%, p=0.005) and decreased by 12.9% during the first week (p=0.053).

Conclusion

Active buprenorphine had significantly higher risk of discontinuation compared with placebo in people with advanced dementia and depression, mainly due to psychiatric and neurological adverse events. Daytime activity dropped significantly during the first week of treatment. Concomitant use of antidepressants further reduced the tolerability of buprenorphine.