A Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial of <i>Melissa officinalis</i> Oil and Donepezil for the Treatment of Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Behavioural and psychological symptoms (BPSD) are frequent in people with Alzheimer's disease and cause considerable stress to patients and their carers. Antipsychotics have been widely used as a first-line treatment, resulting in an estimated 1,800 excess strokes and 1,600 excess deaths in the UK alone. Safe and effective alternatives are urgently needed. Based upon preliminary evidence from clinical trials, aromatherapy with melissa oil may be such an alternative, but initial studies have been modest in size, and adequate blinding has been problematic. Our objective was to assess the efficacy of melissa aromatherapy in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease in an adequately powered and robustly blinded randomized controlled trial comparing it with donepezil, an anticholinesterase drug used with some benefit to treat BPSD. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study was a double-blind parallel-group placebo-controlled randomized trial across 3 specialist old age psychiatry centres in England. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, were resident in a care home, had clinically significant agitation (defined as a score of 39 or above on the Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory) and were free of antipsychotics and/or anticholinesterase for at least 2 weeks. Participants were allocated to 1 of 3 groups: placebo medication and active aromatherapy; active medication and placebo aromatherapy or placebo of both. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome measure was reduction in agitation as assessed by the Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS) at 4 weeks. This is an observational scale, and raters were required to wear nose clips to ensure that full blinding was maintained. The PAS, Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI; another measure of BPSD) and other outcome measures were completed at baseline, 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. 114 participants were randomized, of whom 94 completed the week 4 assessment and 81 completed the week 12 assessment. Aromatherapy and donepezil were well tolerated. There were no significant differences between aromatherapy, donepezil and placebo at week 4 and week 12, but importantly there were substantial improvements in all 3 groups with an 18% improvement in the PAS and a 37% improvement in the NPI over 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: When assessed using a rigorous design which ensures blinding of treatment arms, there is no evidence that melissa aromatherapy is superior to placebo or donepezil, in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease. However, the sizeable improvement in the placebo group emphasizes the potential non-specific benefits of touch and interaction in the treatment of agitation in people with Alzheimer's disease.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».