Interventions Targeting Reversible Dementia in Down Syndrome
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A 49-year-old man with high-functioning Down syndrome was admitted to the Behavioural Neurology Unit, Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), with a 1-year history of cognitive and behavioral decline. Behavioral problems included physical and verbal aggression (kicking, hitting, swearing, screaming), voiding and defecating on the floor, and refusing medication and assistance with hygiene. Hoarding (toilet paper, incontinence briefs) and disrobing were long-standing but had worsened. Although Alzheimer's disease was strongly suspected, he made a remarkable recovery to his premorbid level after a combination of pharmacological and behavioral interventions. Medical history included left eye blindness, hepatitis B, liver cirrhosis, hemochromatosis, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulitis, hypothyroidism, and hypotension. Psychiatric history was significant for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Signs of sensory defensiveness1 were observed (hypersensitivity to nonnoxious stimuli). Admission medications included zopiclone and mirtazapine. Sertraline was tried but stopped. Zopiclone and mirtazapine were discontinued. Midodrine was prescribed for hypotension. Olanzapine was added to treat his behavioral symptoms. He was noted to be socially withdrawn and unmotivated. His Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale2 score indicated depression and anxiety. Duloxetine was started to treat depression and anxiety. Behavioral interventions were implemented in conjunction with medication. Reduction of physical and verbal aggression was targeted through differential reinforcement of other behaviors,3 such as pleasant interactions, using verbal praise. Aggressive behaviors were ignored, and staff withdrew from the room when they occurred. A behavior-specific positive reinforcement schedule was implemented within a firm, consistent routine to encourage adherence to care. For example, telephone calls were offered daily after he showered, changed socks, and took medication. Alternative strategies were explored to target inappropriate voiding and defecation, which continued despite this reinforcement schedule. After staff encouraged urination and defecation on an absorbent mat on the bathroom floor, he began adhering. To reduce hoarding, staff provided toilet paper when one-third of the previous roll remained. One incontinence brief was provided every morning to reduce anxiety related to a remote episode of stool incontinence. Sensory defensiveness in multiple sensory modalities was thought to contribute to his behavioral and psychosocial problems, especially in relation to tactile sense (disrobing, refusal to remove socks). To treat sensory defensiveness, a program of deep pressure touch and joint compressions to specific body parts1 was initiated. Food was offered as positive reinforcement after adherence. Only joint compressions were tolerated for the first 2 weeks; for the following 3 weeks, deep pressure touch and joint compressions were administered. This protocol was phased out gradually and discontinued. He was also expected to dress when leaving his room. Verbal reminders were provided, and praise was given for adherence. Nudity in his private room was tolerated. Participation in meaningful leisure activities was encouraged throughout treatment. Frequency of behaviors was documented every shift using an adapted version of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory.4 Upon admission and at discharge, neuropsychiatric symptoms and tactile sensory defensiveness were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Sensory Defensiveness Screening Tool.5 All problem behaviors were significantly reduced 16 weeks after admission, and he was discharged to an assisted living group home. When he was seen as an outpatient 8 weeks later, frequency of most target behaviors and symptoms of tactile sensory defensiveness, anxiety, and depression remained improved, although swearing had occurred several times in the previous 2 weeks in response to a change in routine (Figure 1). Adults with Down syndrome are at risk of developing behavioral, emotional, and psychiatric problems.6 These may be early signs of Alzheimer's disease, because behavioral and psychological symptoms may appear before cognitive decline in these individuals,7 but behavioral and cognitive changes may also be due to depression, anxiety, or other treatable causes.8 Thus, individuals with Down syndrome who present with dementia-like symptoms require thorough assessment and treatment for reversible causes of decline, regardless of how impaired they may seem, before being diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or other dementia. The aging population worldwide includes an increasing number of individuals with Down syndrome9 who are likely to develop behavioral and psychological symptoms related to Alzheimer's disease, yet information regarding interventions targeting these symptoms in Down syndrome is surprisingly scarce. The present report is an important addition to this sparse literature and provides examples of treatment strategies that may be effective, although because multiple behavioral interventions were implemented simultaneously, in addition to combination pharmacological therapy, the independent contribution of each cannot be ascertained. Additional studies should examine these interventions separately to determine their individual effectiveness in individuals with Down syndrome who have progressive behavioral and cognitive decline. We are grateful to the patient and his family and to the staff of the Baycrest Behavioural Neurology Unit. Conflict of Interest: The authors report no conflict of interest. Dr. Freedman receives support from the Saul A. Silverman Family Foundation as a Canada International Scientific Exchange Program and the Morris Kerzner Memorial Fund. Author Contributions: Callahan, Wong: concept and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval for publication. Ngang: acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final approval for publication. Wolf: acquisition and interpretation of data, drafting the article, final edits, approval for publication. Freedman: concept and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, final edits, approval for publication. Sponsor's Role: This study was not funded by a sponsoring organization.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».