F3‐03‐02: EFFECTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE, INDIVIDUALIZED, PERSON‐CENTERED MANAGEMENT (CI‐PCM) PROGRAM ON ANXIOLYTIC MEDICATION USAGE IN PERSONS WITH MODERATE‐TO‐SEVERE ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Last year we published the results of a randomized controlled trial of a Comprehensive, Individualized, Person-Centered Management Program (CI-PCM) on persons with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (Reisberg, et al., Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2017). The subject-caregiver dyads randomized to the management program (n=10) showed significant improvements globally, which were approximately 10 times those in the usual community care dyads (n=10). Herein we examined the effects of the CI-PCM intervention on anxiolytic medication usage. Subject charts (N=20), were reviewed by a physician (M.A.) who was blind to the subject group randomization assignment. Group 1 had one subject who was receiving clonazepam at baseline, (0.25 mg, 3 times daily), which was discontinued after 36 days and a second subject who received clonazepam, 0.5 mg weekly at baseline, which was discontinued after 29 days. Group 2 had 1 subject who was started on alprazolam, 0.25 mg twice weekly as necessary on an estimated day 18, subsequently increased to twice daily as needed. Total duration of alprazolam usage was an estimated 180 days. Total estimated duration of the group 1 subjects in the study was 2,112 days and of the group 2 subjects was 2,003 days. We compared anxiolytic medication usage in the 2 study groups. Procedures for these analyses are described in Table 1. Briefly, we considered time off anxiolytics in group 1 as positive, since subjects did not take, or discontinued, anxiolytics, during this period. For group 2, we considered time in which anxiolytics were added as a negative result. We then compared group outcomes. Subsequently, the group blind was broken and the detailed results are shown in Table 1 and summarized below. The difference between the groups in terms of days of anxiolytic medication usage was highly significant (the two-tailed p value < 0.0001), with less usage in subjects randomized to the management program. Since anxiolytic usage is associated with numerous negative outcomes including dependency, seizures upon withdrawal, etc. (see Table 2), the CI-PCM program in this study was associated with an important collateral health benefit in terms of decreasing anxiolytic medication usage by community physicians. Suicidal ideation Coma Visual impairment Seizures Steven-Johnson Syndrome Hepatic Failure Physiological dependence Psychological dependence Amnesia Hallucinations Hostility Psychosis Withdrawal Respiratory depression Depression Memory impairment Confusion Excitabilityl Dyspnea Withdrawal Memory impairment Impaired cognition Depression Confusion Amnesia Dyspnea Hallucinations Psychological depression Physiological depression Hostility Conclusion: The management program was associated with a very highly significant outcome in terms of the discontinuation of anxiolytic medication usage and the ostensible prevention of new anxiolytic medication prescribing by physicians.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,001 |
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 ».