Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Nabilone for Agitation in Alzheimer's Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of nabilone for agitation in patients with moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). DESIGN: This 14-week randomized double-blind crossover trial compared nabilone to placebo (6 weeks each) with a 1-week washout between phases. SETTING: Patients were recruited from a long-term care facility and geriatric psychiatry clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients had AD (standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [sMMSE ≤24]) and agitation (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home version [NPI-NH]-agitation/aggression subscore ≥3). INTERVENTION: Nabilone (target 1-2 mg) versus placebo. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was agitation (Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory [CMAI]). Secondary outcomes included NPI-NH total, NPI-NH caregiver distress, cognition (sMMSE and Severe Impairment Battery [SIB] or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale of Cognition), global impression (Clinician's Global Impression of Change [CGIC]), and adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (mean ± SD age = 87 ± 10, sMMSE = 6.5 ± 6.8, CMAI = 67.9 ± 17.6, NPI-NH total = 34.3 ± 15.8, 77% male, nabilone dose = 1.6 ± 0.5 mg) were randomized. There were no crossover or treatment-order effects. Using a linear mixed model, treatment differences (95% CI) in CMAI (b = -4.0 [-6.5 to -1.5], t(30.2) = -3.3, p = 0.003), NPI-NH total (b = -4.6 [-7.5 to -1.6], t(32.9) = -3.1, p = 0.004), NPI-NH caregiver distress (b = -1.7 [-3.4 to -0.07, t(33.7) = -2.1, p = 0.041), and sMMSE (b = 1.1 [0.1-2.0], t(22.6) = 2.4, p = 0.026) all favored nabilone. However, in those who completed the SIB (n = 25) treatment differences favored placebo (b = -4.6 [-7.3 to -1.8], t(20.7) = -4.8, p = 0.003). CGIC improvement during nabilone (47%) and placebo (23%) was not significantly different (McNemar's test, exact p = 0.09). There was more sedation during nabilone (45%) compared to placebo (16%) phases (McNemar's test, exact p = 0.02), but treatment-limiting sedation was not significantly different (McNemar's test, exact p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Nabilone may be an effective treatment for agitation. However, sedation and cognition should be closely monitored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".