Effect of comprehensive, individualized, person‐centered management on antidepressant usage in advanced Alzheimer’s persons in a 28‐week, randomized, controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background We published results of a clinician‐blind, parallel‐group study of Comprehensive, Individualized, Person‐Centered Management (CI‐PCM) in moderate‐to‐severe, community‐residing, Alzheimer’s persons (Reisberg…Kenowsky, Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord, 2017). CI‐PCM intervention subjects (n=10) showed 967% greater global improvement than subjects randomized to Usual Community Care (UCC, n=10). Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer’s Disease‐Frequency Weighted (BEHAVE‐AD‐FW) total scores showed significant benefit in the intervention group at week 28 (p<0.05). Kettunen asserts, (Eur J Clin Pharmacol, 2018), “Among persons with AD, antidepressants are used for treatment of BPSD…their effectiveness in this indication is modest.” Casey states, (Pharmacy & Therapeutics, 2015), “Antidepressants…are widely used in dementia for depressed mood, anxiety, agitation, and apathy.” Bui recommends, (Cochrane for Clinicians, American Family Practice, 2012), “…antidepressants should be used [in patients with dementia] only if all other nonpharmacologic interventions for neuropsychiatric symptoms are unsuccessful.” Herein, we examine the effect of the CIPCM program on antidepressant usage and the Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD) as measured with the BEHAVE‐AD‐FW. Method Investigators blinded to treatment group assignment reviewed subject charts (N=20), for antidepressant usage, and BEHAVE‐AD‐FW total and category F scores, which measure tearfulness and depressed mood. Costs of antidepressant usage, and BEHAVE‐AD‐FW total, and category F scores for each group were compared. Result There were no significant differences in antidepressant usage or BEHAVE‐AD‐FW total or category F scores between groups at baseline. At all study visits, 50% of subjects in each group took antidepressants. At week 28, community physicians prescribed CI‐PCM subjects less or the same dose of antidepressants, and prescribed comparator subjects the same or greater doses, and additional antidepressants. BEHAVE‐AD‐FW category F scores for UCC comparators were persistently elevated and worsened by week 28, whereas, CI‐PCM group scores improved to zero, indicating no depressive symptoms. Conclusion For CI‐PCM subjects, total BPSD symptomatology declined significantly (p<0.05), antidepressant usage declined, and tearfulness and depressed mood resolved, by week 28. In contrast, UCC subjects increased antidepressant usage, paid 4.42 times more for antidepressants, and had worsening of behavioral disturbances and depressive symptoms. CI‐PCM is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention that reduces antidepressant usage in advanced AD persons with BPSD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".