Reduction of agitation and caregiver distress using a combination intervention of tetrahydrocannabinol and melatonin in dementia due to Alzheimer disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Agitation, common in AD, often associated with higher caregiver burden, increases in intensity and duration as the disease progresses. Although about 76% of AD patients suffer from agitation, only 6.9% of ongoing trials for AD target symptoms such as agitation. Here, we present preliminary data for improvement in NPI‐agitation (NPI‐ag) scores and associated caregiver distress (NPI caregiver distress, NPI‐D) scores using IGC‐AD1, a combination of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and melatonin (IGC‐AD1). Method Twelve patients with mild (15.38%) to moderate (84.6%) AD (NIA‐criteria, 10‐active, 2‐placebo, 81.5±5.5yrs, 69.2% women) participated in a three Cohort Phase‐1, MAD, safety and tolerability trial (IND146069, NCT04749563). In Cohort‐1, IGC‐AD1 was administered QD at 1ml for 14‐days (EOT). In Cohorts 2 and 3, one ml BID and TID were administered respectively, with a minimum of 4‐days washout between Cohorts. In Cohort‐1 (QD), 9 participants (7‐active, 2‐placebo) with NPI‐ag and NPI‐D assessment at baseline were analyzed. In Cohort‐2 (BID), and Cohort‐3 (TID) six patients and five patients respectively had NPI‐ag and NPI‐D scores at baseline. Daily, solicited and non‐solicited adverse events (AEs) were monitored along with vital signs. A Wilcoxon matched pairs signed‐rank test (R‐Studio, dplyr) was used to compare separately the difference between the mean NPI‐ag and mean NPI‐D scores at baseline and EOT. Result In Cohort‐1 mean NPI‐ag at baseline and EOT was 4.71 and 3 respectively (mean difference = ‐1.75, 36.3%, V = 10, p = 0.047). In Cohort‐2 mean NPI‐ag at baseline and EOT was 4.33 and 1.5 respectively (mean difference = ‐2.83, 65.3%, V = 10, p = 0.049). In Cohort‐3 mean NPI‐ag at baseline and EOT was 4.2 and 1.4 respectively (mean difference = ‐2.8, 66.6%, V = 10, p = 0.04). We report similar improvements in NPI‐D. (Cohort‐1: mean difference = ‐1.57, 50%, v = 15, p = 0.028; Cohort‐2: mean difference = ‐2, 66.6%, v = 10, p = 0.049; Cohort‐3: mean difference = ‐1.45, 8.3%, v = 10, p = 0.049). No serious AEs, no deaths, and no dropouts due to AEs were reported. No major changes in concomitant medications were observed. Conclusion IGC‐AD1 was safe and well tolerated and is potentially efficacious in reducing agitation and associated caregiver distress in AD as measured by the NPI, warranting a larger placebo‐controlled study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".