MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390192889 · doi:10.1002/alz.080300

Reduction of apathy and caregiver distress using a combination of tetrahydrocannabinol and melatonin in dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease

2023· article· en· W4390192889 on OpenAlexaff
Evelyn Gutiérrez, Laura Tatiana Sanchez, María Juanita Arbelaez, María Alejandra Tangarife, Laura Delgado‐Murillo, Diego A. Rodríguez‐Soacha, Saadia S Shahnawaz, Varduhi Ghazaryan, María Paula Naranjo, Margarita Venegas, David Silva‐García, Karen Y Pujals, William Julio De Jesus, Claudia Grimaldi, Ram Mukunda, L. Elliot Hong, Krista L. Lanctôt

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApathyCohortMedicineTolerabilityDistressDementiaInternal medicinePlaceboAlzheimer's diseaseAdverse effectPsychiatryDiseaseClinical psychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Apathy is one of the most frequent and long‐lasting neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Up to 78% of AD patients exhibit apathy, which is related to caregiver distress, decreased quality of life, and increased morbidity. While many medications and behavioral interventions are used to treat apathy, the effects are often limited and lack in‐depth research to support these approaches. We present preliminary data for improvement in NPI‐apathy (NPI‐ap) scores and NPI Caregiver Distress (NPI‐D) scores using IGC‐AD1, a tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and melatonin combination. 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. Solicited and non‐solicited adverse events (AEs) were monitored daily. In each Cohort, seven participants (5‐active, 2‐placebo) had apathy at baseline, as rated by the NPI‐ap. They were administered the NPI‐ap at EOT and the Wilcoxon matched pairs signed‐rank test (R‐Studio, dplyr) was used to compare the difference in NPI‐ap scores between baseline and EOT. A similar analysis was carried out for NPI‐D. Result In Cohort‐1 mean NPI‐ap at baseline and EOT was 5.4 and 3 respectively (mean difference = ‐2.4, v = 6, p = 0.091). In Cohort‐2 mean NPI‐ap at baseline and EOT was 5.2 and 2.4 respectively (mean difference = ‐2.8, v = 6, p = 0.087). In Cohort‐3 mean NPI‐ap at baseline and EOT was 5.2 and 2.6 respectively (mean difference = ‐2.6, v = 6, p = 0.087). Results for NPI‐D: (Cohort‐1:mean difference = ‐0.6, 37.5%, v = 6, p = 0.075; Cohort‐2:mean difference = ‐1.8, 69.2%, v = 15, p = 0.028; Cohort‐3:mean difference = ‐0.2, 12.5%, v = 2, p = 0.5). No serious AEs, no deaths, and no dropouts due to AEs were reported. No major changes in concomitant medications were observed. Conclusion As IGC‐AD1 contains THC, the results are intriguing because cannabis use has been associated with apathy but also increased empathy and sociality. In Cohort‐1, Cohort‐2, and Cohort‐3 NPI‐ap was reduced 44.44%, 53.85%, and 50% respectively. These results, while not statistically significant (p>0.05), appear clinically significant (reduction≥30%). A larger placebo‐controlled study is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research→French-language works237,207→