MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390201842 · doi:10.1002/alz.080322

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

2023· article· en· W4390201842 on OpenAlexaff
María Alejandra Tangarife, Evelyn Gutiérrez, Laura Tatiana Sanchez, María Juanita Arbelaez, Diego A. Rodríguez‐Soacha, Saadia S Shahnawaz, Varduhi Ghazaryan, Laura Delgado‐Murillo, María Paula Naranjo, Margarita Venegas, David Silva García, Karen Y Pujals, William Julio De Jesus, Claudia Grimaldi, Krista L. Lanctôt, L. Elliot Hong, Ram Mukunda

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBipolar Disorder and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortIrritabilityMedicineDementiaApathyDistressTolerabilityInternal medicineQuetiapineAnxietyPsychiatryAdverse effectDiseaseClinical psychologySchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are features of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and a main cause of institutionalization. NPS in AD include agitation, depression, anxiety, elation, apathy, disinhibition, irritability, delusions, hallucinations and aberrant motor behavior. The onset of NPS worsens functional deficits by accelerating patients' cognitive decline and in 80% of cases increases caregiver burden and distress. NPS are difficult to treat and currently used medications have black‐box warnings, and weak evidence of efficacy in dementia patients. Here, we present preliminary data for improvement in NPI scores and 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. For all three Cohorts the NPI / NPI‐D were administered at baseline and EOT of each Cohort. 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 independently compare differences between mean NPI and NPI‐D scores at baseline and EOT. Result In Cohort‐1 mean NPI at baseline and EOT was 31.5 and 14.8 respectively (mean difference = ‐16.7, v = 55, p = 0.003). In Cohort‐2 mean NPI at baseline and EOT was 22.2 and 12.4 respectively (mean difference = ‐9.8, v = 48, p = 0.021). In Cohort‐3 mean NPI at baseline and EOT was 16 and 7.9 respectively (mean difference = ‐8.1, v = 35, p = 0.010). We report similar improvements in NPI‐D. (Cohort‐1: mean difference = ‐7, v = 15, p = 0.031; Cohort‐2: mean difference = ‐6.3, v = 43, p = 0.009; Cohort‐3: mean difference = ‐3.4, v = 30, p = 0.053). No changes in concomitant medication were observed. No serious AEs, no deaths, and no dropouts due to AEs were reported. Conclusion GC‐AD1 was safe and well tolerated and is potentially efficacious in reducing NPS and associated caregiver distress, clinically and statistically, 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 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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & Dementia→Same topicBipolar Disorder and Treatment→French-language works237,207→