Anticonvulsants in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms in Dementia: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) are common and impart a significant burden to patients, caregivers, and the health system. However, there are few pharmacological options for treating BPSD. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials examining the efficacy of anticonvulsants in BPSD. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases through January 2023, for randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants for the treatment of BPSD. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to ascertain the risk of bias in included trials. Because statistical pooling of results using meta-analysis was not feasible, we synthesized findings using the Cochrane Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 12 studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 systematic review. Five RCTs evaluating valproic acid were synthesized by a recent Cochrane review which concluded that this drug is likely ineffective for BPSD. We extracted data from 6 trials involving 248 individuals comparing non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants to either placebo or risperidone. Four trials (n = 97 participants) evaluated carbamazepine, only one of which demonstrated an improvement in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale measuring agitation, hostility, psychosis, and withdrawal/depression (effect size: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.73) relative to placebo. Adverse effects were more common in patients receiving carbamazepine (20/27; 74%) relative to placebo (5/24; 21%). There is low quality evidence that oxcarbazepine is likely ineffective and that topiramate may be comparable to risperidone. CONCLUSION: Anticonvulsants are unlikely to be effective in BPSD, although the quality of existing evidence is low.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".