38
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cognition-Oriented Treatments for Older Adults: a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Cognition-oriented treatments – commonly categorized as cognitive training, cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive stimulation – are promising approaches for the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in older adults. We conducted a systematic overview of meta-analyses investigating the efficacy of cognition-oriented treatments on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without cognitive impairment. Review quality was assessed by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR). We identified 51 eligible reviews, 46 of which were included in the quantitative synthesis. The confidence ratings were “moderate” for 9 (20%), “low” for 13 (28%) and “critically low” for 24 (52%) of the 46 reviews. While most reviews provided pooled effect estimates for objective cognition, non-cognitive outcomes of potential relevance were more sparsely reported. The mean effect estimate on cognition was small for cognitive training in healthy older adults (mean Hedges’ g = 0.32, range 0.13–0.64, 19 reviews), mild cognitive impairment (mean Hedges’ g = 0.40, range 0.32–0.60, five reviews), and dementia (mean Hedges’ g = 0.38, range 0.09–1.16, seven reviews), and small for cognitive stimulation in dementia (mean Hedges’ g = 0.36, range 0.26–0.44, five reviews). Meta-regression revealed that higher AMSTAR score was associated with larger effect estimates for cognitive outcomes. The available evidence supports the efficacy of cognition-oriented treatments improving cognitive performance in older adults. The extent to which such effects are of clinical value remains unclear, due to the scarcity of high-quality evidence and heterogeneity in reported findings. An important avenue for future trials is to include relevant non-cognitive outcomes in a more consistent way and, for meta-analyses in the field, there is a need for better adherence to methodological standards. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018084490.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1007/s11065-020-09434-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Nonpharmacological Therapies in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review of Efficacy

          Introduction: Nonpharmacological therapies (NPTs) can improve the quality of life (QoL) of people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and their carers. The objective of this study was to evaluate the best evidence on the effects of NPTs in AD and related disorders (ADRD) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of the entire field. Methods: Existing reviews and major electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The deadline for study inclusion was September 15, 2008. Intervention categories and outcome domains were predefined by consensus. Two researchers working together detected 1,313 candidate studies of which 179 RCTs belonging to 26 intervention categories were selected. Cognitive deterioration had to be documented in all participants, and degenerative etiology (indicating dementia) had to be present or presumed in at least 80% of the subjects. Evidence tables, meta-analysis and summaries of results were elaborated by the first author and reviewed by author subgroups. Methods for rating level of evidence and grading practice recommendations were adapted from the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results: Grade A treatment recommendation was achieved for institutionalization delay (multicomponent interventions for the caregiver, CG). Grade B recommendation was reached for the person with dementia (PWD) for: improvement in cognition (cognitive training, cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); activities of daily living (ADL) (ADL training, multicomponent interventions for the PWD); behavior (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the PWD, behavioral interventions, professional CG training); mood (multicomponent interventions for the PWD); QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG) and restraint prevention (professional CG training); for the CG, grade B was also reached for: CG mood (CG education, CG support, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG psychological well-being (cognitive stimulation, multicomponent interventions for the CG); CG QoL (multicomponent interventions for PWD and CG). Conclusion: NPTs emerge as a useful, versatile and potentially cost-effective approach to improve outcomes and QoL in ADRD for both the PWD and CG.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Making working memory work: a meta-analysis of executive-control and working memory training in older adults.

            This meta-analysis examined the effects of process-based executive-function and working memory training (49 articles, 61 independent samples) in older adults (> 60 years). The interventions resulted in significant effects on performance on the trained task and near-transfer tasks; significant results were obtained for the net pretest-to-posttest gain relative to active and passive control groups and for the net effect at posttest relative to active and passive control groups. Far-transfer effects were smaller than near-transfer effects but were significant for the net pretest-to-posttest gain relative to passive control groups and for the net gain at posttest relative to both active and passive control groups. We detected marginally significant differences in training-induced improvements between working memory and executive-function training, but no differences between the training-induced improvements observed in older adults and younger adults, between the benefits associated with adaptive and nonadaptive training, or between the effects in active and passive control conditions. Gains did not vary with total training time. © The Author(s) 2014.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Donepezil for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease

              Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by blocking the action of the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This can be done by a group of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor. This review is an updated version of a review first published in 1998. To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of donepezil; and to assess the effect of donepezil on healthcare resource use and costs. We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement’s Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and a number of other sources on 20 May 2017 to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and up‐to‐date as possible. In addition, we contacted members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc. We included all double‐blind, randomised controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was administered to people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two different doses of donepezil were compared. One reviewer (JSB) extracted data on cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioural symptoms, global clinical state, quality of life, adverse events, deaths and healthcare resource costs. Where appropriate and possible, we estimated pooled treatment effects. We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. Thirty studies involving 8257 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review, of which 28 studies reported results in sufficient detail for the meta‐analyses. Most studies were of six months' duration or less. Only one small trial lasted 52 weeks. The studies tested mainly donepezil capsules at a dose of 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day. Two studies tested a slow‐release oral formulation that delivered 23 mg/day. Participants in 21 studies had mild to moderate disease, in five studies moderate to severe, and in four severe disease. Seventeen studies were industry funded or sponsored, four studies were funded independently of industry and for nine studies there was no information on source of funding. Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of donepezil 10 mg/day with placebo at 24 to 26 weeks of treatment. Thirteen studies contributed data from 3396 participants to this analysis. Eleven of these studies were multicentre studies. Seven studies recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, two with moderate to severe, and four with severe Alzheimer's disease, with a mean age of about 75 years. Almost all evidence was of moderate quality, downgraded due to study limitations. After 26 weeks of treatment, donepezil compared with placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale‐Cognitive (ADAS‐Cog, range 0 to 70) (mean difference (MD) ‐2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐3.31 to ‐2.02, 1130 participants, 5 studies), the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37, 1757 participants, 7 studies) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB, range 0 to 100) (MD 5.92, 95% CI 4.53 to 7.31, 1348 participants, 5 studies). Donepezil was also associated with better function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living score for severe Alzheimer's disease (ADCS‐ADL‐sev) (MD 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.85, 733 participants, 3 studies). A higher proportion of participants treated with donepezil experienced improvement on the clinician‐rated global impression of change scale (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.39, 1674 participants, 6 studies). There was no difference between donepezil and placebo for behavioural symptoms measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD ‐1.62, 95% CI ‐3.43 to 0.19, 1035 participants, 4 studies) or by the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE‐AD) scale (MD 0.4, 95% CI ‐1.28 to 2.08, 194 participants, 1 study). There was also no difference between donepezil and placebo for Quality of Life (QoL) (MD ‐2.79, 95% CI ‐8.15 to 2.56, 815 participants, 2 studies). Participants receiving donepezil were more likely to withdraw from the studies before the end of treatment (24% versus 20%, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50, 2846 participants, 12 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the studies (72% vs 65%, OR 1.59, 95% 1.31 to 1.95, 2500 participants, 10 studies). There was no evidence of a difference between donepezil and placebo for patient total healthcare resource utilisation. Three studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 5 mg/day over 26 weeks. The 5 mg dose was associated with slightly worse cognitive function on the ADAS‐Cog, but not on the MMSE or SIB, with slightly better QoL and with fewer adverse events and withdrawals from treatment. Two studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 23 mg/day. There were no differences on efficacy outcomes, but fewer participants on 10 mg/day experienced adverse events or withdrew from treatment. There is moderate‐quality evidence that people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12 or 24 weeks with donepezil experience small benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and clinician‐rated global clinical state. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total healthcare resource costs. Benefits on 23 mg/day were no greater than on 10 mg/day, and benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose, but the rates of withdrawal and of adverse events before end of treatment were higher the higher the dose. Review question What effects (benefits or harms) does donepezil have on people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease? Background Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia. As the disease progresses, people lose the ability to remember, communicate, think clearly and perform the activities of daily living. Their behaviour may also change. In severe Alzheimer's disease people lose the ability to care for themselves. The most commonly used treatment for Alzheimer's disease are medicines known as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is one of these medicines. It is taken as a pill once a day. In Alzheimer's disease, one of the changes in the brain is a reduced number of nerve cells called cholinergic neurones. These are nerve cells that signal to other cells using a chemical called acetylcholine. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, such as donepezil, work by preventing acetylcholine from being broken down. This may improve the symptoms of dementia. However, acetylcholine is also found elsewhere in the body and so drugs of this type may have unwanted effects. Review methods In this review we examined evidence about benefits and harms from studies that compared donepezil, taken for at least 12 weeks, to placebo (a dummy pill), or that compared different doses of donepezil. The studies had to be double‐blind and randomised, that is, the decision whether people taking part got donepezil or placebo had to be made randomly and neither they nor the researchers should have known which treatment they were getting while the trial was going on. This was to make the comparison as unbiased, or fair, as possible. We searched for studies up to May 2017. We assessed the quality of all the studies we included. When it was sensible to do so, we analysed the results of studies together to get an overall result. Key results We included 30 studies with 8257 participants. Most of the people in the studies had mild or moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, but in nine studies they had moderate or severe dementia. Almost all of the studies lasted six months or less. The majority of the studies were known to have been funded by the manufacturer of donepezil. We found that people with Alzheimer's disease who took 10 mg of donepezil a day for six months did slightly better than people taking placebo, on scales measuring their cognitive function (e.g. thinking and remembering), how well they could manage their daily activities, and the overall impression of a trained researcher. We did not find any effect on behaviour or quality of life. People taking donepezil were more likely than those taking placebo to report side effects and to drop out of the studies. Most side effects were described as mild. Nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea were most common. Comparing 5 mg of donepezil a day with 10 mg/day, people on 5 mg had fewer side effects, but did slightly less well on cognitive function tests. A higher dose (23 mg/day) offered no advantages and was associated with more side effects. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive than placebo when total health care costs are taken into account. Quality of the evidence In general, we thought that the quality of the evidence was moderate. The main factor reducing our confidence was concern that the results of some studies might have been biased by the way they were done. We cannot be sure that the results apply to treatment longer than six months. Conclusions After six months of treatment, there are benefits of donepezil that are large enough to measure in studies. It is associated with side effects that are mainly mild, but that may cause people to stop treatment. Being able to stabilise cognitive performance or ability to maintain activities of daily living may be important clinically. In terms of total healthcare costs the use of donepezil appears cost neutral. However, there does not appear to be an effect on quality of life. More data are still required from longer‐term clinical studies examining measures of disease progression or time to needing full time care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                hanna.malmberg-gavelin@umu.se
                Journal
                Neuropsychol Rev
                Neuropsychol Rev
                Neuropsychology Review
                Springer US (New York )
                1040-7308
                1573-6660
                7 April 2020
                7 April 2020
                2020
                : 30
                : 2
                : 167-193
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.12650.30, ISNI 0000 0001 1034 3451, Department of Psychology, , Umeå University, ; Umeå, Sweden
                [2 ]GRID grid.1008.9, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 088X, Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, , University of Melbourne, ; Melbourne, Australia
                [3 ]GRID grid.6363.0, ISNI 0000 0001 2218 4662, Department of Neurology, , Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, ; Berlin, Germany
                [4 ]GRID grid.7468.d, ISNI 0000 0001 2248 7639, Berlin School of Mind and Brain, , Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, ; Berlin, Germany
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3256-9018
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6522-8397
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4047-2267
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1462-6381
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9248-6057
                Article
                9434
                10.1007/s11065-020-09434-8
                7305099
                32266520
                fc4653aa-53f9-4386-8384-90586b7ada9d
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 22 August 2019
                : 2 March 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
                Award ID: GNT1135605
                Award ID: GNT1108520
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003788, Helge Ax:son Johnsons Stiftelse;
                Award ID: F18-0375
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Graduate School in Population Dynamics and Public Policy
                Award ID: n/a
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                cognitive training,cognitive stimulation,cognitive rehabilitation,older adults,systematic review,overview

                Comments

                Comment on this article