No abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify a useful neuropsychological instrument for making a differential clinical diagnosis between Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Methods: We examined 402 AD and 38 DLB patients with neuropsychological tests that covered general cognition, frontal lobe cognitive function, non-verbal abstract reasoning, working memory and attention, and verbal memory. Discriminant analysis using a stepwise method was performed to identify the measures best able to discriminate between AD and DLB. Results: The AD patients performed significantly worse than the DLB patients on orientation to time, delayed recall subtests on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and logical memory subtests 1 and 2 of the Revised Wechsler Memory Scale. The DLB patients performed significantly worse than the AD patients on the attention, repetition, and pentagon copying subtests of the Mini-Mental State Examination, the constructional praxis subtests of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive component-Japanese version, the Frontal Assessment Battery total score, Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (RCPM) sets A, AB, and B, and backward digit span. Discriminant analyses between AD and DLB established the key variables as Logical Memory 1, Logical Memory 2, backward digit span, RCPM, and delayed recall on the Mini-Mental State Examination. We inferred the AD-DLB discriminant index from the following discriminant analyses: AD-DLB discriminant index = (Backward digit span score + RCPM set B score) − (Logical Memory 1 score + Logical Memory 2 score), which offered a highly favourable value for diagnostic utility. Conclusions: The AD-DLB discriminant index, consisting of backward digit span, RCPM set B, and logical memory 1 and 2, is useful to differentiate between AD and DLB.

IntroductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers).Methods and analysisThis review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs’ qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs’ decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015020558.

ImportanceThere are limited efficacious treatments for Alzheimer disease.ObjectiveTo assess efficacy and adverse events of donanemab, an antibody designed to clear brain amyloid plaque.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter (277 medical research centers/hospitals in 8 countries), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 18-month phase 3 trial that enrolled 1736 participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia) with amyloid and low/medium or high tau pathology based on positron emission tomography imaging from June 2020 to November 2021 (last patient visit for primary outcome in April 2023).InterventionsParticipants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive donanemab (n = 860) or placebo (n = 876) intravenously every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Participants in the donanemab group were switched to receive placebo in a blinded manner if dose completion criteria were met.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was change in integrated Alzheimer Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) score from baseline to 76 weeks (range, 0-144; lower scores indicate greater impairment). There were 24 gated outcomes (primary, secondary, and exploratory), including the secondary outcome of change in the sum of boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB) score (range, 0-18; higher scores indicate greater impairment). Statistical testing allocated α of .04 to testing low/medium tau population outcomes, with the remainder (.01) for combined population outcomes.ResultsAmong 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. Of the 24 gated outcomes, 23 were statistically significant. The least-squares mean (LSM) change in iADRS score at 76 weeks was −6.02 (95% CI, −7.01 to −5.03) in the donanemab group and −9.27 (95% CI, −10.23 to −8.31) in the placebo group (difference, 3.25 [95% CI, 1.88-4.62]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and −10.2 (95% CI, −11.22 to −9.16) with donanemab and −13.1 (95% CI, −14.10 to −12.13) with placebo (difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.51-4.33]; P < .001) in the combined population. LSM change in CDR-SB score at 76 weeks was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.00-1.41) with donanemab and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.68-2.08) with placebo (difference, −0.67 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.40]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.53-1.91) with donanemab and 2.42 (95% CI, 2.24-2.60) with placebo (difference, −0.7 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.45]; P < .001) in the combined population. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of edema or effusion occurred in 205 participants (24.0%; 52 symptomatic) in the donanemab group and 18 (2.1%; 0 symptomatic during study) in the placebo group and infusion-related reactions occurred in 74 participants (8.7%) with donanemab and 4 (0.5%) with placebo. Three deaths in the donanemab group and 1 in the placebo group were considered treatment related.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease and amyloid and tau pathology, donanemab significantly slowed clinical progression at 76 weeks in those with low/medium tau and in the combined low/medium and high tau pathology population.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04437511

No abstract