测量 ADMET 和 ADMET 2 中冷漠症状的临床相关变化

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Shankar Tumati, Nathan Herrmann, Jaime Perin, Paul B. Rosenberg, Alan J. Lerner, Jacobo Mintzer, Prasad R. Padala, Olga Brawman-Mintzer, Christopher H. van Dyck, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Suzanne Craft, Allan Levey, David Shade, Krista L. Lanctôt
{"title":"测量 ADMET 和 ADMET 2 中冷漠症状的临床相关变化","authors":"Shankar Tumati, Nathan Herrmann, Jaime Perin, Paul B. Rosenberg, Alan J. Lerner, Jacobo Mintzer, Prasad R. Padala, Olga Brawman-Mintzer, Christopher H. van Dyck, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Suzanne Craft, Allan Levey, David Shade, Krista L. Lanctôt","doi":"10.1017/s1041610224000711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<span>Objectives:</span><p>Among participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) we estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in apathy symptom severity on three scales.</p><span>Design:</span><p>Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of change in apathy symptom scores.</p><span>Setting:</span><p>Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET) and ADMET 2 randomized controlled trials conducted at three and ten clinics specialized in dementia care in United States and Canada, respectively.</p><span>Participants:</span><p>Two hundred and sixty participants (60 ADMET, 200 ADMET 2) with clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer’s disease.</p><span>Measurements:</span><p>The Clinical Global Impression of Change in Apathy scale was used as the anchor measure and the MCID on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Apathy (NPI-A), Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating (DAIR), and Apathy Evaluation Scale-Informant (AES-I) were estimated with linear mixed models across all study visits. The estimated thresholds were evaluated with performance metrics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>Among the MCID was a decrease of four points (95% CI: −4.0 to −4.8) on the NPI-A, 0.56 points (95% CI: −0.47 to −0.65) on the DAIR, and three points on the AES-I (95% CI: −0.9 to −5.4). Distribution-based analyses were largely consistent with the anchor-based analyses. The MCID across the three measures showed ∼60% accuracy. Sensitivity analyses found that MMSE scores and apathy severity at baseline influenced the estimated MCID.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>MCIDs for apathy on three scales will help evaluate treatment efficacy at the individual level. However, the modest correspondence between MCID and clinical impression of change suggests the need to consider other scales.</p>","PeriodicalId":14368,"journal":{"name":"International psychogeriatrics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring clinically relevant change in apathy symptoms in ADMET and ADMET 2\",\"authors\":\"Shankar Tumati, Nathan Herrmann, Jaime Perin, Paul B. Rosenberg, Alan J. Lerner, Jacobo Mintzer, Prasad R. Padala, Olga Brawman-Mintzer, Christopher H. van Dyck, Anton P. Porsteinsson, Suzanne Craft, Allan Levey, David Shade, Krista L. Lanctôt\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1041610224000711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<span>Objectives:</span><p>Among participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) we estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in apathy symptom severity on three scales.</p><span>Design:</span><p>Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of change in apathy symptom scores.</p><span>Setting:</span><p>Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET) and ADMET 2 randomized controlled trials conducted at three and ten clinics specialized in dementia care in United States and Canada, respectively.</p><span>Participants:</span><p>Two hundred and sixty participants (60 ADMET, 200 ADMET 2) with clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer’s disease.</p><span>Measurements:</span><p>The Clinical Global Impression of Change in Apathy scale was used as the anchor measure and the MCID on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Apathy (NPI-A), Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating (DAIR), and Apathy Evaluation Scale-Informant (AES-I) were estimated with linear mixed models across all study visits. The estimated thresholds were evaluated with performance metrics.</p><span>Results:</span><p>Among the MCID was a decrease of four points (95% CI: −4.0 to −4.8) on the NPI-A, 0.56 points (95% CI: −0.47 to −0.65) on the DAIR, and three points on the AES-I (95% CI: −0.9 to −5.4). Distribution-based analyses were largely consistent with the anchor-based analyses. The MCID across the three measures showed ∼60% accuracy. Sensitivity analyses found that MMSE scores and apathy severity at baseline influenced the estimated MCID.</p><span>Conclusions:</span><p>MCIDs for apathy on three scales will help evaluate treatment efficacy at the individual level. However, the modest correspondence between MCID and clinical impression of change suggests the need to consider other scales.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14368,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International psychogeriatrics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International psychogeriatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610224000711\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International psychogeriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610224000711","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者中,我们估算了三个量表在淡漠症状严重程度上的最小临床意义差异(MCID)。设计:对淡漠症状评分变化进行基于锚和分布的回顾性分析。参与者:260 名阿尔茨海默病患者(60 名 ADMET 试验参与者,200 名 ADMET 2 试验参与者),他们均患有临床症状明显的淡漠症。测量方法:使用淡漠变化临床总体印象量表作为锚点测量方法,并使用线性混合模型估算所有研究访问中神经精神量表-淡漠(NPI-A)、痴呆淡漠访谈和评分(DAIR)以及淡漠评估量表-告知者(AES-I)的 MCID。结果:在 MCID 中,NPI-A 下降了 4 分(95% CI:-4.0 至 -4.8),DAIR 下降了 0.56 分(95% CI:-0.47 至 -0.65),AES-I 下降了 3 分(95% CI:-0.9 至 -5.4)。基于分布的分析与基于锚的分析基本一致。三项测量的MCID显示准确率为60%。敏感性分析发现,MMSE评分和基线时的淡漠严重程度会影响估计的MCID。然而,MCID与临床变化印象之间的对应关系不大,这表明有必要考虑其他量表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring clinically relevant change in apathy symptoms in ADMET and ADMET 2
Objectives:

Among participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) we estimated the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in apathy symptom severity on three scales.

Design:

Retrospective anchor- and distribution-based analyses of change in apathy symptom scores.

Setting:

Apathy in Dementia Methylphenidate Trial (ADMET) and ADMET 2 randomized controlled trials conducted at three and ten clinics specialized in dementia care in United States and Canada, respectively.

Participants:

Two hundred and sixty participants (60 ADMET, 200 ADMET 2) with clinically significant apathy in Alzheimer’s disease.

Measurements:

The Clinical Global Impression of Change in Apathy scale was used as the anchor measure and the MCID on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Apathy (NPI-A), Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating (DAIR), and Apathy Evaluation Scale-Informant (AES-I) were estimated with linear mixed models across all study visits. The estimated thresholds were evaluated with performance metrics.

Results:

Among the MCID was a decrease of four points (95% CI: −4.0 to −4.8) on the NPI-A, 0.56 points (95% CI: −0.47 to −0.65) on the DAIR, and three points on the AES-I (95% CI: −0.9 to −5.4). Distribution-based analyses were largely consistent with the anchor-based analyses. The MCID across the three measures showed ∼60% accuracy. Sensitivity analyses found that MMSE scores and apathy severity at baseline influenced the estimated MCID.

Conclusions:

MCIDs for apathy on three scales will help evaluate treatment efficacy at the individual level. However, the modest correspondence between MCID and clinical impression of change suggests the need to consider other scales.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International psychogeriatrics
International psychogeriatrics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: A highly respected, multidisciplinary journal, International Psychogeriatrics publishes high quality original research papers in the field of psychogeriatrics. The journal aims to be the leading peer reviewed journal dealing with all aspects of the mental health of older people throughout the world. Circulated to over 1,000 members of the International Psychogeriatric Association, International Psychogeriatrics also features important editorials, provocative debates, literature reviews, book reviews and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信