Baillon Sarah F, Narayana Usha, Luxenberg Jay S, Clifton Andrew V
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, New Academic Unit, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 5;10(10):CD003945. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003945.pub4.
Agitation has been reported in up to 90% of people with dementia. Agitation in people with dementia worsens carer burden, increases the risk of injury, and adds to the need for institutionalisation. Valproate preparations have been used in an attempt to control agitation in dementia, but their safety and efficacy have been questioned.
To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of valproate preparations used to treat agitation in people with dementia, including the impact on carers.
We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 7 December 2017 using the terms: valproic OR valproate OR divalproex. ALOIS contains records from all major health care databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS) as well as from many trials databases and grey literature sources.
Randomised, placebo-controlled trials that assessed valproate preparations for agitation in people with dementia.
Two review authors independently screened the retrieved studies against the inclusion criteria and extracted data and assessed methodological quality of the included studies. If necessary, we contacted trial authors to ask for additional data, including relevant subscales, or for other missing information. We pooled data in meta-analyses where possible. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2009. We found no new studies for inclusion.
The review included five studies with 430 participants. Studies varied in the preparations of valproate, mean doses (480 mg/day to 1000 mg/day), duration of treatment (three weeks to six weeks), and outcome measures used. The studies were generally well conducted although some methodological information was missing and one study was at high risk of attrition bias.The quality of evidence related to our primary efficacy outcome of agitation varied from moderate to very low. We found moderate-quality evidence from two studies that measured behaviour with the total Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) score (range 0 to 108) and with the BPRS agitation factor (range 0 to 18). They found that there was probably little or no effect of valproate treatment over six weeks (total BPRS: mean difference (MD) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.14 to 2.59; 202 participants, 2 studies; BPRS agitation factor: MD -0.67, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.15; 202 participants, 2 studies). Very low-quality evidence from three studies which measured agitation with the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Index (CMAI) were consistent with a lack of effect of valproate treatment on agitation. There was variable quality evidence on other behaviour outcomes reported in single studies of no difference between groups or a benefit for the placebo group.Three studies, which measured cognitive function using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), found little or no effect of valproate over six weeks, but we were uncertain about this result because the quality of the evidence was very low. Two studies that assessed functional ability using the Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS) (range 6 to 30) found that there was probably slightly worse function in the valproate-treated group, which was of uncertain clinical importance (MD 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 203 participants, 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence).Analysis of adverse effects and serious adverse events (SAE) indicated a higher incidence in valproate-treated participants. A meta-analysis of three studies showed that there may have been a higher rate of adverse effects among valproate-treated participants than among controls (odds ratio (OR) 2.02, 95% CI 1.30 to 3.14; 381 participants, 3 studies, low-quality evidence). Pooled analysis of the number of SAE for the two studies that reported such data indicated that participants treated with valproate preparations were more likely to experience SAEs (OR 4.77, 95% CI 1.00 to 22.74; 228 participants, 2 studies), but the very low quality of the data made it difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding SAEs. Individual adverse events that were more frequent in the valproate-treated group included sedation, gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea), and urinary tract infections.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review corroborates earlier findings that valproate preparations are probably ineffective in treating agitation in people with dementia, but are associated with a higher rate of adverse effects, and possibly of SAEs. On the basis of this evidence, valproate therapy cannot be recommended for management of agitation in dementia. Further research may not be justified, particularly in light of the increased risk of adverse effects in this often frail group of people. Research would be better focused on effective non-pharmacological interventions for this patient group, or, for those situations where medication may be needed, further investigation of how to use other medications as effectively and safely as possible.
据报道,高达90%的痴呆症患者会出现激越症状。痴呆症患者的激越会加重护理负担,增加受伤风险,并增加机构化护理的需求。丙戊酸盐制剂曾被用于控制痴呆症患者的激越,但人们对其安全性和有效性提出了质疑。
确定丙戊酸盐制剂治疗痴呆症患者激越的疗效和不良反应,包括对护理人员的影响。
我们于2017年12月7日在ALOIS(Cochrane痴呆与认知改善小组的专业注册库)中进行检索,检索词为:valproic OR valproate OR divalproex。ALOIS包含来自所有主要医疗保健数据库(Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE、Embase、PsycINFO、CINAHL、LILACS)以及许多试验数据库和灰色文献来源的记录。
评估丙戊酸盐制剂治疗痴呆症患者激越的随机、安慰剂对照试验。
两位综述作者根据纳入标准独立筛选检索到的研究,提取数据并评估纳入研究的方法学质量。如有必要,我们联系试验作者索要额外数据,包括相关子量表或其他缺失信息。我们尽可能在荟萃分析中合并数据。这是Cochrane综述的更新版本,上次发表于2009年。我们未发现新的纳入研究。
该综述纳入了5项研究,共430名参与者。这些研究在丙戊酸盐制剂、平均剂量(480毫克/天至1000毫克/天)、治疗持续时间(三周至六周)以及所使用的结局指标方面存在差异。这些研究总体上实施良好,尽管一些方法学信息缺失,且一项研究存在较高的失访偏倚风险。与我们主要的激越疗效结局相关的证据质量从中等至极低不等。我们从两项使用简明精神病评定量表(BPRS)总分(范围0至108)和BPRS激越因子(范围0至18)测量行为的研究中发现了中等质量的证据。他们发现,丙戊酸盐治疗六周可能几乎没有或没有效果(BPRS总分:平均差异(MD)0.23,95%置信区间(CI)-2.14至2.59;202名参与者,2项研究;BPRS激越因子:MD -0.67,95% CI -1.49至0.15;202名参与者,2项研究)。三项使用科恩-曼斯菲尔德激越指数(CMAI)测量激越的研究提供了极低质量的证据,这些证据与丙戊酸盐治疗对激越无效果一致。在单项研究中报告的关于其他行为结局的证据质量参差不齐,显示两组之间无差异或安慰剂组有获益。三项使用简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)测量认知功能的研究发现,丙戊酸盐在六周内几乎没有或没有效果,但由于证据质量极低,我们对此结果不确定。两项使用身体自我维持量表(PSMS)(范围6至30)评估功能能力的研究发现,丙戊酸盐治疗组的功能可能略差,但其临床重要性尚不确定(MD 1.19,95% CI 0.40至1.98;203名参与者,2项研究;中等质量证据)。对不良反应和严重不良事件(SAE)的分析表明,丙戊酸盐治疗组的发生率更高。三项研究的荟萃分析显示,丙戊酸盐治疗组的不良反应发生率可能高于对照组(比值比(OR)2.02,95% CI 1.30至3.14;381名参与者,3项研究,低质量证据)。对报告了此类数据的两项研究中SAE数量的汇总分析表明,接受丙戊酸盐制剂治疗的参与者更有可能发生SAE(OR 4.77,95% CI 1.00至22.74;228名参与者,2项研究),但数据质量极低,难以就SAE得出任何确凿结论。丙戊酸盐治疗组中更常见的个体不良事件包括镇静、胃肠道症状(恶心、呕吐和腹泻)以及尿路感染。
本次更新的综述证实了早期的研究结果,即丙戊酸盐制剂可能对治疗痴呆症患者的激越无效,但与更高的不良反应发生率相关,可能还与SAE发生率较高有关。基于这些证据,不推荐使用丙戊酸盐疗法来管理痴呆症患者的激越。进一步研究可能不合理,特别是考虑到这一通常体弱的人群中不良反应风险增加。研究应更好地聚焦于针对该患者群体的有效的非药物干预措施,或者,对于可能需要用药的情况,进一步研究如何尽可能有效且安全地使用其他药物。