Reuben David B, Gill Thomas M, Stevens Alan, Williamson Jeff, Volpi Elena, Lichtenstein Maya, Jennings Lee A, Galloway Rebecca, Summapund Jenny, Araujo Katy, Bass David, Weitzman Lisa, Tan Zaldy S, Evertson Leslie, Yang Mia, Currie Katherine, Green Aval-Na'Ree S, Godoy Sybila, Abraham Sitara, Reese Jordan, Samper-Ternent Rafael, Hirst Roxana M, Borek Pamela, Charpentier Peter, Meng Can, Dziura James, Xu Yunshan, Skokos Eleni A, He Zili, Aiudi Sherry, Peduzzi Peter, Greene Erich J
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
JAMA. 2025 Mar 18;333(11):950-961. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.25056.
The effectiveness of different approaches to dementia care is unknown.
To determine the effectiveness of health system-based, community-based dementia care, and usual care for persons with dementia and for caregiver outcomes.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial of community-dwelling persons living with dementia and their caregivers conducted at 4 sites in the US (enrollment June 2019-January 2023; final follow-up, August 2023).
Participants were randomized 7:7:1 to health system-based care provided by an advanced practice dementia care specialist (n = 1016); community-based care provided by a social worker, nurse, or licensed therapist care consultant (n = 1016); or usual care (n = 144).
Primary outcomes were caregiver-reported Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) severity score for persons living with dementia (range, 0-36; higher scores, greater behavioral symptoms severity; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 2.8-3.2) and Modified Caregiver Strain Index for caregivers (range, 0-26; higher scores, greater strain; MCID, 1.5-2.3). Three secondary outcomes included caregiver self-efficacy (range, 4-20; higher scores, more self-efficacy).
Among 2176 dyads (individuals with dementia, mean age, 80.6 years; 58.4%, female; and 20.6%, Black or Hispanic; caregivers, mean age, 65.2 years; 75.8%, female; and 20.8% Black or Hispanic), primary outcomes were assessed for more than 99% of participants, and 1343 participants (62% of those enrolled and 91% still alive and had not withdrawn) completed the study through 18 months. No significant differences existed between the 2 treatments or between treatments vs usual care for the primary outcomes. Overall, the least squares means (LSMs) for NPI-Q scores were 9.8 for health system, 9.5 for community-based, and 10.1 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.30 (97.5% CI, -0.18 to 0.78); health system vs usual care, -0.33 (97.5% CI, -1.32 to 0.67); and community-based vs usual care, -0.62 (97.5% CI, -1.61 to 0.37). The LSMs for the Modified Caregiver Strain Index were 10.7 for health system, 10.5 for community-based, and 10.6 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was 0.25 (97.5% CI, -0.16 to 0.66); health system vs usual care, 0.14 (97.5% CI, -0.70 to 0.99); and community-based vs usual care, -0.10 (97.5% CI, -0.94 to 0.74). Only the secondary outcome of caregiver self-efficacy was significantly higher for both treatments vs usual care but not between treatments: LSMs were 15.1 for health system, 15.2 for community-based, and 14.4 for usual care. The difference between health system vs community-based care was -0.16 (95% CI, -0.37 to 0.06); health system vs usual care, 0.70 (95% CI, 0.26-1.14); and community-based vs usual care, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.29).
In this randomized trial of dementia care programs, no significant differences existed between health system-based and community-based care interventions nor between either active intervention or usual care regarding patient behavioral symptoms and caregiver strain.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03786471.
不同痴呆症护理方法的有效性尚不清楚。
确定基于卫生系统、基于社区的痴呆症护理以及对痴呆症患者和照护者结局的常规护理的有效性。
设计、地点和参与者:在美国4个地点对社区居住的痴呆症患者及其照护者进行的随机临床试验(入组时间为2019年6月至2023年1月;最终随访时间为2023年8月)。
参与者按7:7:1随机分配至由高级执业痴呆症护理专家提供的基于卫生系统的护理(n = 1016);由社会工作者、护士或持牌治疗顾问提供的基于社区的护理(n = 1016);或常规护理(n = 144)。
主要结局为照护者报告的痴呆症患者的神经精神科问卷(NPI-Q)严重程度评分(范围为0 - 36;分数越高,行为症状越严重;最小临床重要差异[MCID]为2.8 - 3.2)以及照护者的改良照护者压力指数(范围为0 - 26;分数越高,压力越大;MCID为1.5 - 2.3)。三个次要结局包括照护者自我效能感(范围为4 - 20;分数越高,自我效能感越强)。
在2176对受试者中(痴呆症患者,平均年龄80.6岁;58.4%为女性;20.6%为黑人或西班牙裔;照护者,平均年龄65.2岁;75.8%为女性;20.8%为黑人或西班牙裔),超过99%的参与者评估了主要结局,1343名参与者(占入组者的62%,91%仍存活且未退出)完成了18个月的研究。两种治疗方法之间或治疗方法与常规护理之间在主要结局方面不存在显著差异。总体而言,NPI-Q评分的最小二乘均值(LSMs)在基于卫生系统的护理中为9.8,在基于社区的护理中为9.5,在常规护理中为10.1。基于卫生系统的护理与基于社区的护理之间的差异为0.30(97.5% CI,-0.18至0.78);基于卫生系统的护理与常规护理之间,为-0.33(97.5% CI,-1.32至0.67);基于社区的护理与常规护理之间,为-0.62(97.5% CI,-1.61至0.37)。改良照护者压力指数的LSMs在基于卫生系统的护理中为10.7,在基于社区的护理中为10.5,在常规护理中为10.6。基于卫生系统的护理与基于社区的护理之间的差异为0.25(97.5% CI,-0.16至0.66);基于卫生系统的护理与常规护理之间,为0.14(97.5% CI,-0.70至0.99);基于社区的护理与常规护理之间,为-0.10(97.5% CI,-0.94至0.74)。仅两种治疗方法的次要结局照护者自我效能感均显著高于常规护理,但两种治疗方法之间无差异:LSMs在基于卫生系统的护理中为15.1,在基于社区的护理中为15.2,在常规护理中为14.4。基于卫生系统的护理与基于社区的护理之间的差异为-0.16(95% CI,-0.37至0.06);基于卫生系统的护理与常规护理之间,为0.70(95% CI,0.26 - 1.14);基于社区的护理与常规护理之间,为0.85(95% CI,0.42至1.29)。
在这项痴呆症护理项目的随机试验中,基于卫生系统的护理和基于社区的护理干预措施之间,以及在患者行为症状和照护者压力方面,主动干预措施与常规护理之间均不存在显著差异。
ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03786471。