Efficacy of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Andrea C Tricco, Sondra Vandervaart, Charlene Soobiah, Erin Lillie, Laure Perrier, Maggie H Chen, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Sumit R Majumdar, Sharon E Straus, Andrea C Tricco, Sondra Vandervaart, Charlene Soobiah, Erin Lillie, Laure Perrier, Maggie H Chen, Brenda Hemmelgarn, Sumit R Majumdar, Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Background: Approximately 35 million people world-wide have Alzheimer's disease and this is projected to nearly double by 2030. Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors (for example, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonist) have been approved for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in many countries. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease through a systematic review.

Methods/design: Studies examining the efficacy, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers compared to placebo, supportive care, and other cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's patients will be included. The primary outcome is cognition and secondary outcomes include function, behavior, quality of life, safety, and cost. Experimental studies (randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials), quasi-experimental studies (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), and observational studies (cohort, case-control studies) will be eligible for inclusion. Inclusion will not be limited by publication status, time period or language of dissemination.We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline) from inception onwards. The electronic database search will be supplemented by searching for grey literature (for example, conference proceedings, searches in Google and relevant organization websites). Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for inclusion using the eligibility criteria established a priori and independently extract data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for experimental and quasi-experimental studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. If deemed appropriate, meta-analysis and network (that is, indirect comparisons) meta-analysis will be conducted.

Discussion: Our systematic review will inform the decision of healthcare providers, policy-makers, Alzheimer's patients and family members about the use of cognitive enhancers, by improving their understanding of the costs, benefits and harms that are associated with these agents. PROSPERO REGISTRY NUMBER: CRD42012001948.

References

    1. Prince M, Jackson J. Alzheimer's Disease International: World Alzheimer Report. 2009. [ ]
    1. Williams T. Alzheimer's Disease to cost United States $20 trillion over next 40 years. Washington, DC: Alzheimer’s Association; 2010.
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Dementia in Australia: National data analysis and development. Canberra: AIHW; 2007.
    1. Alzheimer Society of Canada. Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society. Toronto: Alzheimer Society of Canada; 2010.
    1. Chertkow H. Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: introduction. Introducing a series based on the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia. CMAJ. 2008;178:316–321.
    1. Clare L, Woods RT, Moniz Cook ED, Orrell M, Spector A. Cognitive rehabilitation and cognitive training for early-stage Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;4:CD003260.
    1. Gitlin LN, Winter L, Dennis MP, Hodgson N, Hauck WW. A biobehavioral home-based intervention and the well-being of patients with dementia and their caregivers: the COPE randomized trial. JAMA. 2010;304:983–991. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1253.
    1. Thompson C. Assessing the effectiveness of support for the carers of people with Alzheimer's diseases. Nurs Times. 1998;94:49.
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Dementia: Supporting people with dementia and their carers in health and social care. Accessed 26 June 2012.
    1. Perras C, Shukla VK, Lessard C, Skidmore B, Bergman H, Gauthier S. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials [Technology report no 58] Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; 2005.
    1. Hansen RA, Gartlehner G, Webb AP, Morgan LC, Moore CG, Jonas DE. Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3:211–225.
    1. Birks J. Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;1:CD005593.
    1. Park-Wyllie LY, Mamdani MM, Li P, Gill SS, Laupacis A, Juurlink DN. Cholinesterase inhibitors and hospitalization for bradycardia: a population-based study. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000157. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000157.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
    1. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984;74:979–983. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.74.9.979.
    1. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, Alderson P, Glasziou P, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:395–400. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012.
    1. SysRev Tool. SysRev Tool. Toronto Canada: Toronto Canada; 2011. .
    1. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1:MR000023.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.
    1. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330:753. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F.
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] Oxford: UK: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from .
    1. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Draft Risk of Bias Tool. Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Draft Risk of Bias Tool. Oxford, UK: Wiley; 2011. .
    1. Wells G, Shea BJ, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in . 2011. Available: .
    1. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
    1. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, Ismaila AS, Santaguida P, Smith DH, Whitlock E, Wilt TJ, Moher D. AHRQ series paper 4: assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:502–512. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.007.
    1. Santaguida P, Raina P, Ismaila A. The development of the McHarm quality assessment scale for adverse events. Hamilton, Canada; [ ]
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Meta-regression approaches. Rockville, MD: AHRQ; 2004. Public Report No 04-0033.
    1. SAS. version 9.1. SAS institute, Cary, NC; 2004.
    1. Littell JH, Pillai V. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.
    1. Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schwarzer G. Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach. Biometrics. 2011;67:1066–1072. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01498.x.
    1. The bugs project. Winbugs. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge UK; 2011. [ ]
    1. Fu R, Gartlehner G, Grant M, Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions. AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program; [posted October 2010]. Available from: . [Accessed November 20, 2011.
    1. Lu G, Ades AE. Stat Med. 2004. pp. 3105–3124.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe