Search

Background: Vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) describes a broad spectrum of cognitive impairments caused by cerebrovascular disease, ranging from mild cognitive impairment to dementia. There are currently no pharmacological treatments recommended for improving either cognition or function in people with VCI. Three cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine) are licenced for the treatment of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. They are thought to work by compensating for reduced cholinergic neurotransmission, which is also a feature of VCI. Through pairwise comparisons with placebo and a network meta-analysis, we sought to determine whether these medications are effective in VCI and whether there are differences between them with regard to efficacy or adverse events., Objectives: (1) To assess the efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of adults with vascular dementia and other VCI. (2) To compare the effects of different cholinesterase inhibitors on cognition and adverse events, using network meta-analysis., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 19 August 2020., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials in which donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine was compared with placebo or in which the drugs were compared with each other in adults with vascular dementia or other VCI (excluding cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL)). We included all drug doses and routes of administration., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcomes were cognition, clinical global impression, function (performance of activities of daily living), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were serious adverse events, incidence of development of new dementia, behavioural disturbance, carer burden, institutionalisation, quality of life and death. For the pairwise analyses, we pooled outcome data at similar time points using random-effects methods. We also performed a network meta-analysis using Bayesian methods., Main Results: We included eight trials (4373 participants) in the review. Three trials studied donepezil 5 mg or 10 mg daily (n= 2193); three trials studied rivastigmine at a maximum daily dose of 3 to 12 mg (n= 800); and two trials studied galantamine at a maximum daily dose of 16 to 24 mg (n= 1380). The trials included participants with possible or probable vascular dementia or cognitive impairment following stroke. Mean ages were between 72.2 and 73.9 years. All of the trials were at low or unclear risk of bias in all domains, and the evidence ranged from very low to high level of certainty. For cognition, the results showed that donepezil 5 mg improves cognition slightly, although the size of the effect is unlikely to be clinically important (mean difference (MD) -0.92 Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) points (range 0 to 70), 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.44 to -0.40; high-certainty evidence). Donepezil 10 mg (MD -2.21 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.35; moderate-certainty evidence) and galantamine 16 to 24 mg (MD -2.01 ADAS-Cog point, 95%CI -3.18 to -0.85; moderate-certainty evidence) probably also improve cognition, although the larger effect estimates still may not be clinically important. With low certainty, there may be little to no effect of rivastigmine 3 to 12 mg daily on cognition (MD 0.03 ADAS-Cog points, 95% CI -3.04 to 3.10; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events reported in the studies included nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, dizziness, headache, and hypertension. The results showed that there was probably little to no difference between donepezil 5 mg and placebo in the number of adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.58; moderate-certainty evidence), but there were slightly more adverse events with donepezil 10 mg than with placebo (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.15; high-certainty evidence). The effect of rivastigmine 3 to 12 mg on adverse events was very uncertain (OR 3.21, 95% CI 0.36 to 28.88; very low-certainty evidence). Galantamine 16 to 24 mg is probably associated with a slight excess of adverse events over placebo (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.43; moderate-certainty evidence). In the network meta-analysis (NMA), we included cognition to represent benefit, and adverse events to represent harm. All drugs ranked above placebo for cognition and below placebo for adverse events. We found donepezil 10 mg to rank first in terms of benefit, but third in terms of harms, when considering the network estimates and quality of evidence. Galantamine was ranked second in terms of both benefit and harm. Rivastigmine had the lowest ranking of the cholinesterase inhibitors in both benefit and harm NMA estimates, but this may reflect possibly inadequate doses received by some trial participants and small trial sample sizes., Authors' Conclusions: We found moderate- to high-certainty evidence that donepezil 5 mg, donepezil 10 mg, and galantamine have a slight beneficial effect on cognition in people with VCI, although the size of the change is unlikely to be clinically important. Donepezil 10 mg and galantamine 16 to 24 mg are probably associated with more adverse events than placebo. The evidence for rivastigmine was less certain. The data suggest that donepezil 10 mg has the greatest effect on cognition, but at the cost of adverse effects. The effect is modest, but in the absence of any other treatments, people living with VCI may still wish to consider the use of these agents. Further research into rivastigmine is needed, including the use of transdermal patches., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological symptoms, or behaviour that challenges) which are also often the most distressing aspect of the disorder for caregivers. Complementary therapies, including aromatherapy, are attractive to patients, practitioners and families, because they are perceived as being unlikely to cause adverse effects. Therefore there is interest in whether aromatherapy might offer a safe means of alleviating distressed behaviours in dementia., Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia., Search Methods: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 5 May 2020 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. In addition, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thompson Web of Science), LILACS (via BIREME), CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) on 5 May 2020., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity., Data Collection and Analysis: Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies, involving other authors to reach consensus decisions where necessary. We did not perform any meta-analyses because of heterogeneity between studies, but presented a narrative synthesis of results from the included trials. Because of the heterogeneity of analysis methods and inadequate or absent reporting of data from some trials, we used statistical significance (P ≤ or > 0.5) as a summary metric when synthesising results across studies. As far as possible, we used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the results of the trials, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision., Main Results: We included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were lavender (eight studies); lemon balm (four studies); lavender and lemon balm, lavender and orange, and cedar extracts (one study each). For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66), reducing our confidence in the results. Our primary outcomes were agitation, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms, and adverse effects. Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the five trials for which our confidence in the results was moderate or low, four trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other five trials either reported no useable data or our confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and we had moderate or low confidence in the results of five of them. Of these, four reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect. Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. We did not find evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. Our confidence in the results of these studies was low., Authors' Conclusions: We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The prevalence of overweight and obesity in childhood and adolescence is high. Excessive body fat at a young age is likely to persist into adulthood and is associated with physical and psychosocial co-morbidities, as well as lower cognitive, school and later life achievement. Lifestyle changes, including reduced caloric intake, decreased sedentary behaviour and increased physical activity, are recommended for prevention and treatment of child and adolescent obesity. Evidence suggests that lifestyle interventions can benefit cognitive function and school achievement in children of normal weight. Similar beneficial effects may be seen in overweight or obese children and adolescents., Objectives: To assess whether lifestyle interventions (in the areas of diet, physical activity, sedentary behaviour and behavioural therapy) improve school achievement, cognitive function and future success in overweight or obese children and adolescents compared with standard care, waiting list control, no treatment or attention control., Search Methods: We searched the following databases in May 2013: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, ERIC, IBSS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, ISI Conference Proceedings Citation Index, SPORTDiscus, Database on Obesity and Sedentary Behaviour Studies, Database of Promoting Health Effectiveness Reviews (DoPHER) and Database of Health Promotion Research. In addition, we searched the Network Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (NDLTD), three trials registries and reference lists. We also contacted researchers in the field., Selection Criteria: We included (cluster) randomised and controlled clinical trials of lifestyle interventions for weight management in overweight or obese children three to 18 years of age. Studies in children with medical conditions known to affect weight status, school achievement and cognitive function were excluded., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed quality and risk of bias and cross-checked extracts to resolve discrepancies when required. Authors were contacted to obtain further study details and were asked to provide data on the overweight and obese study population when they were not reported separately., Main Results: Of 529 screened full-text articles, we included in the review six studies (14 articles) of 674 overweight and obese children and adolescents, comprising four studies with multicomponent lifestyle interventions and two studies with physical activity only interventions. We conducted a meta-analysis when possible and a sensitivity analysis to consider the impact of cluster-randomised controlled trials and/or studies at 'high risk' of attrition bias on the intervention effect. We prioritised reporting of the sensitivity analysis when risk of bias and differences in intervention type and duration were suspected to have influenced the findings substantially. Analysis of a single study indicated that school-based healthy lifestyle education combined with nutrition interventions can produce small improvements in overall school achievement (mean difference (MD) 1.78 points on a scale of zero to 100, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 2.76; P < 0.001; N = 321; moderate-quality evidence). Single component physical activity interventions produced small improvements in mathematics achievement (MD 3.00 points on a scale of zero to 200, 95% CI 0.78 to 5.22; P value = 0.008; one RCT; N = 96; high-quality evidence), executive function (MD 3.00, scale mean 100, standard deviation (SD) 15, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.91; P value = 0.04; one RCT; N = 116) and working memory (MD 3.00, scale mean 100, SD 15, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.49; P value = 0.02; one RCT; N = 116). No evidence suggested an effect of any lifestyle intervention on reading, vocabulary and language achievements, attention, inhibitory control and simultaneous processing. Pooling of data in meta-analyses was restricted by variations in study design. Heterogeneity was present within some meta-analyses and may have been explained by differences in types of interventions. Risk of bias was low for most assessed items; however in half of the studies, risk of bias was detected for attrition, participant selection and blinding. No study provided evidence of the effect of lifestyle interventions on future success. Whether changes in academic and cognitive abilities were connected to changes in body weight status was unclear because of conflicting findings and variations in study design., Authors' Conclusions: Despite the large number of childhood obesity treatment trials, evidence regarding their impact on school achievement and cognitive abilities is lacking. Existing studies have a range of methodological issues affecting the quality of evidence. Multicomponent interventions targeting physical activity and healthy diet could benefit general school achievement, whereas a physical activity intervention delivered for childhood weight management could benefit mathematics achievement, executive function and working memory. Although the effects are small, a very large number of children and adolescents could benefit from these interventions. Therefore health policy makers may wish to consider these potential additional benefits when promoting physical activity and healthy eating in schools. Future obesity treatment trials are needed to examine overweight or obese children and adolescents and to report academic and cognitive as well as physical outcomes.