The Effectiveness of Acupuncture Treatment for Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for the symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). There were 11 databases searched for randomized controlled trials using acupuncture treatment for AD. The risk-of-bias assessment tool of the Cochrane Library was used to evaluate the quality of each study. Using the Review Manager (RevMan), a meta-analysis was performed using risk ratio, mean difference, 95% confidence interval, and random effect model. There were 32 studies selected, all of which were conducted in China. There were 16 studies where acupuncture was used as the intervention, and 23 studies used Donepezil as the control group. Acupoint GV20 was most frequently selected during the treatment. The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) was the most frequently used outcome variable. A period of 12 weeks was the most common treatment duration. As a result of meta-analysis (<i>n</i> = 25), acupuncture improved the MMSE and activities of daily living scores. Electroacupuncture improved the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale, and scalp acupuncture improved the MMSE score for AD. Acupuncture alleviates the symptoms of AD. However, further research is necessary to provide a better level of evidence.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of active and passive immunotherapy in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Clinical & Investigative Medicine ◽

10.25011/cim.v42i1.32393 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 42 (1) ◽

pp. E53-E65 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Naghmeh Foroutan ◽

Robert B. Hopkins ◽

Jean-Eric Tarride ◽

Ivan D. Florez ◽

Mitchell Levine

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Alzheimer’S Disease ◽

Alzheimer's Disease ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Clinically Significant

Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a direct and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that have examined the clinical safety and efficacy of using passive and active immunotherapies in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Research questions: (1) Is amyloid-based immunotherapy in patients with mild-to-moderate AD associated with more efficacy benefits compared to placebo? (2) Which immunotherapy agent is associated with more comparative benefit? (3) Is passive or active immunotherapy associated with more benefits? Data sources: A systematic review of published randomized controlled trials was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane library. Review methods and meta-analysis: Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. Important AD cognitive scales as clinical efficacy outcomes were ADAS-cog, CDR and MMSE whereas edema, neoplasms and mortality were included as safety outcomes. A direct comparison meta-analysis using a random effect model and a network (direct and indirect) comparison was conducted to calculate mean differences in treatment effects, SUCRA and ranking probabilities for each medicine per safety and efficacy outcome. Quality of network results were assessed using GRADE methodology. Principle findings: Thirteen RCT-assessed patients with mild-to-moderate AD were included in the final analysis. The results showed that immunotherapies compared with placebo produced a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in ADAS-cog (MD=-0.39; 95% CI -0.42, -0.35, P=0.00) and MMSE. In terms of safety, the rate of ARIA-E was significantly higher with monoclonal antibodies. Solanezumab and AN1792 (vaccine) were the drugs of choice both from efficacy and safety perspectives. Conclusion: In terms of efficacy, the review showed a statistically, but not clinically significant, improvement in favor of immunotherapy versus placebo. Further clinical trials are required to demonstrate any cognitive benefits of immunotherapies in mild-to-moderate AD.

Download Full-text

Efficacy And Safety of Blood Derivatives Therapy in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1153154/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Zhangcheng Fei ◽

Bo Pan ◽

Renjun Pei ◽

Zhongsheng Chen ◽

Xi Du ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Alzheimer’S Disease ◽

Alzheimer's Disease ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Cognitive Improvement ◽

Randomized Controlled

Abstract Objective: Blood derivatives therapy is a conventional clinical treatment, while the treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is relatively novel. To provide clinical references for treating AD, this meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of blood derivatives therapy on the patients with AD. Methods: A systematic articles search was performed for eligible studies published up to December 6, 2021 through the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database and Wanfang databases. The included articles were screened by using rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria. Random effects model was used for this meta-analysis when there is heterogeneity, or else fixed effects model was used. Quality of studies and risk of bias were evaluated.Results: A total of 3 plasma administrations (2 plasma exchange and 1 young plasma infusion) and 5 intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) randomized controlled trials with a sample size of 1148 subjects diagnosed with AD were included. There was no significant difference in cognitive improvement and all-cause discontinuation between intervention and placebo groups. In subgroup analysis, plasma administration was superior to placebo only in limited studies for individual scales. IVIG is well tolerated for AD patients even under the maximum dose (0.4g/kg), but it’s inferior to placebo in Neuropsychiatric Inventory scale in AD patients (P =0.05).Conclusions: The benefits of blood derivatives therapy for AD are limited. It’s necessary to perform well-designed randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes focusing on the appropriate blood derivatives for the specific AD sub-populations in the future. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021233886.

Download Full-text