Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2012

Open Access 01-12-2012 | Protocol

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

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

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

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
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Williams T: Alzheimer's Disease to cost United States $20 trillion over next 40 years. 2010, Washington, DC: Alzheimer’s Association Williams T: Alzheimer's Disease to cost United States $20 trillion over next 40 years. 2010, Washington, DC: Alzheimer’s Association
3.
go back to reference Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW): Dementia in Australia: National data analysis and development. 2007, Canberra: AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW): Dementia in Australia: National data analysis and development. 2007, Canberra: AIHW
4.
go back to reference Alzheimer Society of Canada: Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society. 2010, Toronto: Alzheimer Society of Canada Alzheimer Society of Canada: Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society. 2010, Toronto: Alzheimer Society of Canada
5.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference 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-PubMed 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-PubMed
7.
go back to reference 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. 10.1001/jama.2010.1253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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. 10.1001/jama.2010.1253.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Thompson C: Assessing the effectiveness of support for the carers of people with Alzheimer's diseases. Nurs Times. 1998, 94: 49-PubMed Thompson C: Assessing the effectiveness of support for the carers of people with Alzheimer's diseases. Nurs Times. 1998, 94: 49-PubMed
10.
go back to reference 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]. 2005, Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment 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]. 2005, Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment
11.
go back to reference 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.PubMedPubMedCentral 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.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Birks J: Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, 1: CD005593-PubMed Birks J: Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006, 1: CD005593-PubMed
13.
go back to reference 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: e1000157-10.1371/journal.pmed.1000157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral 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: e1000157-10.1371/journal.pmed.1000157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009, 339: b2535-10.1136/bmj.b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009, 339: b2535-10.1136/bmj.b2535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984, 74: 979-983. 10.2105/AJPH.74.9.979.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook RH: Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health. 1984, 74: 979-983. 10.2105/AJPH.74.9.979.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.012.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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-PubMed 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-PubMed
19.
go back to reference Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977, 33: 159-174. 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Chan AW, Altman DG: Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005, 330: 753-10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan AW, Altman DG: Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005, 330: 753-10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
24.
go back to reference Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997, 315: 629-634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.007.CrossRefPubMed 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06.007.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRefPubMed DerSimonian R, Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986, 7: 177-188. 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefPubMed Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1539-1558. 10.1002/sim.1186.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Meta-regression approaches. 2004, Rockville, MD: AHRQ, Public Report No 04-0033 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ): Meta-regression approaches. 2004, Rockville, MD: AHRQ, Public Report No 04-0033
30.
go back to reference SAS: version 9.1. 2004, SAS institute, Cary, NC SAS: version 9.1. 2004, SAS institute, Cary, NC
31.
go back to reference Littell JH, Pillai V: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. 2008, New York: Oxford University PressCrossRef Littell JH, Pillai V: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. 2008, New York: Oxford University PressCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schwarzer G: Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach. Biometrics. 2011, 67: 1066-1072. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01498.x.CrossRefPubMed Carpenter J, Rucker G, Schwarzer G: Assessing the sensitivity of meta-analysis to selection bias: a multiple imputation approach. Biometrics. 2011, 67: 1066-1072. 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2010.01498.x.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Metadata
Title
Efficacy of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s disease: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Authors
Andrea C Tricco
Sondra vanderVaart
Charlene Soobiah
Erin Lillie
Laure Perrier
Maggie H Chen
Brenda Hemmelgarn
Sumit R Majumdar
Sharon E Straus
Publication date
01-12-2012
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2012
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-31

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Systematic Reviews 1/2012 Go to the issue