Dataset Information

Effect of internet-based vs. in-person multimodal interventions on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, cross-over, open-label trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We aimed to investigate the effect of internet-based and in-person cognitive interventions on cognition, mood, and activities of daily living (ADL) on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and examine whether internet-based intervention is as effective as the in-person intervention.

Methods

We recruited 52 patients with probable mild AD, of whom 42 completed the trial. We randomly divided participants into intervention and control groups at a 1:1 ratio and statistically compared the neuropsychological test results of the two groups. In addition, patients in the intervention group were randomly assigned to a 4 weeks internet-based or in-person intervention, with subsequent crossover to the other group for 4 weeks. We statistically analyzed and compared the neuropsychological test scores between internet-based and in-person interventions.

Results

Compared with the control group, the intervention group (internet-based and in-person) showed significantly improved profile in cognition (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001) and ADL (p < 0.001). In addition, the effect of the internet-based intervention on cognition (p = 0.918) and depression (p = 0.282) was not significantly different from that of the in-person intervention. However, in the Beck anxiety inventory (p = 0.009) and Seoul instrumental activity of daily living (p = 0.023), in-person intervention was more effective than internet-based intervention.

Conclusion

This study suggests that both types of cognitive intervention (in-person and internet-based) may be viable supplementary treatments along with approved pharmacological therapy. In terms of anxiety and ADL, the effect of the in-person interventions may be more effective than the-internet based interventions.

SUBMITTER: Jung YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10361252 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of internet-based vs. in-person multimodal interventions on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, cross-over, open-label trial.

Jung Young Hee YH Park Sang-Cheol SC Lee Jee Hee JH Kim Myong Jong MJ Lee Seunghoon S Chung Su Jin SJ Moon Ji Yeon JY Choi Young Hi YH Ju Jieun J Han Hyun Jeong HJ Lee So Young SY

Frontiers in public health 20230707

<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to investigate the effect of internet-based and in-person cognitive interventions on cognition, mood, and activities of daily living (ADL) on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) and examine whether internet-based intervention is as effective as the in-person intervention.<h4>Methods</h4>We recruited 52 patients with probable mild AD, of whom 42 completed the trial. We randomly divided participants into intervention and control groups at a 1:1 ratio ...[more]

PMID: 37483927

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care compared with standard of care alone in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.Setting16 government designated covid-19 treatment centres in China, 11 to 29 February 2020.Participants150 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed covid-19 were included in the intention to treat analysis (75 patients assigned to hydroxychloroquine plus standard of care, 75 to standard of care alone).InterventionsHydroxychloroquine administrated at a loading dose of 1200 mg daily for three days followed by a maintenance dose of 800 mg daily (total treatment duration: two or three weeks for patients with mild to moderate or severe disease, respectively).Main outcome measureNegative conversion of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by 28 days, analysed according to the intention to treat principle. Adverse events were analysed in the safety population in which hydroxychloroquine recipients were participants who received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine non-recipients were those managed with standard of care alone.ResultsOf 150 patients, 148 had mild to moderate disease and two had severe disease. The mean duration from symptom onset to randomisation was 16.6 (SD 10.5; range 3-41) days. A total of 109 (73%) patients (56 standard of care; 53 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) had negative conversion well before 28 days, and the remaining 41 (27%) patients (19 standard of care; 22 standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine) were censored as they did not reach negative conversion of virus. The probability of negative conversion by 28 days in the standard of care plus hydroxychloroquine group was 85.4% (95% confidence interval 73.8% to 93.8%), similar to that in the standard of care group (81.3%, 71.2% to 89.6%). The difference between groups was 4.1% (95% confidence interval -10.3% to 18.5%). In the safety population, adverse events were recorded in 7/80 (9%) hydroxychloroquine non-recipients and in 21/70 (30%) hydroxychloroquine recipients. The most common adverse event in the hydroxychloroquine recipients was diarrhoea, reported in 7/70 (10%) patients. Two hydroxychloroquine recipients reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsAdministration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.Trial registrationChiCTR2000029868.

Project description:Indomethacin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), has been presented as a broad-spectrum antiviral agent. This randomised clinical trial in a hospital setting evaluated the efficacy and safety of this drug in RT-PCR-positive coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 210 RT-PCR-positive COVID-19 patients who provided consent were allotted to the control or case arm, based on block randomisation. The control arm received standard of care comprising paracetamol, ivermectin, and other adjuvant therapies. The patients in the case arm received indomethacin instead of paracetamol, with other medications retained. The primary endpoint was the development of hypoxia/desaturation with SpO2 ≤ 93, while time to become afebrile and time for cough and myalgia resolution were the secondary endpoints. The results of 210 patients were available, with 103 and 107 patients in the indomethacin and paracetamol arms, respectively. We monitored patient profiles along with everyday clinical parameters. In addition, blood chemistry at the time of admission and discharge was assessed. As no one in either of the arms required high-flow oxygen, desaturation with a SpO2 level of 93 and below was the vital goal. In the indomethacin group, none of the 103 patients developed desaturation. On the other hand, 20 of the 107 patients in the paracetamol arm developed desaturation. Patients who received indomethacin also experienced more rapid symptomatic relief than those in the paracetamol arm, with most symptoms disappearing in half the time. In addition, 56 out of 107 in the paracetamol arm had fever on the seventh day, while no patient in the indomethacin group had fever. Neither arm reported any adverse event. The fourteenth-day follow-up revealed that the paracetamol arm patients had faced several discomforts; indomethacin arm patients mostly complained only of tiredness. Indomethacin is a safe and effective drug for treating patients with mild and moderate covid-19.

Project description:BackgroundHypercholesterolemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disorders and requires specific intervention through an adequate lifestyle (diet and physical exercise) and, if necessary, an appropriate drug treatment. Lipid-lowering drugs, although generally efficacious, may sometimes cause adverse events. A growing attention has been devoted to the correction of dyslipidemias through the use of dietary supplements. The aim of this study was to assess the lipid-lowering activity and safety of a dietary supplement containing monacolin K, L-arginine, coenzyme Q10 and ascorbic acid, named Argicolina (A), compared to a commercially available product containing monacolin K and coenzyme Q10, Normolip 5 (N).MethodsThis was a single center, controlled, randomized, open-label, cross-over clinical study enrolling 20 Caucasian outpatients aged 18-75 years with serum LDL-C between 130 and 180 mg/dL. Patients assumed two different dietary supplements (A and N) both containing monacolin K 10 mg for 8 weeks each, separated by a 4-week wash-out period. Evaluated parameters were: Total cholesterol (Tot-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), fasting blood glucose, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, creatinekinase, gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase, brachial arterial pressure and heart rate, measured at the start and at the end of each treatment period. Safety was monitored through the study.ResultsLDL-C decreased by 23.3% during treatment with N (p < 0.0001) and by 25.6% during treatment with A (p < 0.0001); the LDL-C mean reduction was 36.4 (95% CI: 45,6-27,1) mg/dL during N treatment and 40.1 (95% CI: 49.2-30,9) mg/dL during A treatment. Tot-C decreased significantly (p < 0.0001) within each treatment period. HDL-C increase was negligible during A whereas it was significant during N. TG diminished markedly during A and not significantly during N. The difference between treatments was not statistically significant for all variables. No serious or severe adverse events occurred during the study.ConclusionsOur results confirm the clinically meaningful LDL-C lowering properties of monacolin K. At variance with a supplement already in the market (N), the novel association (A) of monacolin K with L-arginine, coenzime Q10 and ascorbic acid also produces a significant reduction of triglycerides without significant effects on HDL.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03425630 .

Project description:BackgroundA recent study shows that dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is superior to aspirin monotherapy for minor stroke, which is defined as a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS)score of ≤3. However, acute mild-moderate ischaemic stroke (4≤NIHSS≤10) still needs aggressive antiplatelet intervention to prevent deterioration and recurrence of stroke. The efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin monotherapy in the population are not clear. A multicentre clinical trial is designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel plus aspirin therapy versus aspirin monotherapy within 48 hours of symptom onset of mild-moderate ischaemic stroke.Methods/designThe study is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, prospective trial with a target enrolment of 2700 patients from 60 centres in Northeast China. A treatment allocation identification number to each enrolled patient will be provided by a random number generator. The follow-up time for the clopidogrel plus aspirin and aspirin monotherapy groups is 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint is a stroke progression event, which is defined as ≥4 point increase in the NIHSS score in 48 hours. The second efficacy endpoints include new ischaemic stroke within 90 days, change in the NIHSS score within 14 days, modified Rankin Scale score on day 90 and other vascular or death events within 90 days. The safety endpoints include mucocutaneous haemorrhage, organ haemorrhage and intracranial haemorrhage, adverse events and severe adverse events. χ2 test, t-test (or Mann-Whitney test), survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models will be conducted. The findings of the study may provide an important evidence for clinical practice for these patients.DiscussionThe trial will be conducted under a rational design and will provide valuable evidence on the appropriate treatment for this population.Ethics and disseminationThe study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the General Hospital of Shen-Yang Military Region (no K(2016) 6).Trial registration numberNCT02869009; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.MethodsThis prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed.Findings298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported.InterpretationIn patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

Dataset Information

Effect of internet-based vs. in-person multimodal interventions on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, cross-over, open-label trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effect of internet-based vs. in-person multimodal interventions on patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a randomized, cross-over, open-label trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets