ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study began as a single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the efficacy and safety of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for severe treatment-refractory agitation in advanced dementia. The aims are to assess agitation reduction using the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), evaluate tolerability and safety outcomes, and explore the long-term stability of agitation reduction and global functioning. Due to challenges encountered during implementation, including recruitment obstacles and operational difficulties, the study design was modified to an open-label format and other protocol amendments were implemented. METHODS: Initially, the RCT randomized participants 1:1 to either ECT plus usual care or simulated ECT plus usual care (S-ECT) groups. As patients were enrolled, data were collected from both ECT and simulated ECT (S-ECT) patients. The study now continues in an open-label study design where all patients receive actual ECT, reducing the targeted sample size from 200 to 50 participants. RESULTS: Study is ongoing and open to enrollment. CONCLUSION: The transition of the ECT-AD study design from an RCT to open-label design exemplifies adaptive research methodologies in response to real-world challenges. Data from both the RCT and open-label phases of the study will provide a unique perspective on the role of ECT in managing severe treatment-refractory agitation in dementia, potentially influencing future clinical practices and research approaches.
Subject(s)
Dementia , Electroconvulsive Therapy , Psychomotor Agitation , Humans , Electroconvulsive Therapy/methods , Psychomotor Agitation/therapy , Dementia/therapy , Dementia/complications , Single-Blind Method , Female , Male , Treatment Outcome , Aged , Aberrant Motor Behavior in DementiaABSTRACT
Despite its unique efficacy, clozapine remains underutilized in the United States. Perceptions about clozapine and barriers to its use have been examined among prescribers, but insufficiently studied among consumers. We surveyed 211 antipsychotic consumers (86 on clozapine and 125 on other antipsychotics) on their medication-related perspectives in a public hospital system in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In contrast to their previous regimen, 72% of clozapine consumers reported they were more satisfied with clozapine. When compared with consumers taking other antipsychotics, clozapine consumers reported more side effects but did not differ on other measures of satisfaction or efficacy. We found Caucasians to be overrepresented among clozapine, as compared to other antipsychotic consumers. Side effects most strongly associated with poor safety ratings were sedation, limb jerking, and dizziness when standing. However, clozapine was only rated less safe by consumers who experienced more than one of these side effects. We used an unsupervised clustering approach to identify three major groups of clozapine consumers. Cluster A (19%) had the lowest safety ratings, aversion to blood work, and a high rate of side effects that associate with lower safety ratings. Cluster B (25%) experienced more hospitalizations and reported satisfaction with clozapine that correlated with efficacy ratings, irrespective of safety ratings. Cluster C (56%) experienced fewer hospitalizations, fewer previous drug trials, greater educational attainment, lower rates of smoking, and rated clozapine more highly. This work identifies common side effects that influence the subjective safety of clozapine and suggests that attitudes toward clozapine depend on context-specific factors.
