ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of butylphthalide soft capsule with routine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD).MethodsDatabases including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, EMbase, and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched from September 2002 to July 2018 to collect randomized controlled trials of butylphthalide soft capsule with routine treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. The trial was screened based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methodological quality of the included trial was assessed. Meta-analysis was then performed by Revman 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 8 studies involving 576 patients were included. The butylphthalide soft capsule group included 283 patients and the control group included 293 patients. The result of meta-analysis showed that butylphthalide soft capsule with routine treatment (Donepezil hydrochloride or Memantine or EGb761) significantly improved the score of mini-mental state examination (MMSE) (MD=3.19, 95% CI 2.69 to 3.69, P<0.001) and clinical efficacy (RR=1.36, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.53, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in number of adverse events between the butylphthalide group and the control group (RR=1.13, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.67, P=0.52).ConclusionsBased on the routine treatment, combining with butylphthalide soft capsule can further facilitate cognitive function of AD and improve clinical efficacy. At the same time, no increase in adverse reactions has been found. However, due to the low quality of the included studies, more high quality randomized controlled trials are required to verify the results.
ObjectivesTo systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of butylphthalide soft capsule in the treatment of vascular dementia (VaD).MethodsDatabases including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials of butylphthalide soft capsule in the treatment of vascular dementia published from September 2002 to July 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 15 studies involving 1 149 patients were included. The butylphthalide soft capsule treatment group included 578 patients and the control group included 571 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control group (donepezil hydrochloride tablets or memantine hydrochloride tablets or EGb761 or negative control), the butylphthalide soft capsule treatment group improved the MMSE score of patients with VaD (MD=3.52, 95%CI 2.59 to 4.46, P<0.01), CDR score (MD=−0.72, 95%CI −0.80 to −0.65, P<0.01), and treatment efficiency (RR=1.31, 95%CI 1.20 to 1.43, P<0.01). However, there was no statistical difference in the number of adverse reactions between the treatment and control groups.ConclusionsButylphthalide soft capsule can be used in the treatment of patients with mild to moderate VaD. It can improve the cognitive function, raking of clinical dementia, and increase the effect rate of treatment. It can also work in conjunction with other drugs that improve cognitive function and no increase in adverse reactions has been found. However, due to the low quality of the included studies and small sample size, the actual efficacy strength is uncertain and the above conclusions are still required to be verified by more high-quality randomized controlled trials.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the diagnostic value of FDG-PET, Aβ-PET and tau-PET for Alzheimer ’s disease (AD).MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM databases were electronically searched to collect diagnostic tests of FDG-PET, Aβ-PET and tau-PET for AD from January 2000 to February 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, meta-analysis was performed by Meta-Disc 1.4 and Stata 14.0 software.ResultsA total of 31 studies involving 3 718 subjects were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, using normal population as control, the sensitivity/specificity of FDG-PET and Aβ-PET in diagnosing AD were 0.853/0.734 and 0.824/0.771, respectively. Only 2 studies were included for tau-PET and meta-analysis was not performed.ConclusionsFDG-PET and Aβ-PET can provide good diagnostic accuracy for AD, and their diagnostic efficacy is similar. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for sleep disturbance in dementia, and to provide evidence for clinical practice.MethodsDatabases including CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on non-pharmacological interventions for sleep disturbance in dementia from inception to May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 9 RCTs were included, involving 720 patients. Light therapy was the most commonly used treatment, followed by special activity and sleep education program. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with the control intervention, light therapy could improve sleep efficiency (MD=2.21, 95%CI 1.09 to 3.33, P=0.0001) and the night-time sleep (MD=14.27, 95%CI 5.01 to 23.53, P=0.003) of patients with dementia in the community and nursing institutions, special activity could increase the night-time sleep (MD=29.74, 95%CI 20.44 to 39.04, P<0.00001), and sleep education program could also improve sleep efficiency (MD=6.19, 95%CI 5.22 to 7.16, P<0.00001) and night-time sleep (MD=33.95, 95%CI 25.40 to 42.50, P<0.00001). In addition, it was superior to obtain 120 or 60 minutes of light exposure than 30 minutes to improve the quality of sleep (RR=−2.62, 95%CI −3.56 to −1.68, P<0.001) and reduce daytime sleep (RR=−4.75, 95%CI −5.71 to −3.42, P<0.001). However, there was significant difference in incidence of adverse reactions between groups of 120 minutes and 30 minutes of light exposure (RR=2.57, 95%CI 1.44 to 4.58, P=0.001).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that non-pharmacological intervention can improve sleep efficiency and night-time sleep in patients with dementia. Due to limited quantity and quality of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the data of peripheral inflammatory markers in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and vascular dementia (VaD) to further indicate pathogenesis and antidiastole.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect studies on peripheral inflammatory markers in patients with AD and VaD from inception to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies, and meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 15.1SE software.ResultsA total of 30 studies involving 2 377 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the IL-6 level was higher in VaD group than that in AD group (SMD=−0.477, 95%CI −0.944 to −0.009, P=0.046). However, there were no statistical difference in peripheral IL-1β (SMD=−0.034, 95%CI −0.325 to 0.257, P=0.818), TNF-α (SMD=0.409, 95%CI −0.152 to 0.970, P=0.153) or CRP (SMD=0.277, 95%CI −0.228 to 0.782, P=0.282) levels.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that IL-6 may be sensitive markers to distinguish AD from VaD. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the conclusions.