SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Systematic Review of Pharmacological Interventions for Apathy in Aging Neurocognitive Disorders.

Brain Sci · 2023-07-12

DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13071061PMID: 37508993

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveApathy, a frequent neuropsychiatric symptom in aging neurocognitive disorders, has been associated with cognitive decline and functional disability. Therefore, timely provision of pharmacological interventions for apathy is greatly needed.DesignA systematical literature review of existing studies was conducted up to 30 May 2023 in several databases (PubMed, PsychInfo, Cochrane, Google Scholar, etc.) that included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses assessing pharmacological treatments for apathy in aging neurocognitive disorders. The quality of the studies was appraised.ResultsIn patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD), donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, methylphenidate, and gingko biloba were proven efficacious for apathy, while rivastigmine, cognitive enhancer IRL752 and piribedil were found to be beneficial in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD) and agomelatine in patients with Frontotemporal Dementia (FD). The extensive proportion of RCTs in which apathy was used as a secondary outcome measure, along with the considerable methodological heterogeneity, did not allow the evaluation of group effects.ConclusionsPharmacological interventions for apathy in aging neurocognitive disorders are complex and under-investigated. The continuation of systematic research efforts and the provision of individualized treatment for patients suffering from these disorders is vital.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.