Effects of Citalopram on Neuropsychiatric Symptoms in Alzheimer’s Dementia: Evidence From the CitAD Study
Publication: American Journal of Psychiatry
Abstract
Objective:
Citalopram has been shown to improve agitation in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. The authors evaluated whether other neuropsychiatric symptoms improve with citalopram treatment compared with placebo.
Method:
In this planned secondary analysis of the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease study, the authors evaluated the effect of citalopram on the 12 neuropsychiatric symptom domains assessed by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). They compared caregiver-reported NPI scores at week 9 in patients receiving citalopram (30 mg/day) or placebo with regard to both the presence or absence of individual neuropsychiatric symptoms and individual domain scores (reflecting severity) in participants who had symptoms at week 9.
Results:
At week 9, participants treated with citalopram were significantly less likely to be reported as showing delusions (odds ratio=0.40), anxiety (odds ratio=0.43), and irritability/lability (odds ratio=0.38). A comparison of median scores of participants with symptoms present at week 9 showed significant differences favoring citalopram for hallucinations and favoring placebo for sleep/nighttime behavior disorders.
Conclusions:
While dosage constraints must be considered because of citalopram’s adverse effect profile, this agent’s overall therapeutic effects in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and agitation, in addition to efficacy for agitation/aggression, included reductions in the frequency of irritability, anxiety, and delusions; among patients who had these symptoms at week 9, they included a reduction in the severity of hallucinations but an increase in the severity of sleep/nighttime behavior disorders.
Alzheimer’s disease affects more than 5 million people in the United States (1), and its prevalence is increasing. Neuropsychiatric symptoms accompany cognitive decline in the vast majority of cases; estimates of the prevalences of these symptoms range from 61% to 75% in older adults with dementia and 31% to 51% in those with mild cognitive impairment (2, 3). The presence of neuropsychiatric symptoms is associated with more rapid disease progression, worse patient outcomes, excess morbidity and mortality, greater use of health care services, earlier nursing home placement, and increased caregiver burden (4, 5).
Nonpharmacological strategies are recommended as first-line treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms (6). These interventions appear less effective for more severe symptoms, and in clinical settings they are implemented much less frequently than pharmacological interventions (7). No pharmacotherapy has been approved for this indication by the Food and Drug Administration. Atypical antipsychotics, which have the best-established albeit limited efficacy, are the most frequently used agents in practice (8–10). This is problematic, as growing evidence suggests serious safety concerns, increased mortality, and uncertain efficacy when using antipsychotics in patients with dementia (11–14). A hypothesized cause of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease is disease-associated neurodegeneration that gradually disrupts, then destroys, the brain monoamine system, including ascending serotonergic pathways, leading to an imbalance in the serotonergic-dopaminergic axis (15).
Citalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) frequently used in older individuals (16), has been proposed as an alternative to antipsychotics in the treatment of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia (17, 18). Building on earlier preliminary data, the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease (CitAD) study investigated the efficacy and safety of citalopram in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and agitation (19). In the primary analysis of CitAD data (20), the estimated treatment difference at week 9 (citalopram minus placebo) based on the agitation subscale of the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale (21) was −0.93 points (95% CI=−1.80, −0.06, p=0.04). Forty percent of the citalopram group were rated as moderately or markedly improved on the modified Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (CGIC) (22), compared with 26% of the placebo group, with an estimated treatment effect (the odds ratio of being at or better than a given CGIC category) of 2.13 (95% CI=1.23, 3.69, p=0.01). The citalopram-treated group also showed significant improvement on the short-form Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (23), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (24), and caregiver distress ratings, but not on the NPI agitation subscale, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living scale (25), or in less use of lorazepam (20). Worsening of cognition (as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination) and QT interval prolongation were seen in the citalopram group (20). On the NPI’s agitation domain, the effect of citalopram was no better than that of placebo; thus, the significant improvements seen on the full NPI were most likely related to improvements in other neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Here we report the results of a prespecified secondary analysis examining the effect of citalopram on all individual domains assessed by the NPI. We hypothesized that individuals treated with citalopram, compared with those treated with placebo, would show improvements in neuropsychiatric symptoms beyond agitation, including affective (depression, apathy, anxiety, and irritability) and psychotic (delusions and hallucinations) symptoms.
Method
Study Population
The methods and primary results from CitAD have been described in detail elsewhere (19, 20). In brief, CitAD was an investigator-initiated, 9-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter clinical trial with two parallel treatment groups assigned in a 1:1 ratio and randomization stratified by treatment center.
To summarize, 186 study participants were diagnosed with probable Alzheimer’s disease as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke–Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association criteria (26) and had Mini-Mental State Examination (27) scores ranging from 5 to 28. Additional inclusion criteria included “clinically significant agitation” for which a physician determined that medication was appropriate and which was rated as occurring “very frequently” or “frequently” with “moderate” or “marked” severity, as assessed by the agitation/aggression item of the NPI. Exclusion criteria included a current major depressive episode or psychosis requiring antipsychotic treatment. A readily available caregiver was required, to provide information for outcome measures and to supervise medication use. Stable dosages of medications for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease were allowed, but prerandomization withdrawal of psychotropic medications other than predefined rescue medications was required.
Recruitment occurred at eight academic centers, seven in the United States and one in Canada. After receiving a complete description of the study, participants gave consent if they were found by clinicians experienced in clinical dementia research to have capacity, and they gave assent if they were not fully capable of providing consent, with consent obtained from a legally authorized representative. Informed consent was also obtained from caregivers for the collection of caregiver measures. The study was conducted under the oversight of a data safety monitoring board. Institutional review boards at all study sites approved and monitored the study.
Intervention
Patients were randomized to receive citalopram at a target dosage of 30 mg/day, with planned titration over 3 weeks from a starting dosage of 10 mg/day, or matching placebo. During the first 3 weeks after randomization, clinicians could adjust the medication dosage according to response and tolerability (78% received 30 mg/day and 15% received 20 mg/day). In addition to pharmacotherapy, participants and caregivers received a standardized practical psychosocial intervention that consisted of three components: provision of educational materials, 24-hour availability of crisis management services, and a 20- to 30-minute counseling session at each scheduled study visit. Patients and caregivers completed in-person visits at baseline and at 3, 6, and 9 weeks.
Outcome Assessment
Primary efficacy measures were the agitation subscale of the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale (21) and the modified CGIC (22). Secondary efficacy measures included the NPI total score, the NPI caregiver distress score, individual NPI domain ratings, the short form of the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (23), the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living scale (25), and use of rescue lorazepam.
The present analysis examines the effects of citalopram treatment on neuropsychiatric symptoms in addition to agitation, as rated on the NPI, which was developed to assess the frequency and severity of behavioral disturbances in dementia and of caregiver distress resulting from them, as reported by the patient’s caregiver. The NPI has well-established psychometric properties (23, 28) and wide acceptance in assessing neuropsychiatric symptoms in cognitive disorders (29). The 12 domains of the NPI are delusions, hallucinations, agitation/aggression, depression/dysphoria, anxiety, elation/euphoria, apathy/indifference, disinhibition, irritability/lability, aberrant motor behavior, sleep/nighttime behavior disorders, and appetite/eating disorders. The frequency of each symptom is rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1=rarely/less than once per week, 2=sometimes/about once per week, 3=frequently/several times a week but less than every day, 4=very frequently/daily or continuously). The severity of each symptom present is rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1=mild/not distressing, 2=moderate/distressing but can be redirected, 3=marked/very distressing and difficult to redirect). A composite score is calculated for each symptom by multiplying the frequency and severity scores, yielding a domain score of 0 to 12. Alternatively, a dichotomous presence/absence definition can be used, with presence defined as a domain score >0 (2, 30). In both approaches, higher scores reflect greater symptom burden. In CitAD, the 12-item NPI was administered to the caregiver at baseline and at 3, 6, and 9 weeks.
Statistical Analysis
The distributions of the individual NPI domain scores were skewed and had a large number of zero values (indicating absence of a domain symptom), except for the agitation domain, because a set minimum NPI agitation domain score was a study inclusion criterion. Hence, standard methods for comparing the means of the individual domain scores were not appropriate. The baseline proportion of patients reporting each symptom and the median score among those who had the symptom are listed in Table 1. To compare the follow-up NPI scores, we used a two-part model (31) to compare the proportion of patients who had each symptom at week 9 and the distribution of domain scores only among those who had each symptom at week 9.
| Total Sample (N=186) | Citalopram Group (N=94) | Placebo Group (N=92) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Participantsa | Participants Reporting Symptomsb | All Participantsa | Participants Reporting Symptomsb | All Participantsa | Participants Reporting Symptomsb | |||||||
| NPI Measure | N | % | Median | IQR | N | % | Median | IQR | N | % | Median | IQR |
| Individual domains | ||||||||||||
| Delusions | 78 | 42 | 4 | 3, 8 | 39 | 41 | 4 | 3, 8 | 39 | 42 | 4 | 2, 8 |
| Hallucinations | 39 | 21 | 3 | 1, 6 | 18 | 19 | 1.5 | 1, 4 | 21 | 23 | 3 | 2, 8 |
| Agitation/aggressionc | 186 | 100 | 8 | 6, 8 | 94 | 100 | 8 | 6, 8 | 92 | 100 | 8 | 6, 9 |
| Depression/dysphoria | 95 | 51 | 3 | 2, 6 | 50 | 53 | 3 | 2, 6 | 45 | 49 | 3 | 2, 4 |
| Anxiety | 121 | 65 | 4 | 3, 8 | 61 | 65 | 4 | 3, 6 | 60 | 65 | 6 | 3, 8 |
| Elation/euphoria | 13 | 7 | 2 | 2, 4 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 2, 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1.5, 2 |
| Apathy/indifference | 114 | 61 | 6 | 4, 8 | 58 | 62 | 6 | 4, 8 | 56 | 61 | 6 | 4, 8 |
| Disinhibition | 95 | 51 | 4 | 2, 6 | 49 | 52 | 4 | 2, 6 | 46 | 50 | 4 | 2, 6 |
| Irritability/lability | 157 | 84 | 6 | 6, 8 | 83 | 88 | 6 | 4, 8 | 74 | 80 | 6 | 6, 8 |
| Aberrant motor behavior | 96 | 52 | 8 | 4, 8 | 48 | 51 | 6 | 4, 8 | 48 | 52 | 8 | 4, 8 |
| Sleep/nighttime behavior disorders | 85 | 46 | 6 | 3, 8 | 40 | 43 | 6 | 3, 8 | 45 | 49 | 6 | 4, 8 |
| Appetite/eating disorders | 86 | 46 | 6 | 4, 8 | 49 | 52 | 6 | 4, 8 | 37 | 40 | 6 | 3, 8 |
| Summary scores | ||||||||||||
| Nonmood scorec | 186 | 100 | 19.5 | 13, 25 | 94 | 100 | 18.5 | 12, 24 | 92 | 100 | 20 | 14, 26 |
| Affective score | 182 | 98 | 14 | 8, 20 | 91 | 97 | 14 | 9, 20 | 91 | 99 | 14 | 8, 20 |
| Psychotic score | 97 | 52 | 4 | 3, 8 | 49 | 52 | 4 | 3, 8 | 47 | 51 | 4 | 2, 8 |
a
Number and percent refer to participants with a domain or summary score >0.
b
Median and interquartile range (IQR) refer to frequency by severity score among participants reporting the symptom. Higher scores indicate more frequent and/or more severe symptoms.
c
All participants reported agitation at enrollment, per study eligibility requirements.
First, we compared the citalopram and placebo groups on the proportion who had symptoms at week 9 in each NPI domain, reflecting presence or absence. Presence of a symptom was defined as a domain score >0. Odds ratios of the symptoms being reported at week 9 for the citalopram group compared with the placebo group were estimated using a saturated means model (including indicators for each follow-up visit and visit-by-treatment group interactions) with generalized estimating equations; a logistic link function and a first-order autoregressive covariance structure were included, and the model was controlled for baseline symptom score and Mini-Mental State Examination score (which was not balanced at baseline between the two treatment groups). All available follow-up data were included. The primary comparison was the odds ratio at the week 9 visit. Second, we compared the domain score distributions at week 9 only for symptomatic patients (i.e., domain score >0 at week 9), reflecting the severity of the symptoms that were present. Because the domain scores were not distributed normally among the symptomatic patients, we compared distributions using exact Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Sensitivity analyses were performed by imputing missing data for all study visits using the method of multiple imputation (32) (see Table S1 in the data supplement that accompanies the online edition of this article).
Results
The baseline characteristics were similar between the citalopram and placebo groups, except that the placebo group had a lower mean score on the Mini-Mental State Examination (20). In addition to agitation, several other neuropsychiatric symptoms were frequently reported at baseline (Table 1). There was no significant difference between the citalopram and placebo groups in baseline frequency or severity (in patients who had symptoms at baseline) for any neuropsychiatric symptom domain. Agitation/aggression was present in 100% of the sample, as agitation was a study inclusion criterion. The other most common neuropsychiatric symptoms at baseline were irritability/lability (84%), anxiety (65%), apathy/indifference (61%), aberrant motor behavior (52%), disinhibition (51%), and depression/dysphoria (51%). Among participants reporting a particular symptom at baseline, the domains with the highest median scores were agitation/aggression (median=8), aberrant motor behavior (median=8), irritability/lability (median=6), apathy/indifference (median=6), sleep/nighttime behavior disorders (median=6), and appetite/eating disorders (median=6). Median scores for depression/dysphoria were low (median=3), as a current major depressive episode was a study exclusion criterion. Similarly, median scores for delusions and hallucinations were low, as the study excluded patients with psychosis requiring antipsychotics. For participant flow through the study, see the Figure S1 in the online data supplement .
By week 9, several differences between the citalopram and placebo groups were evident (Table 2). Participants in the citalopram group were significantly less likely to have reports of delusions (odds ratio=0.40, 95% CI=0.18, 0.91, p=0.03), anxiety (odds ratio=0.43, 95% CI=0.22, 0.84, p=0.01), and irritability/lability (odds ratio=0.38, 95% CI=0.19, 0.76, p=0.01) compared with those in the placebo group. By week 9, 24% in the citalopram group and 36% in the placebo group had sleep/nighttime behavior disorders, compared with 43% and 49%, respectively, at baseline, a nonsignificant difference. Median domain scores among the patients with reports of a symptom at week 9 were lower in the citalopram group compared with the placebo group for hallucinations (median=1 [interquartile range (IQR)=1, 3] compared with median=6 [IQR=4, 6]); p≤0.01), but higher for sleep/nighttime behavior disorders (median=4 [IQR=3, 12] compared with median=3 [IQR=2, 6]); p=0.03).
| NPI Measure | All Participants With Week 9 NPI Data | Participants With Week 9 NPI Data Reporting Symptom at Week 9 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citalopram Group (N=86) | Placebo Group (N=83) | Odds Ratiob | 95% CI | p | Citalopram Group | Placebo Group | ||||||
| Na | % | Na | % | Median | IQR | Median | IQR | pc | ||||
| Individual domains | ||||||||||||
| Delusions | 22 | 26 | 35 | 42 | 0.40 | 0.18, 0.91 | 0.03 | 4 | 2, 8 | 4 | 3, 8 | 0.46 |
| Hallucinations | 11 | 13 | 13 | 16 | 1.53 | 0.50, 4.71 | 0.46 | 1 | 1, 3 | 6 | 4, 6 | <0.01 |
| Agitation/aggression | 66 | 77 | 70 | 84 | 0.63 | 0.28, 1.41 | 0.26 | 3 | 2, 8 | 6 | 3, 8 | 0.05 |
| Depression/dysphoria | 24 | 28 | 30 | 36 | 0.69 | 0.34, 1.39 | 0.30 | 3 | 1, 6 | 3 | 2, 6 | 0.35 |
| Anxiety | 36 | 42 | 54 | 65 | 0.43 | 0.22, 0.84 | 0.01 | 4 | 2.5, 8 | 4 | 3, 6 | 0.78 |
| Elation/euphoria | 3 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 0.45 | 0.09, 2.21 | 0.32 | 1 | 1, 8 | 3 | 2, 6 | 0.55 |
| Apathy/indifference | 41 | 48 | 42 | 51 | 0.92 | 0.47, 1.80 | 0.82 | 4 | 3, 8 | 6 | 4, 8 | 0.36 |
| Disinhibition | 27 | 31 | 34 | 41 | 0.71 | 0.35, 1.46 | 0.35 | 4 | 2, 8 | 4 | 2, 6 | 0.73 |
| Irritability/lability | 49 | 57 | 61 | 73 | 0.38 | 0.19, 0.76 | 0.01 | 4 | 2, 6 | 6 | 3, 8 | 0.13 |
| Aberrant motor behavior | 34 | 40 | 47 | 57 | 0.49 | 0.24, 0.99 | 0.05 | 4 | 3, 8 | 4 | 3, 8 | 0.96 |
| Sleep/nighttime behavior disorders | 21 | 24 | 30 | 36 | 0.56 | 0.27, 1.16 | 0.12 | 4 | 3, 12 | 3 | 2, 6 | 0.03 |
| Appetite/eating disorders | 22 | 26 | 18 | 22 | 1.32 | 0.62, 2.82 | 0.47 | 4 | 4, 8 | 4 | 3, 8 | 0.84 |
| Summary scores | ||||||||||||
| Nonmood score | 78 | 91 | 79 | 95 | 0.48d | 0.10, 2.00 | 0.41 | 8.5 | 5, 17 | 14 | 8, 24 | <0.01 |
| Affective score | 72 | 84 | 78 | 94 | 0.33 | 0.11, 1.03 | 0.06 | 7 | 4, 14.5 | 12 | 6, 20 | 0.04 |
| Psychotic score | 28 | 33 | 37 | 45 | 0.67 | 0.31, 1.44 | 0.30 | 4 | 2, 6 | 6 | 4, 9 | 0.02 |
a
Number and percent refer to participants reporting the symptom at week 9.
b
The odds ratio is calculated using generalized estimating equations including all follow-up visits with a logistic link and first-order autoregressive covariance structure. The estimate shown is for the odds of reporting the symptoms at week 9 for citalopram compared with placebo, controlling for baseline symptom score and Mini-Mental State Examination score. Numbers <1 favor citalopram.
c
The p values were calculated by exact Wilcoxon test (rank sum).
d
Exact logistic using week 9 data only.
The primary outcome measures of CitAD were the effect of citalopram on agitation as assessed by the Neurobehavioral Rating Scale and the modified CGIC. In this secondary analysis using the NPI, participants in the citalopram group were as likely as those in the placebo group to have reports of agitation/aggression at week 9 (odds ratio=0.63, 95% CI=0.28, 1.41, n.s.). Among participants with reports of agitation/aggression at week 9, the median domain scores were lower in the citalopram group, but the difference failed to reach statistical significance (median=3 [IQR=2, 8] compared with median=6 [IQR=3, 8]); p=0.05). The results were similar for the models using multiply imputed data.
To further explore these results, we looked at emergence of behavioral symptoms at week 9 when they were not present at baseline as well as the percentage of participants who responded and remitted by week 9 in the behavioral domains of delusions, anxiety, and irritability/lability in participants with symptoms at baseline. Emergence of delusions was relatively rare but was more frequent in the placebo group (4% in the citalopram group, compared with 10% in the placebo group). Emergence of anxiety was more common and again was seen more frequently in the placebo group (18% compared with 34%). Emergence of irritability was harder to ascertain, as over 80% of the study population had those symptoms at baseline. It appears that emergence of irritability was common (37% and 27% in the citalopram and placebo groups, respectively) (Table 3). For those participants who had symptoms at baseline, treatment response was defined as a reduction ≥50% in the total domain score on the NPI, and remission as a total domain score of 0 at week 9. Again, for delusions, anxiety, and irritability, greater proportions of the citalopram group responded and remitted. The percentage difference between the citalopram and placebo groups in the three behavioral domains ranged from 15% to 21% for response and from 23% to 26% for remission (Table 4).
| Symptom Present at Baseline | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Sample (N=186) | Citalopram Group (N=94) | Placebo Group (N=92) | ||||||||||
| No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | |||||||
| Symptom Present at Week 9 | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % |
| Delusions | 108 | 58 | 78 | 42 | 55 | 59 | 39 | 41 | 53 | 58 | 39 | 42 |
| Missing | 11 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 8 |
| No | 90 | 83 | 22 | 28 | 48 | 87 | 16 | 41 | 42 | 79 | 6 | 15 |
| Yes | 7 | 7 | 50 | 64 | 2 | 4 | 20 | 51 | 5 | 10 | 30 | 77 |
| Anxiety | 65 | 35 | 121 | 65 | 33 | 35 | 61 | 65 | 31 | 35 | 60 | 65 |
| Missing | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 12 | 5 | 8 |
| No | 41 | 63 | 38 | 31 | 24 | 73 | 26 | 43 | 17 | 54 | 12 | 20 |
| Yes | 17 | 26 | 73 | 60 | 6 | 18 | 30 | 49 | 11 | 34 | 43 | 72 |
| Irritability/lability | 29 | 16 | 157 | 84 | 11 | 12 | 83 | 88 | 18 | 20 | 74 | 80 |
| Missing | 3 | 11 | 14 | 9 | 2 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 8 | 11 |
| No | 17 | 58 | 42 | 27 | 5 | 45 | 32 | 39 | 12 | 67 | 10 | 14 |
| Yes | 9 | 31 | 101 | 64 | 4 | 37 | 45 | 54 | 5 | 27 | 56 | 75 |
| Symptom Present at Baseline | Total Sample (N=186) | Citalopram Group (N=94) | Placebo Group (N=92) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missing at Week 9 | Score Improved ≥50% at Week 9 | Resolved at Week 9 | Missing at Week 9 | Score Improved ≥50% at Week 9 | Resolved at Week 9 | Missing at Week 9 | Score Improved ≥50% at Week 9 | Resolved at Week 9 | ||||||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | |
| Delusions (N=78) | 6 | 8 | 36 | 46 | 22 | 28 | 3 | 8 | 21 | 54 | 16 | 41 | 3 | 8 | 15 | 38 | 6 | 15 |
| Anxiety (N=121) | 10 | 8 | 60 | 50 | 38 | 31 | 5 | 8 | 35 | 57 | 26 | 43 | 5 | 8 | 25 | 42 | 12 | 20 |
| Irritability/lability (N=157) | 14 | 9 | 85 | 54 | 42 | 27 | 6 | 7 | 53 | 64 | 32 | 39 | 8 | 11 | 32 | 43 | 10 | 14 |
The participants who showed benefit from citalopram on this broad range of concomitant neuropsychiatric symptoms have limited overlap with those participants who responded in terms of clinical measures of agitation. While the correlations are statistically significant, they are of a small magnitude (analysis not shown).
Discussion
We examined the effects of citalopram on neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and clinically significant agitation, with the hypothesis that participants treated with citalopram would show broad improvement over those treated with placebo in individual NPI domains beyond agitation. Indeed, the citalopram group was less likely to have reports of delusions, anxiety, or irritability/lability after 9 weeks of treatment compared with the placebo group. The domain scores (reflecting severity of symptoms) for those with reported symptoms at week 9 showed superiority of citalopram for hallucinations in patients who had hallucinations at week 9 but superiority of placebo for sleep/nighttime behavior disorders in the roughly 45% of patients who had these problems at week 9. The patients enrolled in the CitAD study could not have psychotic symptoms that required treatment with antipsychotics, and it should be noted that only 19% and 23% in the citalopram and placebo groups, respectively, had hallucinations at baseline, and 13% and 16% at week 9; baseline median scores were very low, at 1.5 and 3, and at week 9 they were 1 and 6. Thus, it is uncertain whether these findings apply to a patient population with Alzheimer’s disease and agitation in whom psychotic symptoms are more severe.
The present findings are consistent with those of previous studies showing improvement in anxiety and irritability with citalopram in patients with Alzheimer’s disease exhibiting neuropsychiatric symptoms (17, 33). The improvement observed in delusions is congruent with previous reports of associations between serotonin loss and psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease and with studies suggesting that citalopram may be efficacious in treating these symptoms. Furthermore, polymorphism of 5-HT2A, 5-HT2C, and the 5-HT transporter are linked to psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease (33–36). Pimavanserine, a selective 5-HT2A inverse agonist, was recently reported to benefit patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis (37).
While a reduction in the proportion of patients with an NPI domain score >0 for sleep/nighttime behavior disorders was seen overall in the citalopram group and the median domain score among those with symptoms decreased, it appears that some patients in the citalopram group had worsening of these symptoms, consistent with known SSRI-mediated adverse effects. Conversely, insomnia was reported more frequently as an adverse event in the placebo group (45.3%, compared with 31.1% in the citalopram group) (20).
We did an exploratory analysis on responder and remission status at week 9 in those participants who had symptoms at baseline in the domains of delusions, anxiety, and irritability/lability, and emergence of symptoms in the same domains in those participants who had no symptoms at baseline. Treatment with citalopram was associated with more frequent response (defined as a reduction ≥50% in symptom score) and remission in all three domains and reduced emergence of delusions and anxiety. For irritability/lability, emergence appeared common, but the vast majority of participants already had those symptoms at baseline, making the results harder to interpret. Overall, it appears that treatment with citalopram at 30 mg/day was clinically important in those domains, but this finding requires confirmation in future studies, as the dosage used in this study is higher than what should be used in clinical practice in this patient population. Current prescribing information recommends a maximum daily dose of 20 mg of citalopram for patients over age 60. This trial did not have enough patients treated with 20 mg/day to assess efficacy at that dosage level. The benefit of citalopram for individual behavioral domains or overall agitation at lower dosages is not known.
Data on tolerability in CitAD were reported in the primary analysis (20), which noted that there was no difference in adherence between the citalopram and placebo groups and that side effects were generally modest and consistent with those known to be associated with SSRIs (gastrointestinal complaints, respiratory tract infections, and falls). The adverse effects of cognitive worsening (of unknown clinical significance) and QT prolongation, however, raise concern about the 30 mg/day dosage used. The QT findings have been reported elsewhere (38), and the cognitive findings will be examined in further detail in subsequent analyses. While the present findings suggest that it is reasonable to expect a positive impact of citalopram on other neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and agitation, particularly anxiety, irritability/lability, and delusions, caution in the use of citalopram is advised.
One notable limitation of the trial is that it was powered to detect differences in the primary outcome measure but not in the several secondary and exploratory outcome measures, including the NPI total score and individual domain scores, leading to small numbers in some of the subanalyses. Furthermore, statistical correction for multiple comparisons was not implemented. Thus, the findings should be considered exploratory. Among other limitations were no dose range information; participants comprised a convenience sample in U.S. and Canadian academic medical centers that may not generalize to other settings; the duration of treatment was short; the effect of citalopram on neuropsychiatric symptoms in non-Alzheimer’s dementia remains unknown; and the effect of citalopram on neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease without agitation remains unknown.
Conclusions
Establishing treatments for neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease that are both safe and efficacious remains a challenge. Citalopram at a dosage of 30 mg/day shows efficacy for the treatment of agitation (19) and appears to be similarly effective for a broad range of concomitant neuropsychiatric symptoms, particularly delusions, anxiety, and irritability/lability. While citalopram is a therapeutic option for the treatment of agitation in Alzheimer’s disease even when psychotic symptoms are present, the concerning side effects of cognitive worsening and delayed cardiac repolarization seen in this study as well as safety concerns with depressed elderly patients (16), urge dosage constraints and caution. The benefit of citalopram for individual behavioral domains or overall agitation at lower dosages is not known and requires further study before widespread use in this patient population.
Footnotes
Dr. Devanand has received research support from Avanir and has served on scientific advisory boards for AbbVie, Astellas, and Lundbeck and as a consultant for Intracellular Therapies. Dr. Munro has received grant funding (to her institution) from NIA, NIH, and NIMH and has received payment for expert testimony from various law firms, from the Office of the Federal Public Defender, and from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as well as payment for lectures for Episcopal Ministries. Dr. Mintzer has received grant support from and served as a consultant for Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Transition Therapeutics, and Insys Therapeutics; he has received support for travel to meetings from NIA and NIMH; he has received grants (to his institution) from NIA, NIH, Takeda Global Research and Development Center, Pfizer, Genentech, Merck, Accera, Elan, Avanir, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis, Baxter, Eli Lilly, Wyeth, and Janssen Alzheimer Initiative; he has been employed by NeuroQuest and is founder of BioPharma Connex. Dr. Pollock has received a grant (to his institution) from NIA and NIMH; he has served on a board for Lundbeck Canada and as a consultant for Wyeth; and he has received travel and accommodation support from Lundbeck International Neuroscience Foundation. Dr. Rosenberg has received grant support from the Alzheimer’s Assocation, Eli Lilly, Functional Neuromodulation, Merck, NIA, and Novartis; he has served as a consultant to AbbVie, Abide, Insys, Janssen, and Merck; and he has received travel support from Eli Lilly. Dr. Schneider has received grant and clinical trial support from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, Merck, NIH, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche and consultancy fees, including for data monitoring committees and adjudication committees, from Abbott, AbbVie, ACImmune, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Elan, Eli Lilly, Forest Laboratories, Forum, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Lundbeck, Merck, Merz, Novartis, Orion, Otsuka, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda, Toyama/FujiFilm, and Zinfandel. Dr. Weintraub has received research funding or support from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, NIH, Novartis, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study, and the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society; honoraria from AbbVie, Acadia, Biotie, Clintrex, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and the CHDI Foundation; license fee payments from the University of Pennsylvania for the QUIP and QUIP-RS; royalties from Wolters Kluwer; and fees for legal consultation for a lawsuit related to antipsychotic prescribing in a patient with Parkinson’s disease. Dr. Lyketsos has received grant support (for research or CME) from NIMH, NIA, the Associated Jewish Federation of Baltimore, the Weinberg Foundation, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Ortho-McNeil, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, the National Football League, Elan, and Functional Neuromodulation; he has served as a consultant or adviser to AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, Novartis, Forest, Supernus, Adlyfe, Takeda, Wyeth, Lundbeck, Merz, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Genentech, Elan, the NFL Players Association, the NFL Benefits Office, Avanir, Zinfandel, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Janssen, Orion, Otsuka, and Astellas; and he has received honoraria or travel support from Pfizer, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, and Health Monitor. Dr. Porsteinsson has received grants (to his institution) from AstraZeneca, Avanir, Baxter, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Elan, EnVivo, Genentech/Roche, the Janssen Alzheimer Initiative, Medivation, Merck, Pfizer, Toyama, Transition Therapeutics, NIH, NIMH, NIA, and the Department of Defense; he has served as a consultant for Elan, the Janssen Alzheimer Initiative, Lundbeck, Pfizer, and TransTech Pharma; and he has been a member on data safety and monitoring boards for Quintiles, Functional Neuromodulation, and the New York State Psychiatric Institute, participated on a speakers bureau for Forest, and participated in the development of educational presentations for CME, Inc., and PVI. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00898807.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ajp.2016.15020248.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 372.46 KB
References
1.
Hebert LE, Weuve J, Scherr PA, et al: Alzheimer disease in the United States (2010–2050) estimated using the 2010 census. Neurology 2013; 80:1778–1783
2.
Lyketsos CG, Lopez O, Jones B, et al: Prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia and mild cognitive impairment: results from the cardiovascular health study. JAMA 2002; 288:1475–1483
3.
Steinberg M, Corcoran C, Tschanz JT, et al: Risk factors for neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia: the Cache County Study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006; 21:824–830
4.
Allegri RF, Sarasola D, Serrano CM, et al: Neuropsychiatric symptoms as a predictor of caregiver burden in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2006; 2:105–110
5.
Rabins PV, Schwartz S, Black BS, et al: Predictors of progression to severe Alzheimer’s disease in an incidence sample. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9:204–207
6.
American Geriatrics Society; American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry: Consensus statement on improving the quality of mental health care in US nursing homes: management of depression and behavioral symptoms associated with dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51:1287–1298
7.
Molinari V, Chiriboga D, Branch LG, et al: Provision of psychopharmacological services in nursing homes. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010; 65B:57–60
8.
Alexopoulos GS, Streim J, Carpenter D, et al: Using antipsychotic agents in older patients. J Clin Psychiatry 2004; 65(suppl 2):5–99
9.
Jeste DV, Blazer D, Casey D, et al: ACNP White Paper: update on use of antipsychotic drugs in elderly persons with dementia. Neuropsychopharmacology 2008; 33:957–970
10.
Cohen-Mansfield J, Jensen B: Assessment and treatment approaches for behavioral disturbances associated with dementia in the nursing home: self-reports of physicians’ practices. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2008; 9:406–413
11.
Schneider LS, Dagerman K, Insel PS: Efficacy and adverse effects of atypical antipsychotics for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006; 14:191–210
12.
Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P: Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005; 294:1934–1943
13.
Schneider LS, Tariot PN, Dagerman KS, et al: Effectiveness of atypical antipsychotic drugs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:1525–1538
14.
Ballard CG, Gauthier S, Cummings JL, et al: Management of agitation and aggression associated with Alzheimer disease. Nat Rev Neurol 2009; 5:245–255
15.
Geda YE, Schneider LS, Gitlin LN, et al: Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease: past progress and anticipation of the future. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9:602–608
16.
Coupland C, Dhiman P, Morriss R, et al: Antidepressant use and risk of adverse outcomes in older people: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011; 343:d4551
17.
Nyth AL, Gottfries CG: The clinical efficacy of citalopram in treatment of emotional disturbances in dementia disorders: a Nordic multicentre study. Br J Psychiatry 1990; 157:894–901
18.
Schneider LS, Sobin PB: Non-neuroleptic treatment of behavioral symptoms and agitation in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementia. Psychopharmacol Bull 1992; 28:71–79
19.
Drye LT, Ismail Z, Porsteinsson AP, et al: Citalopram for agitation in Alzheimer’s disease: design and methods. Alzheimers Dement 2012; 8:121–130
20.
Porsteinsson AP, Drye LT, Pollock BG, et al: Effect of citalopram on agitation in Alzheimer disease: the CitAD randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311:682–691
21.
Levin HS, High WM, Goethe KE, et al: The Neurobehavioural Rating Scale: assessment of the behavioural sequelae of head injury by the clinician. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1987; 50:182–193
22.
Schneider LS, Olin JT, Doody RS, et al: Validity and reliability of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11(suppl 2):S22–S32
23.
Cohen-Mansfield J: Conceptualization of agitation: results based on the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory and the Agitation Behavior Mapping Instrument. Int Psychogeriatr 1996; 8(suppl 3):309–315
24.
Cummings JL: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: assessing psychopathology in dementia patients. Neurology 1997; 48(suppl 6):S10–S16
25.
Galasko D, Bennett D, Sano M, et al: An inventory to assess activities of daily living for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. The Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1997; 11(suppl 2):S33–S39
26.
McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, et al: Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology 1984; 34:939–944
27.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12:189–198
28.
Cummings JL, Mega M, Gray K, et al: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory: comprehensive assessment of psychopathology in dementia. Neurology 1994; 44:2308–2314
29.
Lyketsos CG, Steinberg M: Behavioral measures for cognitive disorders, in Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp 393–416
30.
Peters ME, Rosenberg PB, Steinberg M, et al: Neuropsychiatric symptoms as risk factors for progression from CIND to dementia: the Cache County Study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2013; 21:1116–1124
31.
Delucchi KL, Bostrom A: Methods for analysis of skewed data distributions in psychiatric clinical studies: working with many zero values. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1159–1168
32.
Rubin DB: Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91:473–489
33.
Siddique H, Hynan LS, Weiner MF: Effect of a serotonin reuptake inhibitor on irritability, apathy, and psychotic symptoms in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Clin Psychiatry 2009; 70:915–918
34.
Sweet RA, Pollock BG, Sukonick DL, et al: The 5-HTTPR polymorphism confers liability to a combined phenotype of psychotic and aggressive behavior in Alzheimer disease. Int Psychogeriatr 2001; 13:401–409
35.
Pollock BG, Mulsant BH, Rosen J, et al: Comparison of citalopram, perphenazine, and placebo for the acute treatment of psychosis and behavioral disturbances in hospitalized, demented patients. Am J Psychiatry 2002; 159:460–465
36.
Pollock BG, Mulsant BH, Rosen J, et al: A double-blind comparison of citalopram and risperidone for the treatment of behavioral and psychotic symptoms associated with dementia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007; 15:942–952
37.
Cummings J, Isaacson S, Mills R, et al: Pimavanserin for patients with Parkinson’s disease psychosis: a randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 2014; 383:533–540
38.
Drye LT, Spragg D, Devanand DP, et al: Changes in QTc interval in the Citalopram for Agitation in Alzheimer’s Disease (CitAD) randomized trial. PLoS One 2014; 9:e98426
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 24 February 2015
Revision received: 10 January 2016
Accepted: 26 January 2016
Published online: 1 April 2016
Published in print: May 01, 2016
Authors
Funding Information
National Institute of Mental Health10.13039/100000025: R01AG031348
National Institute on Aging10.13039/100000049: R01AG031348
Supported by National Institute on Aging (NIA) and NIMH grant R01AG031348, and in part by NIH grant P50-AG05142 (to University of Southern California and Dr. Schneider).Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).