Petrides, Georgios

Objectives: The electroconvulsive therapy for the acute management of severe agitation in dementia (ECT-AD) trial is a multisite study evaluating the effectiveness of ECT for severe agitation in individuals with advanced dementia. Given that participants lack decisional capacity because of advanced cognitive impairment, the trial required a structured and ethically sound approach to obtaining informed consent and assent across jurisdictions with differing legal requirements, including Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, and Michigan. This paper describes the approach used in the study. Methods: We describe the consent framework developed for the ECT-AD trial, including procedures for identifying legally authorized representatives, complying with state-specific laws for ECT consent, obtaining surrogate consent for research participation, and assessing patient assent and dissent using a standardized tool. Conclusions: The approach used in this study may serve as a practical model for future research involving individuals without decision-making capacity and legally complex interventions such as ECT.

Abstract Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is an effective treatment for severe depression, especially in treatment-resistant cases. However, its potential cognitive side effects necessitate careful dosing to balance therapeutic benefits and cognitive stability. Recent advances in electric field (E-field) modeling offer promising avenues to optimize ECT dosing. This review synthesizes current knowledge on E-field modeling in ECT and explores its clinical applications. It examines the variability in E-field strengths and distributions induced by ECT and their impact on clinical outcomes. Additionally, the relationship between E-field strengths, neuroplasticity, and therapeutic efficacy is discussed. Translational studies of E-field-informed ECT are highlighted, emphasizing individualized optimal amplitude dosing and potential clinical applications. This review provides useful insights into how E-field modeling can improve the effectiveness of ECT while minimizing adverse effects, helping guide future research and clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundEffect and Safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy plus Usual Care for the Acute Management of Severe Agitation in Dementia (ECT‐AD) is a multi‐site NIA‐funded FDA‐regulated pioneering clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treating severe and treatment‐refractory agitation and aggression among individuals with advanced dementia, a condition that has a profound negative impact on patient quality of life and caregiver burden. Here we present baseline demographics of the patient population in this ongoing trial.MethodTo date we have enrolled 18 participants, with a mean age of 74.1 years, where majority are male (61.1%). The racial composition is predominantly White (94.4%), with Asian representation (5.6%, 1/18), and with 11.1% (2/18) identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Dementia subtypes in our cohort include Alzheimer’s disease (AD, 77.8%), vascular dementia (VaD, 16.7%, 3/18), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD, 5.6%, 1/18).ResultBaseline assessments reveal severe cognitive and functional impairment, as indicated by a mean Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 4.0, Barthel Index (BI) score of 52.2, and SIB‐8 score of 2.9, all consistent with advanced stages of dementia. High mean total scores on the Cohen‐Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI, 75.8), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) agitation (15.1) and aggression (9.2) scales, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS, 7.8), reflect the severe levels of agitation and aggression in our participants.ConclusionThese baseline demographic and clinical data underscore the profound impact of advanced dementia, highlighting the need for innovative treatment approaches like ECT. The ECT‐AD trial offers a critical step towards understanding and improving the management of agitation in dementia, with implications that could enhance current clinical care practices.

Objective To develop an individualized method for detecting cognitive adverse events (CAEs) in the context of an ongoing trial of electroconvulsive therapy for refractory agitation and aggression for advanced dementia (ECT-AD study). Methods Literature search aimed at identifying (a) cognitive measures appropriate for patients with advanced dementia, (b) functional scales to use as a proxy for cognitive status in patients with floor effects on baseline cognitive testing, and (c) statistical approaches for defining a CAE, to develop CAEs monitoring plan specifically for the ECT-AD study. Results Using the Severe Impairment Battery-8 (SIB-8), baseline floor effects are defined as a score of ≤5/16. For patients without floor effects, a decline of ≥6 points is considered a CAE. For patients with floor effects, a decline of ≥30 points from baseline on the Barthel Index is considered a CAE. These values were derived using the standard deviation index (SDI) approach to measuring reliable change. Conclusions The proposed plan accounts for practical and statistical challenges in detecting CAEs in patients with advanced dementia. While this protocol was developed in the context of the ECT-AD study, the general approach can potentially be applied to other interventional neuropsychiatric studies that carry the risk of CAEs in patients with advanced dementia.

AbstractBackgroundDelirium and dementia are common causes of cognitive impairment in older adults and frequently co‐exist. Delirium is associated with poor clinical outcomes when comorbid with dementia. Identifying delirium superimposed on dementia (DSD) is clinically challenging given the overlap in symptoms, including inattention, cognitive impairment, and altered level of consciousness, especially in advanced stages of dementia. Recognition of delirium is also critical in ADRD (Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias) clinical trials for both validity and safety reasons. The ECT‐AD study is one such trial investigating the safety and efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment‐refractory agitation and aggression in individuals with advanced ADRD. Herein we review the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) for identifying delirium in the ECT‐AD study.MethodInclusion criteria for ECT‐AD are hospitalized individuals diagnosed with ADRD (ages 55–89, MMSE ≤ 15) and refractory agitation/aggression, as measured by the Cohen‐Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI). Procedures for detecting baseline and treatment‐emergent delirium involve a 3‐step approach conducted by raters trained in the CAM, which assesses inattention, disorganized thinking, altered levels of consciousness, and fluctuating mental status. Step 1 involves gathering information from nurse informants regarding the patient’s mental status over the past 24 hours. Step 2 involves collecting observational data through informal patient interaction (e.g., brief conversation). Step 3 is an objective assessment of cognitive status using the Severe Impairment Battery – 8 Item (SIB‐8), while also making qualitative observations about delirium features (e.g., level of consciousness). The rater then codes the CAM and determines delirium status based on these 3 steps.ResultOf our 6 consented subjects, 1 experienced delirium detected by the CAM during the Randomization Phase. The subject received three positive CAMs on consecutive treatment days, citing change in mental status, inability to arouse, restlessness, psychomotor agitation, and swearing. ECT/S‐ECT was held each treatment day and the subject was withdrawn from the Randomization Phase.ConclusionIdentifying DSD is challenging due to overlapping symptoms and the fluctuating nature of delirium. The CAM may be useful in this regard by using a multi‐step approach that incorporates observations from reliable informants, direct patient interactions, and structured cognitive assessments.