PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11581527

Diffuse Lewy Body Disease.

Abstract

Diffuse Lewy body disease (DLB) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized by dementia, fluctuations in mental status, hallucinations, and parkinsonism. Diffuse Lewy body disease is the second most common cause of dementia, following Alzheimer's disease. The treatment of DLB includes cholinergic therapy for cognitive impairment, atypical neuroleptics to alleviate hallucinations, and levodopa/carbidopa to improve parkinsonism. The recognition and diagnosis of DLB has critical treatment implications. Centrally acting cholinesterase inhibitors, such as rivastigmine, donepezil, and galantamine partially reverse decreased cortical cholinergic activity and may improve cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms in DLB. Rivastigmine has been demonstrated to improve cognition and neuropsychiatric symptoms in patients with DLB without worsening parkinsonian features. Due to the potential adverse events associated with neuroleptics in this population, treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors is currently considered first-line therapy in the treatment of hallucinations and mental status fluctuations in DLB. Exquisite sensitivity to neuroleptic medications is a hallmark of DLB and life-threatening complications have been reported. Caution should be exercised when implementing antipsychotic therapy for the treatment of behavioral disturbances of DLB. When required, atypical neuroleptics with the least extrapyramdial side effects, such as quetiapine, should be used. The parkinsonian features of DLB may respond to dopaminergic therapy with levodopa. If parkinsonian symptoms result in clinical disability, a trial of levodopa is warranted. Unfortunately, dopaminergic medications may worsen hallucinations. Because dopamine agonists have a greater tendency to induce hallucinations and somnolence, levodopa is the treatment of choice for parkinsonism in DLB. Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is now recognized as a feature of DLB. Awareness of the presence of this symptom in patients with DLB is important and treatment with low dose clonazepam may help. Cholinergic aumentation may also improve these symptoms in patients with DLB.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Theresa A. Zesiewicz, Matthew J. Baker, Peter B. Dunne, Robert A. Hauser. 2001. Diffuse Lewy Body Disease.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-001-0013-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗