Skip to main content

Standardizing care for agitation in Alzheimer's disease, results from a randomized controlled trial of an integrated care pathway versus usual care - the StaN trial

Journal
Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association (Q1)
Published
1 July 2026
Study design
Randomized controlled trial
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
Authors
Sanjeev Kumar, Amer M Burhan, Sarah Colman, Li Chu, Simon Davies, Peter Derkach, et al.
PMID
42504849
DOI
10.1002/alz.71610

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adherence to treatment guidelines for agitation in dementia is suboptimal and inconsistent. We designed and evaluated an Integrated Care Pathway (ICP) for the management of agitation in dementia. METHODS: This was a double-blind randomized controlled trial at 12 inpatient units and long-term-care homes (LTCHs) across Canada. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the ICP or treatment-as-usual (TAU). Primary outcomes were Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) and psychotropic polypharmacy at 12 weeks. RESULTS: We randomized 185 participants (93 inpatients, 92 in LTCHs). For CMAI, there were no significant time-by-treatment-group interactions among inpatients (F4, 299.3 = 1.7, p = 0.14) or LTCH residents (F4, 296.0 = 0.87, p = 0.48). For polypharmacy, there were significant time-by-treatmentgroup interactions among both inpatients ( χ 7 2 = 15.3, p = 0.032) and LTCH residents ( χ 7 2 = 30.0, p < 0.001), with lower rates of polypharmacy in the ICP group at certain time points, but not at week 12. CONCLUSIONS: Standardizing care for agitation in dementia may result in lesser polypharmacy without affecting efficacy. Future studies should assess the ICP in the broader community and outpatients.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.