Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15106227›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Valproic acid for agitation in dementia.

E T Lonergan, M Cameron, J Luxenberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Beyond epilepsy: The expanding role of valproic acid in Alzheimer disease therapy - a review.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Anticonvulsants in the treatment of aggression in the demented elderly: an update.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2009
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer disease and related disorders: why do treatments work in clinical practice but not in the randomized trials?The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2008
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E T LonerganDepartment of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, VA Medical Center, 4150 Clement St, San Francisco, California 94121, USA.
M Cameron
J Luxenberg
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAgitation affects up to 70% of older people with dementia. Valproic acid has been used for the past 10 years to control agitation in dementia, but no systematic review of the effectiveness of this drug has been published to date. The current study examines three randomized, placebo-controlled trials of the effect of valproic acid on older people with dementia who were agitated.

objectivesTo determine whether evidence supports the use of valproic acid in the treatment of agitation of people with dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified from a last updated search of the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group on 10 July 2003 using the terms ("agitat*" or "distur*" or "behavi*" or "aggress*") and "valproic" or "valproate" or "divalpro*." This Register contains articles from all major health care databases and many ongoing trials databases and is regularly updated. The reviewers contacted the authors of publications and drug companies manufacturing valproic acid for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, placebo-controlled trials with concealed allocation where agitation and dementia of participants were assessed DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 1. Two reviewers extracted data from published trials. 2. Odds ratios of average differences were calculated. 3. Only "intention to treat" analyses were included. 4. Analysis compared participants treated with valproic acid with controls. MAIN

resultsMeta-analysis of the pooled results of the included trials could not be performed because of the following problems. In Porsteinsson 2001, although the physicians having direct responsibility for patient care were blinded, a non-blinded physician, who had no direct contact with these physicians, adjusted divalproex sodium dosage on the basis of reports from blinded raters. Therefore, because the physician who controlled therapy knew which patients were receiving divalproex, the trial did not satisfy the criterion of concealed allocation. In Tariot 2001, 54% of the treated patients dropped out compared with 29% of control patients. Of all treated patients, 22% dropped out because of adverse effects, and the study had to be discontinued prematurely. The third trial (Sival 2002) had a cross-over design. No results from the first phase of the study were available, and although the statistical section stated, "the t-test for independent samples is used to analyze the two-period cross-over trial", because the samples were not independent - they are the same patients in the treatment and placebo groups - a question must be raised about the correctness of the analyses. The type of valproate used in the trials varied - one used short-acting sodium valproate, one long-acting divalproex sodium, and the third early-onset acting divalproex sodium. Average doses differed (480mg/d - 1000mg/d), as did duration of therapy (3 wks - 6 wks), and ways of evaluating patients and their response to therapy. A limited meta-analysis, pooling the results concerning adverse effects (Porsteinsson 2001, Tariot 2001) revealed the following: Sedation occurred more frequently in patients treated with valproic acid than in controls Urinary tract infection was more common among patients treated with valproic acid than controls Because of differences in identifying adverse effects it was not possible to pool other observations concerning adverse effects between the two studies that were examined. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThe trials reviewed should be regarded as preliminary. Individual reports suggest that low dose sodium valproate is ineffective in treating agitation among demented patients, and that high dose divalproex sodium is associated with an unacceptable rate of adverse effects. More research on the use of valproate preparations for agitation of people with dementia is needed. On the basis of current evidence, valproate preparations cannot be recommended for the treatment of agitation in dementia.

Indexed as

AgedAntimanic AgentsDementiaHumansPsychomotor AgitationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicValproic AcidAntimanic AgentsValproic Acid

Identifiers

PMID15106227
OpenAlexW1483518363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.