Although early identification and management services for dementia have become more widespread, their efficacy and the clinical characteristics of service have yet to be fully evaluated. Therefore, the objective of this study is to clarify these issues.

The subjects were 164 Japanese users of an early identification and management program for dementia, known as the Initial-phase Intensive Support Team (IPIST), between 2013 and 2015. Nonhierarchical cluster analysis was used to derive subgroups based on cognitive status and ability in activities of daily living (ADL) and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). One-way analysis of variance was performed to evaluate differences among the groups derived by the cluster analysis. A paired t test was used to assess how the clinical status of the groups changed between baseline and follow-up.

Four groups were identified by cluster analysis, i.e. a mild group, a moderate group, a BPSD group with moderate cognitive impairment and severe BPSD, and a severe group with severe cognitive impairment and severe BPSD. Although there were no significant improvements in cognitive impairment or ADL in any group, significant improvements were found in BPSD in the BPSD and severe BPSD groups. Caregiver burden was significantly lessened in all groups. Clinical diagnosis and long-term care insurance service utilization rates were significantly improved overall.

The users of IPIST were classified into four subgroups based on their clinical characteristics. The IPIST program could improve the quality of life of people with dementia and their caregivers.

The efficacy and tolerability of idalopirdine, a selective 5-hydroxytryptamine6 receptor antagonist, in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is uncertain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing idalopirdine for patients with AD was performed.

We included RCTs of idalopirdine for patients with AD and used Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) scores as a primary measure.

Four RCTs with 2,803 patients with AD were included. There was no significant difference in ADAS-cog between the idalopirdine and placebo groups [mean difference (MD) = −0.41, P = 0.32, I2 = 62%]. However, significant heterogeneity remained. Sensitivity analysis revealed that idalopirdine was more effective than placebo for ADAS-cog in the high dose and moderate AD subgroups (high dose subgroup: MD = −2.15, P = 0.005, moderate AD subgroup: MD = −2.15, P = 0.005). Moreover, meta-regression analysis showed that idalopirdine effect size for ADAS-cog was associated with mean dose (coefficient, −0.0289), ADAS-cog at baseline (coefficient, −0.9519), and proportion of male participants (coefficient, 0.2214). For safety outcomes, idalopirdine was associated with a higher incidence of at least one adverse event and increased γ-glutamyltransferase, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, and vomiting than placebo. There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between both treatments.

Idalopirdine is not effective for AD patients and is associated with a risk of elevated liver enzymes and vomiting. Although idalopirdine might be more effective at high doses and in moderate AD subgroups, the effect size is small and may be limited.