76-year-old Iranian Male with Alzheimers Disease

BACKGROUND

Mr. Akkad is a 76 year old Iranian male who is brought to your office by his eldest son for strange behavior. Mr. Akkad was seen by his family physician who ruled out any organic basis for Mr. Akkads behavior. All laboratory and diagnostic imaging tests (including CT-scan of the head) were normal.

According to his son, he has been demonstrating some strange thoughts and behaviors for the past two years, but things seem to be getting worse. Per the clients son, the family noticed that Mr. Akkads personality began to change a few years ago. He began to lose interest in religious activities with the family and became more critical of everyone. They also noticed that things he used to take seriously had become a source of amusement and ridicule.

Over the course of the past two years, the family has noticed that Mr. Akkad has been forgetting things. His son also reports that sometimes he has difficult finding the right words in a conversation and then will shift to an entirely different line of conversation.

SUBJECTIVE

During the clinical interview, Mr. Akkad is pleasant, cooperative and seems to enjoy speaking with you. You notice some confabulation during various aspects of memory testing, so the PMHNP performs a Mini-Mental State Exam. Mr. Akkad scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall. The score suggests moderate dementia.

MENTAL STATUS EXAM

Mr. Akkad is 76 year old Iranian male who is cooperative with todays clinical interview. His eye contact is poor. Speech is clear, coherent, but tangential at times. He makes no unusual motor movements and demonstrates no tic. Self-reported mood is euthymic. Affect however is restricted. He denies visual or auditory hallucinations. No delusional or paranoid thought processes noted. He is alert and oriented to person, partially oriented to place, but is disoriented to time and event [he reports that he thought he was coming to lunch but wound up here- referring to your office, at which point he begins to laugh]. Insight and judgment are impaired. Impulse control is also impaired as evidenced by Mr. Akkads standing up during the clinical interview and walking towards the door. When the PMHNP asked where he was going, he stated that he did not know. Mr. Akkad denies suicidal or homicidal ideation.

Diagnosis: Major neurocognitive disorder due to Alzheimers disease (presumptive)

Decision Point One #1

Select what the PMHNP should do:

Begin Exelon (rivastigmine) 1.5 mg orally BID with an increase to 3 mg orally BID in 2 weeks

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT ONE

Client returns to clinic in four weeks

The client is accompanied by his son who reports that his father is no better from this medication. He reports that his father is still disinterested in attending religious services/activities, and continues to exhibit disinhibited behaviors

You continue to note confabulation and decide to administer the MMSE again. Mr. Akkad again scores 18 out of 30 with primary deficits in orientation, registration, attention & calculation, and recall

Decision Point Two #2

Select what the PMHNP should do:

Increase Exelon to 4.5 mg orally BID

RESULTS OF DECISION POINT TWO

Client returns to clinic in four weeks

Clients son reports that the client is tolerating the medication well, but is still concerned that his father is no better

He states that his father is attending religious services with the family, which the son and the rest of the family is happy about. He reports that his father is still easily amused by things he once found serious

Decision Point Three #3

Select what the PMHNP should do next:

Increase Exelon to 6 mg orally BID

Guidance to Student

 At this point, the client is reporting no side effects and is participating in an important part of family life (religious services). This could speak to the fact that the medication may have improved some symptoms. The PMHNP needs to counsel the clients son on the trajectory of presumptive Alzheimers disease in that it is irreversible, and while cholinesterase inhibitors can stabilize symptoms, this process can take months. Also, these medications are incapable of reversing the degenerative process. Some improvements in problematic behaviors (such as disinhibition) may be seen, but not in all clients.

At this point, the PMHNP could maintain the current dose until the next visit in 4 weeks, or the PMHNP could increase it to 6 mg orally BID and see how the client is doing in 4 more weeks. Augmentation with Namenda is another possibility, but the PMHNP should maximize the dose of the cholinesterase inhibitor before adding augmenting agents. However, some experts argue that combination therapy should be used from the onset of treatment.

Finally, it is important to note that changes in the MMSE should be evaluated over the course of months, not weeks. The absence of change in the MMSE after 4 weeks of treatment should not be a source of concern.

The Assignment

Examine Case Study: An Elderly Iranian Man With Alzheimers Disease. 

You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this client. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the clients pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes.

At each decision point stop to complete the following:

o Decision #1

o  

Which decision did you select?

Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #1 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

o Decision #2

o  

Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #2 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

o Decision #3

o  

Why did you select this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources.

Explain any difference between what you expected to achieve with Decision #3 and the results of the decision. Why were they different?

Also include how ethical considerations might impact your treatment plan and communication with clients.

Note: Support your rationale with a minimum of three academic resources.