Search

Given considerable variation in diagnostic and therapeutic practice, there is a need for national guidance on the use of neuroimaging, fluid biomarkers, cognitive testing, follow-up and diagnostic terminology in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is a heterogenous clinical syndrome reflecting a change in cognitive function and deficits on neuropsychological testing but relatively intact activities of daily living. MCI is a risk state for further cognitive and functional decline with 5–15% of people developing dementia per year. However, ~50% remain stable at 5 years and in a minority, symptoms resolve over time. There is considerable debate about whether MCI is a useful clinical diagnosis, or whether the use of the term prevents proper inquiry (by history, examination and investigations) into underlying causes of cognitive symptoms, which can include prodromal neurodegenerative disease, other physical or psychiatric illness, or combinations thereof. Cognitive testing, neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers can improve the sensitivity and specificity of aetiological diagnosis, with growing evidence that these may also help guide prognosis. Diagnostic criteria allow for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease to be made where MCI is accompanied by appropriate biomarker changes, but in practice, such biomarkers are not available in routine clinical practice in the UK. This would change if disease-modifying therapies became available and required a definitive diagnosis but would present major challenges to the National Health Service and similar health systems. Significantly increased investment would be required in training, infrastructure and provision of fluid biomarkers and neuroimaging. Statistical techniques combining markers may provide greater sensitivity and specificity than any single disease marker but their practical usefulness will depend on large-scale studies to ensure ecological validity and that multiple measures, e.g. both cognitive tests and biomarkers, are widely available for clinical use. To perform such large studies, we must increase research participation amongst those with MCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is recognized as one of the greatest global public health challenges. There is increasing consensus that optimal disease modification using pharmaceuticals may best be achieved earlier in the disease continuum before symptoms occur. However, more needs to be understood about what outcomes are meaningful to potential participants in clinical trials within this preventative paradigm and how people make trade‐offs between risks and benefits. The Electronic Person‐Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) programme is developing an app to capture person‐specific outcomes and preferences in clinical trials. Objective: As one phase in the ePSOM programme, this study explored what matters when developing new treatments to prevent AD and how trade‐offs are made between risks and benefits, from three perspectives. Design: Focus groups were conducted with people living with memory problems (n = 21) and healthy volunteers (n = 10), and telephone interviews with health and social care professionals (n = 10). Differences and overlap between the three groups were explored. Results: Outcomes that matter lie in five key domains in relation to what matters in everyday life: Everyday Functioning; Relationships and Social Connections; Enjoying Life; Sense of Identity; and Alleviating  Symptoms. Insights were gained into the significance of reducing the risk of developing dementia with drugs and the processes of weighing up risks versus benefits. Discussion and conclusions: The key domains identified are being used to inform the next stage of the ePSOM programme which is to develop a survey to be distributed nationally in the UK to explore these issues further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common and distressing mental health problem that is responsible for significant individual disability and cost to society. Medication and psychological therapies are effective for treating depression and maintenance anti-depressants (m-ADM) can prevent relapse. However, individuals with depression often express a wish for psychological help that can help them recover from depression in the long-term. We need to develop psychological therapies that prevent depressive relapse/recurrence. A recently developed treatment, Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT, see http://www.mbct.co.uk) shows potential as a brief group programme for people with recurring depression. In two studies it has been shown to halve the rates of depression recurring compared to usual care. This trial asks the policy research question, is MBCT superior to m-ADM in terms of: a primary outcome of preventing depressive relapse/recurrence over 24 months; and, secondary outcomes of (a) depression free days, (b) residual depressive symptoms, (c) antidepressant (ADM) usage, (d) psychiatric and medical co-morbidity, (e) quality of life, and (f) cost effectiveness? An explanatory research question asks is an increase in mindfulness skills the key mechanism of change? Methods/Design: The design is a single blind, parallel RCT examining MBCT vs. m-ADM with an embedded process study. To answer the main policy research question the proposed trial compares MBCT plus ADM-tapering with m-ADM for patients with recurrent depression. Four hundred and twenty patients with recurrent major depressive disorder in full or partial remission will be recruited through primary care. Depressive relapse/recurrence over two years is the primary outcome variable. The explanatory question will be addressed in two mutually informative ways: quantitative measurement of potential mediating variables pre/post-treatment and a qualitative study of service users' views and experiences. Discussion: If the results of our exploratory trial are extended to this definitive trial, MBCT will be established as an alternative approach to maintenance anti-depressants for people with a history of recurrent depression. The process studies will provide evidence about the effective components which can be used to improve MBCT and inform theory as well as other therapeutic approaches. Trial registration number: ISRCTN26666654 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]