Search

Although prevention of dementia and late-life cognitive decline is a major public health priority, there are currently no generally established prevention strategies or operational models for implementing such strategies into practice. This article is a narrative review of available evidence from multidomain dementia prevention trials targeting several risk factors and disease mechanisms simultaneously, in individuals without dementia at baseline. Based on the findings, we formulate recommendations for implementing precision risk reduction strategies into new services called Brain Health Services. A literature search was conducted using medical databases (MEDLINE via PubMed and SCOPUS) to select relevant studies: non-pharmacological multidomain interventions (i.e., combining two or more intervention domains), target population including individuals without dementia, and primary outcomes including cognitive/functional performance changes and/or incident cognitive impairment or dementia. Further literature searches covered the following topics: sub-group analyses assessing potential modifiers for the intervention effect on cognition in the multidomain prevention trials, dementia risk scores used as surrogate outcomes in multidomain prevention trials, dementia risk scores in relation to brain pathology markers, and cardiovascular risk scores in relation to dementia. Multidomain intervention studies conducted so far appear to have mixed results and substantial variability in target populations, format and intensity of interventions, choice of control conditions, and outcome measures. Most trials were conducted in high-income countries. The differences in design between the larger, longer-term trials that met vs. did not meet their primary outcomes suggest that multidomain intervention effectiveness may be dependent on a precision prevention approach, i.e., successfully identifying the at-risk groups who are most likely to benefit. One such successful trial has already developed an operational model for implementing the intervention into practice. Evidence on the efficacy of risk reduction interventions is promising, but not yet conclusive. More long-term multidomain randomized controlled trials are needed to fill the current evidence gaps, especially concerning low- and middle-income countries and integration of dementia prevention with existing cerebrovascular prevention programs. A precision risk reduction approach may be most effective for dementia prevention. Such an approach could be implemented in Brain Health Services., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Growing evidence suggests dementia incidence can be reduced through prevention programs targeting risk factors. To accelerate the implementation of such prevention programs, a new generation of brain health services (BHS) is envisioned, involving risk profiling, risk communication, risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement. The purpose of risk communication is to enable individuals at risk to make informed decisions and take action to protect themselves and is thus a crucial step in tailored prevention strategies of the dementia incidence. However, communicating about dementia risk is complex and challenging.In this paper, we provide an overview of (i) perspectives on communicating dementia risk from an ethical, clinical, and societal viewpoint; (ii) insights gained from memory clinical practice; (iii) available evidence on the impact of disclosing APOE and Alzheimer's disease biomarker test results gathered from clinical trials and observational studies; (iv) the value of established registries in light of BHS; and (v) practical recommendations regarding effective strategies for communicating about dementia risk.In addition, we identify challenges, i.e., the current lack of evidence on what to tell on an individual level-the actual risk-and on how to optimally communicate about dementia risk, especially concerning worried yet cognitively unimpaired individuals. Ideally, dementia risk communication strategies should maximize the desired impact of risk information on individuals' understanding of their health/disease status and risk perception and minimize potential harms. More research is thus warranted on the impact of dementia risk communication, to (1) evaluate the merits of different approaches to risk communication on outcomes in the cognitive, affective and behavioral domains, (2) develop an evidence-based, harmonized dementia risk communication protocol, and (3) develop e-tools to support and promote adherence to this protocol in BHSs.Based on the research reviewed, we recommend that dementia risk communication should be precise; include the use of absolute risks, visual displays, and time frames; based on a process of shared decision-making; and address the inherent uncertainty that comes with any probability., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

We envisage the development of new Brain Health Services to achieve primary and secondary dementia prevention. These services will complement existing memory clinics by targeting cognitively unimpaired individuals, where the focus is on risk profiling and personalized risk reduction interventions rather than diagnosing and treating late-stage disease. In this article, we review key potentially modifiable risk factors and genetic risk factors and discuss assessment of risk factors as well as additional fluid and imaging biomarkers that may enhance risk profiling. We then outline multidomain measures and risk profiling and provide practical guidelines for Brain Health Services, with consideration of outstanding uncertainties and challenges. Users of Brain Health Services should undergo risk profiling tailored to their age, level of risk, and availability of local resources. Initial risk assessment should incorporate a multidomain risk profiling measure. For users aged 39-64, we recommend the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE) Dementia Risk Score, whereas for users aged 65 and older, we recommend the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI) and the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI). The initial assessment should also include potentially modifiable risk factors including sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health factors. If resources allow, apolipoprotein E ɛ4 status testing and structural magnetic resonance imaging should be conducted. If this initial assessment indicates a low dementia risk, then low intensity interventions can be implemented. If the user has a high dementia risk, additional investigations should be considered if local resources allow. Common variant polygenic risk of late-onset AD can be tested in middle-aged or older adults. Rare variants should only be investigated in users with a family history of early-onset dementia in a first degree relative. Advanced imaging with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or amyloid PET may be informative in high risk users to clarify the nature and burden of their underlying pathologies. Cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers are not recommended for this setting, and blood-based biomarkers need further validation before clinical use. As new technologies become available, advances in artificial intelligence are likely to improve our ability to combine diverse data to further enhance risk profiling. Ultimately, Brain Health Services have the potential to reduce the future burden of dementia through risk profiling, risk communication, personalized risk reduction, and cognitive enhancement interventions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objective: To apply the ATN scheme to memory clinic patients, to assess whether it discriminates patient populations with specific features., Methods: We included 305 memory clinic patients (33% subjective cognitive decline [SCD]: 60 ± 9 years, 61% M; 19% mild cognitive impairment [MCI]: 68 ± 9 years, 68% M; 48% dementia: 66 ± 10 years, 58% M) classified for positivity (±) of amyloid (A) ([ 18 F]Florbetaben PET), tau (T) (CSF p-tau), and neurodegeneration (N) (medial temporal lobe atrophy). We assessed ATN profiles' demographic, clinical, and cognitive features at baseline, and cognitive decline over time., Results: The proportion of A+T+N+ patients increased with syndrome severity (from 1% in SCD to 14% in MCI and 35% in dementia), while the opposite was true for A-T-N- (from 48% to 19% and 6%). Compared to A-T-N-, patients with the Alzheimer disease profiles (A+T+N- and A+T+N+) were older (both p < 0.05) and had a higher prevalence of APOE ε4 (both p < 0.05) and lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (both p < 0.05), memory (both p < 0.05), and visuospatial abilities (both p < 0.05) at baseline. Non-Alzheimer profiles A-T-N+ and A-T+N+ showed more severe white matter hyperintensities (both p < 0.05) and worse language performance (both p < 0.05) than A-T-N-. A linear mixed model showed faster decline on MMSE over time in A+T+N- and A+T+N+ ( p = 0.059 and p < 0.001 vs A-T-N-), attributable mainly to patients without dementia., Conclusions: The ATN scheme identified different biomarker profiles with overlapping baseline features and patterns of cognitive decline. The large number of profiles, which may have different implications in patients with vs without dementia, poses a challenge to the application of the ATN scheme., (© 2019 American Academy of Neurology.)