Search

Background: Older people with subjective memory complaints (SMC) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living impairments (IADL-I) have an increased risk of developing dementia. Previous reports suggest that the predictive value of SMC and IADL-I may differ between sexes, leaving possible consequences for personalized risk prediction and prognosis. However, none of these studies addressed the competing risk of death, which may substantially differ between sexes.Objective: We investigated sex-differences in the association between IADL-I, SMC, and incident dementia and mortality as competing risk.Methods: 3,409 community-dwelling older people without dementia (mean age 74.3±2.5), were followed for 6.7 years (median). Baseline SMC were assessed using the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale memory question, and IADL-I using the Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score. Potential sex-differences in the predictive value of SMC and IADL-I were assessed using Cox regression models with an interaction term for sex.Results: HRs for isolated SMC and SMC + IADL-I and risk of dementia were higher in women (HR: 2.02, 95% CI = 0.91-4.46, p = 0.08; HR:2.85, 95% CI = 1.65-4.91, p < 0.001) than in men (HR:1.52, 95% CI = 0.86-2.69, p = 0.18; HR:1.24, 95% CI = 0.62-2.49, p = 0.54), but these sex-differences were not significant. Conversely, HRs for isolated IADL-I and risk of mortality were higher in men (HR:1.56, 95% CI = 1.18-2.05, p = 0.002) than in women (HR:1.14, 95% CI = 0.80-1.62, p = 0.48), but again, these sex-differences were not significant.Conclusion: The predictive value of SMC and IADL-I for the risk of dementia and mortality was not significantly modified by sex. However, the competing risk of death for these factors differed considerably between men and women, suggesting it is an essential factor to consider when comparing sex-differences in IADL/dementia risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Fear of dementia is pervasive in older people with cognitive concerns. Much research is devoted to finding prognostic markers for dementia risk. Studies suggest apathy in older people may be prodromal to dementia and could be a relevant, easily measurable predictor of increased dementia risk. However, evidence is fragmented and methods vary greatly between studies.Objective: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence for an association between apathy in dementia-free older individuals and incident dementia.Data Sources: Two reviewers conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO databases.Study Selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) prospective cohort studies, (2) in general populations or memory clinic patients without dementia, (3) with clear definitions of apathy and dementia, and (4) reporting on the association between apathy and incident dementia.Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second.Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were pooled crude risk ratios, maximally adjusted reported hazard ratios (HR), and odds ratios (OR) using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models.Results: The mean age of the study populations ranged from 69.2 to 81.9 years (median, 71.6 years) and the percentage of women ranged from 35% to 70% (median, 53%). After screening 2031 titles and abstracts, 16 studies comprising 7365 participants were included. Apathy status was available for 7299 participants. Studies included populations with subjective cognitive concerns (n = 2), mild cognitive impairment (n = 11), cognitive impairment no dementia (n = 1), or mixed cognitive and no cognitive impairment (n = 2). Apathy was present in 1470 of 7299 participants (20.1%). Follow-up ranged from 1.2 to 5.4 years. In studies using validated apathy definitions (n = 12), the combined risk ratio of dementia for patients with apathy was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.32-2.50; I2 = 76%; n = 12), the hazard ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.27-4.51; I2 = 90%; n = 7), and the odds ratio was 17.14 (95% CI, 1.91-154.0; I2 = 60%; n = 2). Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and individual study results suggested the association between apathy and dementia weakened with increasing follow-up time, age, and cognitive impairment. Meta-regression adjusting for apathy definition and follow-up time explained 95% of heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment.Conclusions and Relevance: Apathy was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of dementia in memory clinic patients. Moderate publication bias may have inflated some of these estimates. Apathy deserves more attention as a relevant, cheap, noninvasive, and easily measureable marker of increased risk of incident dementia with high clinical relevance, particularly because these vulnerable patients may forgo health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is one of the most widely used instruments to screen for cognitive deficits; however, this instrument alone is not sensitive enough to detect early symptoms of dementia. We aimed to investigate whether additionally using the Visual Association Test (VAT) improves the predictive value of the MMSE score for development of dementia.Methods: Analyses were based on data from 2,690 primary care patients aged 70 to 78 years who participated in the Prevention of Dementia by Intensive Vascular Care (preDIVA) trial. We assessed change in the 30-point MMSE score over 2 years and the VAT score at 2 years-dichotomized as perfect (6 points) or imperfect (≤5 points)-and evaluated the predictive values of these tests for a diagnosis of dementia in the subsequent 4 to 6 years. Data were analyzed with logistic regression analysis.Results: Patients having a decline of 2 points or more in total MMSE score over 2 years had an odds ratio of 3.55 (95% CI, 2.51-5.00) for developing dementia. Patients having the same decline in MMSE score plus an imperfect VAT score had an odds ratio of 9.55 (95% CI, 5.89-15.41) for developing dementia. A 1-point decline in MMSE score increased odds of dementia only when the VAT score was imperfect. Dementia risk for patients with a 2- or 3-point decrease in MMSE score and a perfect VAT score did not differ significantly from the average risk of the cohort as a whole.Conclusions: Administering the VAT in patients with a small decline on the MMSE over a 2-year period has substantial incremental value for identifying those at elevated risk for developing dementia. This simple test may help distinguish older adults who need further cognitive examination from those in whom a watchful waiting policy is justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular risk factors are associated with an increased risk of dementia. We assessed whether a multidomain intervention targeting these factors can prevent dementia in a population of community-dwelling older people. Methods: In this open-label, cluster-randomised controlled trial, we recruited individuals aged 70-78 years through participating general practices in the Netherlands. General practices within each health-care centre were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to either a 6-year nurse-led, multidomain cardiovascular intervention or control (usual care). The primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of dementia and disability score (Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score [ALDS]) at 6 years of follow-up. The main secondary outcomes were incident cardiovascular disease and mortality. Outcome assessors were masked to group assignment. Analyses included all participants with available outcome data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN29711771. Findings: Between June 7, 2006, and March 12, 2009, 116 general practices (3526 participants) within 26 health-care centres were recruited and randomly assigned: 63 (1890 participants) were assigned to the intervention group and 53 (1636 participants) to the control group. Primary outcome data were obtained for 3454 (98%) participants; median follow-up was 6·7 years (21 341 person-years). Dementia developed in 121 (7%) of 1853 participants in the intervention group and in 112 (7%) of 1601 participants in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·71-1·19; p=0·54). Mean ALDS scores measured during follow-up did not differ between groups (85·7 [SD 6·8] in the intervention group and 85·7 [7·1] in the control group; adjusted mean difference -0·02, 95% CI -0·38 to 0·42; p=0·93). 309 (16%) of 1885 participants died in the intervention group, compared with 269 (16%) of 1634 participants in the control group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·80-1·18; p=0·81). Incident cardiovascular disease did not differ between groups (273 [19%] of 1469 participants in the intervention group and 228 [17%] of 1307 participants in the control group; HR 1·06, 95% CI 0·86-1·31; p=0·57). Interpretation: A nurse-led, multidomain intervention did not result in a reduced incidence of all-cause dementia in an unselected population of older people. This absence of effect might have been caused by modest baseline cardiovascular risks and high standards of usual care. Future studies should assess the efficacy of such interventions in selected populations. Funding: Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport; Dutch Innovation Fund of Collaborative Health Insurances; and Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]