Potential Virus Involvement in Alzheimer's Disease: Results from a Phase IIa Trial Evaluating Apovir, an Antiviral Drug Combination.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating data suggest infectious agents are involved in Alzheimer's disease (AD). The two primary aims of this trial were to assess safety and efficacy of an antiviral drug combination on AD progression. OBJECTIVE: The trial evaluated whether Apovir, a combination of two antiviral agents, pleconaril (active on enteroviruses) and ribavirin (active on several viruses), could slow AD progression. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients 60-85 years were treated with Apovir or placebo for 9 months and followed until 12 months after end of treatment. Cognitive tests, safety, biomarkers, drug plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations were assessed. RESULTS: The tolerability of Apovir was compromised as demonstrated by the large drop-out rate and increased frequency and severity of adverse events. The primary endpoint, demonstrating a difference in change from baseline to 9 months between groups in ADAS-cog total score, was not met (p = 0.1809). However, there were observations indicating potential effects on both ADAS-cog and CDR-SB but these effects need to be verified. Also, there was a decrease in cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-ß in Apovir at 9 months (p = 0.0330) but no change in placebo. CONCLUSION: This was the first randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial exploring antiviral treatment on AD progression. The trial is considered inconclusive due to the large drop-out rate. New trials are needed to verify if the indications of effect observed can be confirmed and which component(s) in Apovir contributed to such effects. Pleconaril alone may be studied to improve the tolerability and to verify if enterovirus is involved in the disease process.

Pharmacological treatment of hypertension in people without prior cerebrovascular disease for the prevention of cognitive impairment and dementia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006 (McGuinness 2006), and previously updated in 2009 (McGuinness 2009). Hypertension is a risk factor for dementia. Observational studies suggest antihypertensive treatment is associated with lower incidences of cognitive impairment and dementia. There is already clear evidence to support the treatment of hypertension after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether pharmacological treatment of hypertension can prevent cognitive impairment or dementia in people who have no history of cerebrovascular disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources, most recently on 7 July 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which pharmacological interventions to treat hypertension were given for at least 12 months. We excluded trials of pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants. We also excluded trials conducted solely in people with stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information regarding incidence of dementia, cognitive decline, change in blood pressure, adverse effects and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, totaling 30,412 participants, in this review. Eight studies compared active treatment with placebo. Of the four non-placebo-controlled studies, two compared intensive versus standard blood pressure reduction. The two final included studies compared different classes of antihypertensive drug. Study durations varied from one to five years. The combined result of four placebo-controlled trials that reported incident dementia indicated no evidence of a difference in the risk of dementia between the antihypertensive treatment group and the placebo group (236/7767 versus 259/7660, odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.09; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations and indirectness). The combined results from five placebo-controlled trials that reported change in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) may indicate a modest benefit from antihypertensive treatment (mean difference (MD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations, indirectness and imprecision). The certainty of evidence for both cognitive outcomes was downgraded on the basis of study limitations and indirectness. Study durations were too short, overall, to expect a significant difference in dementia rates between groups. Dementia and cognitive decline were secondary outcomes for most studies. Additional sources of bias include: the use of antihypertensive medication by the placebo group in the placebo-controlled trials; failure to reach recruitment targets; and early termination of studies on safety grounds. Meta-analysis of the placebo-controlled trials reporting results found a mean change in systolic blood pressure of -9.25 mmHg (95% CI -9.73, -8.78) between treatment (n = 8973) and placebo (n = 8820) groups, and a mean change in diastolic blood pressure of -2.47 mmHg (95% CI -2.70, -2.24) between treatment (n = 7700) and placebo (n = 7509) groups (both low certainty evidence downgraded on the basis of study limitations and inconsistency). Three trials - SHEP 1991, LOMIR MCT IL 1996 and MRC 1996 - reported more withdrawals due to adverse events in active treatment groups than placebo groups. Participants on active treatment in Syst Eur 1998 were less likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects, and participants on active treatment in HYVET 2008 reported fewer 'serious adverse events' than in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference in withdrawals rates between groups in SCOPE 2003, and results were unclear for Perez Stable 2000 and Zhang 2018. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five of the placebo-controlled trials provided quality of life (QOL) data. Heterogeneity again precluded meta-analysis. SHEP 1991, Syst Eur 1998 and HYVET 2008 reported no evidence of a difference in QOL measures between active treatment and placebo groups over time. The SCOPE 2003 sub-study (Degl'Innocenti 2004) showed a smaller drop in QOL measures in the active treatment compared to the placebo group. LOMIR MCT IL 1996 reported an improvement in a QOL measure at twelve months in one active treatment group and deterioration in another. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High certainty randomised controlled trial evidence regarding the effect of hypertension treatment on dementia and cognitive decline does not yet exist. The studies included in this review provide low certainty evidence (downgraded primarily due to study limitations and indirectness) that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, leads to less cognitive decline compared to controls. This difference is below the level considered clinically significant. The studies included in this review also provide very low certainty evidence that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, prevents dementia.

Use of Flutemetamol F 18-Labeled Positron Emission Tomography and Other Biomarkers to Assess Risk of Clinical Progression in Patients With Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Importance: Patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) may progress to clinical Alzheimer disease (AD), remain stable, or revert to normal. Earlier progression to AD among patients who were ß-amyloid positive vs those who were ß-amyloid negative has been previously observed. Current research now accepts that a combination of biomarkers could provide greater refinement in the assessment of risk for clinical progression. Objective: To evaluate the ability of flutemetamol F 18 and other biomarkers to assess the risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this multicenter cohort study, from November 11, 2009, to January 16, 2014, patients with aMCI underwent positron emission tomography (PET) at baseline followed by local clinical assessments every 6 months for up to 3 years. Patients with aMCI (365 screened; 232 were eligible) were recruited from 28 clinical centers in Europe and the United States. Physicians remained strictly blinded to the results of PET, and the standard of truth was an independent clinical adjudication committee that confirmed or refuted local assessments. Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET scans were read centrally as either negative or positive by 5 blinded readers with no knowledge of clinical status. Statistical analysis was conducted from February 19, 2014, to January 26, 2018. Interventions: Flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET at baseline followed by up to 6 clinical visits every 6 months, as well as magnetic resonance imaging and multiple cognitive measures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time from PET to probable AD or last follow-up was plotted as a Kaplan-Meier survival curve; PET scan results, age, hippocampal volume, and aMCI stage were entered into Cox proportional hazards logistic regression analyses to identify variables associated with progression to probable AD. Results: Of 232 patients with aMCI (118 women and 114 men; mean [SD] age, 71.1 [8.6] years), 98 (42.2%) had positive results detected on PET scan. By 36 months, the rates of progression to probable AD were 36.2% overall (81 of 224 patients), 53.6% (52 of 97) for patients with positive results detected on PET scan, and 22.8% (29 of 127) for patients with negative results detected on PET scan. Hazard ratios for association with progression were 2.51 (95% CI, 1.57-3.99; P < .001) for a positive ß-amyloid scan alone (primary outcome measure), 5.60 (95% CI, 3.14-9.98; P < .001) with additional low hippocampal volume, and 8.45 (95% CI, 4.40-16.24; P < .001) when poorer cognitive status was added to the model. Conclusions and Relevance: A combination of positive results of flutemetamol F 18-labeled PET, low hippocampal volume, and cognitive status corresponded with a high probability of risk of progression from aMCI to probable AD within 36 months.

Trial of Solanezumab for Mild Dementia Due to Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is characterized by amyloid-beta (Aß) plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. The humanized monoclonal antibody solanezumab was designed to increase the clearance from the brain of soluble Aß, peptides that may lead to toxic effects in the synapses and precede the deposition of fibrillary amyloid. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial involving patients with mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 to 26 (on a scale from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognition) and with amyloid deposition shown by means of florbetapir positron-emission tomography or Aß1-42 measurements in cerebrospinal fluid. Patients were randomly assigned to receive solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg or placebo intravenously every 4 weeks for 76 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 80 in the score on the 14-item cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog14; scores range from 0 to 90, with higher scores indicating greater cognitive impairment). RESULTS: A total of 2129 patients were enrolled, of whom 1057 were assigned to receive solanezumab and 1072 to receive placebo. The mean change from baseline in the ADAS-cog14 score was 6.65 in the solanezumab group and 7.44 in the placebo group, with no significant between-group difference at week 80 (difference, -0.80; 95% confidence interval, -1.73 to 0.14; P=0.10). As a result of the failure to reach significance with regard to the primary outcome in the prespecified hierarchical analysis, the secondary outcomes were considered to be descriptive and are reported without significance testing. The change from baseline in the MMSE score was -3.17 in the solanezumab group and -3.66 in the placebo group. Adverse cerebral edema or effusion lesions that were observed on magnetic resonance imaging after randomization occurred in 1 patient in the solanezumab group and in 2 in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Solanezumab at a dose of 400 mg administered every 4 weeks in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease did not significantly affect cognitive decline. (Funded by Eli Lilly; EXPEDITION3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900665 .).

Statins for the prevention of dementia.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001 and then updated in 2009. Vascular risk factors including high cholesterol levels increase the risk of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and of vascular dementia. Some observational studies have suggested an association between statin use and lowered incidence of dementia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins for the prevention of dementia in people at risk of dementia due to their age and to determine whether the efficacy and safety of statins for this purpose depends on cholesterol level, apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype or cognitive level. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) Portal on 11 November 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trials in which statins were administered for at least 12 months to people at risk of dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials with 26,340 participants aged 40 to 82 years of whom 11,610 were aged 70 or older. All participants had a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The studies used different statins (simvastatin and pravastatin). Mean follow-up was 3.2 years in one study and five years in one study. The risk of bias was low. Only one study reported on the incidence of dementia (20,536 participants, 31 cases in each group; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 1.65, moderate quality evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). Both studies assessed cognitive function, but at different times using different scales, so we judged the results unsuitable for a meta-analysis. There were no differences between statin and placebo groups on five different cognitive tests (high quality evidence). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to non-fatal adverse events were less than 5% in both studies and there was no difference between statin and placebo groups in the risk of withdrawal due to adverse events (26,340 participants, 2 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence that statins given in late life to people at risk of vascular disease do not prevent cognitive decline or dementia. Biologically, it seems feasible that statins could prevent dementia due to their role in cholesterol reduction and initial evidence from observational studies was very promising. However, indication bias may have been a factor in these studies and the evidence from subsequent RCTs has been negative. There were limitations in the included studies involving the cognitive assessments used and the inclusion of participants at moderate to high vascular risk only.

Incidence of stroke and seizure in Alzheimer's disease dementia.

BACKGROUND: the objective of the study was to estimate and compare the incidence rates of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke and seizure among cohorts with and without Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. METHODS: we conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records (EMRs) from primary care practices that participated in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) in the United Kingdom from 1 January 1990 to 31 July 2009. For each AD-dementia patient, we selected one general population control patient without AD-dementia matched to one AD-dementia patient on year of birth, sex and physician practice. FINDINGS: the AD-dementia cohorts were 68% female and averaged 80 years of age at the start of follow-up. Populations for analysis included 19,902 AD-dementia and matched non-AD-dementia patients with no history of stroke at baseline in which 790 incident cases of stroke occurred, and similarly, 22,084 AD-dementia and matched patients with no history of seizure at baseline in which 286 cases of seizure occurred. After adjusting for risk factors for each outcome, hazard ratios comparing AD-dementia with non-AD-dementia patients indicated higher rates among AD-dementia patients for stroke (HR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.11, 1.50) and seizure (HR = 5.31, 95% CI 3.97, 7.10). For stroke and seizure, the incidence rate ratios comparing AD-dementia patients with non-AD-dementia controls were greatest for the younger age groups. AD-dementia was observed to be a risk factor for both haemorrhagic stroke and seizures. Increasing age was associated with a decrease in relative risk and an increase in absolute risk.

Mild cognitive impairment and deficits in instrumental activities of daily living: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is a growing body of evidence that subtle deficits in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) may be present in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, it is not clear if there are IADL domains that are consistently affected across patients with MCI. In this systematic review, therefore, we aimed to summarize research results regarding the performance of MCI patients in specific IADL (sub)domains compared with persons who are cognitively normal and/or patients with dementia. METHODS: The databases PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science were searched for relevant literature in December 2013. Publications from 1999 onward were considered for inclusion. Altogether, 497 articles were retrieved. Reference lists of selected articles were searched for potentially relevant articles. After screening the abstracts of these 497 articles, 37 articles were included in this review. RESULTS: In 35 studies, IADL deficits (such as problems with medication intake, telephone use, keeping appointments, finding things at home and using everyday technology) were documented in patients with MCI. Financial capacity in patients with MCI was affected in the majority of studies. Effect sizes for group differences between patients with MCI and healthy controls were predominantly moderate to large. Performance-based instruments showed slight advantages (in terms of effect sizes) in detecting group differences in IADL functioning between patients with MCI, patients with Alzheimer's disease and healthy controls. CONCLUSION: IADL requiring higher neuropsychological functioning seem to be most severely affected in patients with MCI. A reliable identification of such deficits is necessary, as patients with MCI with IADL deficits seem to have a higher risk of converting to dementia than patients with MCI without IADL deficits. The use of assessment tools specifically designed and validated for patients with MCI is therefore strongly recommended. Furthermore, the development of performance-based assessment instruments should be intensified, as they allow a valid and reliable assessment of subtle IADL deficits in MCI, even if a proxy is not available. Another important point to consider when designing new scales is the inclusion of technology-associated IADL. Novel instruments for clinical practice should be time-efficient and easy to administer.

The use of biomarkers for the etiologic diagnosis of MCI in Europe: an EADC survey.

We investigated the use of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers in European Alzheimer's Disease Consortium centers and assessed their perceived usefulness for the etiologic diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We surveyed availability, frequency of use, and confidence in diagnostic usefulness of markers of brain amyloidosis (amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] Aß42) and neurodegeneration (medial temporal atrophy [MTA] on MR, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography [FDG-PET], CSF tau). The most frequently used biomarker is visually rated MTA (75% of the 37 responders reported using it "always/frequently") followed by CSF markers (22%), FDG-PET (16%), and amyloid-PET (3%). Only 45% of responders perceive MTA as contributing to diagnostic confidence, where the contribution was rated as "moderate". Seventy-nine percent of responders felt "very/extremely" comfortable delivering a diagnosis of MCI due to AD when both amyloid and neuronal injury biomarkers were abnormal (P < .02 versus any individual biomarker). Responders largely agreed that a combination of amyloidosis and neuronal injury biomarkers was a strongly indicative AD signature.

Statins for the treatment of dementia.

BACKGROUND: The use of statin therapy in established Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) is a relatively unexplored area. In AD, ß-amyloid protein (Aß) is deposited in the form of extracellular plaques and previous studies have determined Aß generation is cholesterol dependent. Hypercholesterolaemia has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of VaD. Due to the role of statins in cholesterol reduction, it is biologically plausible they may be efficacious in the treatment of AD and VaD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of statins in the treatment of AD and VaD. To evaluate if the efficacy of statins in the treatment of AD and VaD depends on cholesterol level, ApoE genotype or cognitive level. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources (20 January 2014). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomised controlled trials of statins given for at least six months in people with a diagnosis of dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted and assessed data against the inclusion criteria. We pooled data where appropriate and entered them into a meta-analysis. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four studies (1154 participants, age range 50 to 90 years). All participants had a diagnosis of probable or possible AD according to standard criteria and most participants were established on a cholinesterase inhibitor. The primary outcome in all studies was change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) from baseline. When we pooled data, there was no significant benefit from statin (mean difference -0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.05 to 0.52, P value = 0.51). All studies provided change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) from baseline. There was no significant benefit from statins in MMSE when we pooled the data (mean difference -0.32, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.06, P value = 0.10). Three studies reported treatment-related adverse effects. When we pooled data, there was no significant difference between statins and placebo (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.06, P value = 0.78). There was no significant difference in behaviour, global function or activities of daily living in the statin and placebo groups. We assessed risk of bias as low for all studies. We found no studies assessing role of statins in treatment of VaD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Analyses from the studies available, including two large randomised controlled trials, indicate that statins have no benefit on the primary outcome measures of ADAS-Cog or MMSE.

Recommendations for the use of Serious Games in people with Alzheimer's Disease, related disorders and frailty.

Alzheimer's disease and other related disorders (ADRD) represent a major challenge for health care systems within the aging population. It is therefore important to develop better instruments to assess the disease severity and progression, as well as to improve its treatment, stimulation, and rehabilitation. This is the underlying idea for the development of Serious Games (SG). These are digital applications specially adapted for purposes other than entertaining; such as rehabilitation, training and education. Recently, there has been an increase of interest in the use of SG targeting patients with ADRD. However, this field is completely uncharted, and the clinical, ethical, economic and research impact of the employment of SG in these target populations has never been systematically addressed. The aim of this paper is to systematically analyze the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) of employing SG with patients with ADRD in order to provide practical recommendations for the development and use of SG in these populations. These analyses and recommendations were gathered, commented on and validated during a 2-round workshop in the context of the 2013 Clinical Trial of Alzheimer's Disease (CTAD) conference, and endorsed by stakeholders in the field. The results revealed that SG may offer very useful tools for professionals involved in the care of patients suffering from ADRD. However, more interdisciplinary work should be done in order to create SG specifically targeting these populations. Furthermore, in order to acquire more academic and professional credibility and acceptance, it will be necessary to invest more in research targeting efficacy and feasibility. Finally, the emerging ethical challenges should be considered a priority.

A review of butyrylcholinesterase as a therapeutic target in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE) in cholinergic signaling and neurologic conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease (AD). The rationale for inhibiting cholinesterases in the management of AD, including clinical evidence supporting use of the dual acetylcholinesterase (AChE) and BuChE inhibitor rivastigmine, is discussed. DATA SOURCES: PubMed searches were performed using butyrylcholinesterase as a keyword. English-language articles referenced in PubMed as of September 2011 were included. Study Selection and Data Synthesis: English-language articles related to BuChE considered to be of clinical relevance to physicians were included. English-language articles specifically related to AChE were not included, as the role of AChE in cholinergic signaling and the underlying pathology of AD is well documented. Reference lists of included publications were used to supplement the search. RESULTS: AChE and BuChE play a role in cholinergic signaling; BuChE can hydrolyze acetylcholine and compensate for AChE when levels are depleted. In the AD brain, AChE levels decrease, while BuChE levels are reportedly increased or unchanged, with changes becoming more pronounced during the disease course. Furthermore, BuChE genotype may influence AD risk and rate of disease progression. Strategies that increase acetylcholine levels (eg, cholinesterase inhibitors) demonstrate symptomatic efficacy in AD. Rivastigmine has proven cognitive efficacy in clinical trials, and data suggest that its action is mediated, in part, by inhibition of BuChE. Retrospective analyses of clinical trials provide evidence that BuChE genotype may also influence treatment response. CONCLUSIONS: AChE-selective inhibitors and a dual AChE and BuChE inhibitor demonstrate symptomatic efficacy in AD. Mounting preclinical and clinical evidence for a role of BuChE in maintaining normal cholinergic function and the pathology of AD provides a rationale for further studies investigating use of rivastigmine in AD and the influence of BuChE genotype on observed efficacy.

Single-domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment identified by cluster analysis predicts Alzheimer's disease in the european prospective DESCRIPA study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To identify prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) subjects using a data-driven approach to determine cognitive profiles in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). METHODS: A total of 881 MCI subjects were recruited from 20 memory clinics and followed for up to 5 years. Outcome measures included cognitive variables, conversion to AD, and biomarkers (e.g. CSF, and MRI markers). Two hierarchical cluster analyses (HCA) were performed to identify clusters of subjects with distinct cognitive profiles. The first HCA included all subjects with complete cognitive data, whereas the second one selected subjects with very mild MCI (MMSE ≥28). ANOVAs and ANCOVAs were computed to examine whether the clusters differed with regard to conversion to AD, and to AD-specific biomarkers. RESULTS: The HCAs identified 4-cluster solutions that best reflected the sample structure. One cluster (aMCIsingle) had a significantly higher conversion rate (19%), compared to subjective cognitive impairment (SCI, p < 0.0001), and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI, p = 0.012). This cluster was the only one showing a significantly different biomarker profile (Aß42, t-tau, APOE ε4, and medial temporal atrophy), compared to SCI or naMCI. CONCLUSION: In subjects with mild MCI, the single-domain amnestic MCI profile was associated with the highest risk of conversion, even if memory impairment did not necessarily cross specific cut-off points. A cognitive profile characterized by isolated memory deficits may be sufficient to warrant applying prevention strategies in MCI, whether or not memory performance lies below specific z-scores. This is supported by our preliminary biomarker analyses. However, further analyses with bigger samples are needed to corroborate these findings.

Cochrane review on 'Statins for the treatment of dementia'.

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of statins in the treatment of dementia. METHODS: We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources (27 October 2008). Double-blind, randomized controlled trials of statins given for at least 6 months in people with a diagnosis of dementia were included. Two independent authors extracted and assessed data independently against the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled where appropriate and entered into a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Three studies were identified (748 participants, age range 50-90 years). All patients had a diagnosis of probable or possible Alzheimer's disease according to standard criteria, and most patients were established on a cholinesterase inhibitor. Change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale from baseline was a primary outcome in three studies; when data were pooled, statins did not provide any beneficial effect in this cognitive measure (mean difference -1.12; 95% confidence interval -3.99, 1.75; p = 0.44). All studies provided a change in Mini-Mental State Examination from baseline; there was no significant benefit from statins in this cognitive measure when the data were pooled (mean difference -1.53; 95% confidence interval -3.28; 0.21, p = 0.08). There were no studies identified assessing the role of statins in treatment of vascular dementia. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the treatment of dementia.

Memantine for dementia in adults older than 40 years with Down's syndrome (MEADOWS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of Alzheimer's disease in people with Down's syndrome is very high, and many such individuals who are older than 40 years have pathological changes characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. Evidence to support treatment with Alzheimer's drugs is inadequate, although memantine is beneficial in transgenic mice. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of memantine on cognition and function in individuals with Down's syndrome. METHODS: In our prospective randomised double-blind trial, we enrolled adults (>40 years) with karyotypic or clinically diagnosed Down's syndrome, with and without dementia, at four learning disability centres in the UK and Norway. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) to receive memantine or placebo for 52 weeks by use of a computer-generated sequence and a minimisation algorithm to ensure balanced allocation for five prognostic factors (sex, dementia, age group, total Down's syndrome attention, memory, and executive function scales [DAMES] score, and centre). The primary outcome was change in cognition and function, measured with DAMES scores and the adaptive behaviour scale (ABS) parts I and II. We analysed differences in DAMES and ABS scores between groups with analyses of covariance or quantile regression in all patients who completed the 52 week assessment and had available follow-up data. This study is registered, number ISRCTN47562898. FINDINGS: We randomly allocated 88 patients to receive memantine (72 [82%] had DAMES data and 75 [85%] had ABS data at 52 weeks) and 85 to receive placebo (74 [87%] and 73 [86%]). Both groups declined in cognition and function but rates did not differ between groups for any outcomes. After adjustment for baseline score, there were non-significant differences between groups of -4·1 (95% CI -13·1 to 4·8) in DAMES scores, -8·5 (-20·1 to 3·1) in ABS I scores, and 2·0 (-7·2 to 11·3) in ABS II scores, all in favour of controls. 10 (11%) of 88 participants in the memantine group and six (7%) of 85 controls had serious adverse events (p=0·33). Five participants in the memantine group and four controls died from serious adverse events (p=0·77). INTERPRETATION: There is a striking absence of evidence about pharmacological treatment of cognitive impairment and dementia in people older than 40 years with Down's syndrome. Despite promising indications, memantine is not an effective treatment. Therapies that are effective for Alzheimer's disease are not necessarily effective in this group of patients. FUNDING: Lundbeck.

Do instrumental activities of daily living predict dementia at 1- and 2-year follow-up? Findings from the Development of Screening guidelines and diagnostic Criteria for Predementia Alzheimer's disease study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether problems in instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) can add to conventionally used clinical measurements in helping to predict a diagnosis of dementia at 1- and 2-year follow-up. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study. SETTING: Memory clinics in Europe. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 55 and older without dementia. MEASUREMENTS: IADLs were measured using pooled activities from five informant-based questionnaires. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to investigate the relation between IADLs and dementia. Age, sex, education, depression, and cognitive measures (Mini-Mental State Examination and verbal memory) were included in the model. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-one participants had baseline and 1-year follow-up assessments; 69 (13.0%) of these had developed dementia at 1-year follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, 481 participants were seen, of whom 100 (20.8%) had developed dementia. Participants with IADL disabilities at baseline had a higher conversion rate (24.4%) than participants without IADL disabilities (16.7%) (chi-square = 4.28, degrees of freedom = 1, P = .04). SEM showed that IADL disability could help predict dementia in addition to the measured variables at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio (OR) = 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.51-3.13) and 2-year follow-up (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.33-3.33). CONCLUSION: IADL disability is a useful addition to the diagnostic process in a memory clinic setting, indicating who is at higher risk of developing dementia at 1- and 2-year follow-up.

Hip fracture risk and subsequent mortality among Alzheimer's disease patients in the United Kingdom, 1988-2007.

BACKGROUND: hip fractures result in a significant burden to the patient, their caregivers and the health care system. Patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) have a higher incidence of hip fracture compared with other older people without AD, although it is not clear if AD is an independent risk factor for hip fracture. METHODS: a retrospective cohort study was conducted using anonymised electronic medical records from primary care practices in the United Kingdom. Proportional hazards regression modelling with adjustment for potential confounders was used to evaluate AD as an independent risk factor for predicting hip fractures. RESULTS: the incidence of hip fracture among patients with and without AD was 17.4 (95% CI, 15.7-19.2) and 6.6 (95% CI, 5.8-7.6) per 1,000 person years, respectively. Patients with AD had a hazard that was 3.2 (95% CI, 2.4-4.2) times that of non-AD patients after controlling for potential confounders. AD patients who experienced a hip fracture also had an increased mortality rate compared with non-AD patients who experienced a hip fracture (hazard ratio = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9). CONCLUSION: patients with AD and their caregivers should be advised on how to prevent hip fractures and more attention should be given to AD patients who are undergoing rehabilitation following a hip fracture.

Defining optimal treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease.

Despite growing recognition that Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents a global public health and social care crisis, diagnosis is frequently slow and many patients still receive no treatment at all. Of those who do receive treatment, many remain on lower than recommended doses. The Alzheimer's disease International Global Charter promotes awareness and understanding of AD, stressing the importance of optimal treatment. However, the definition of "optimal treatment" is unclear. Since cholinesterase inhibitors became available nearly 20 years ago, clinicians have developed a variety of protocols on the basis of clinical experiences. This review considers what is optimal for several aspects of cholinesterase inhibitor therapy, taking into account initiation strategies, dosages, modes of drug delivery (e.g., oral vs. transdermal), and treatment durations. Regardless of management approach, individuals with AD, their families, and caregivers have a right to a timely diagnosis and access to best available treatment.

Statins for the treatment of dementia.

BACKGROUND: The use of statin therapy in established Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) is a relatively unexplored area. In AD ss-amyloid protein (Ass) is deposited in the form of extracellular plaques and previous studies have determined Ass generation is cholesterol dependent. Hypercholesterolaemia has also been implicated in the pathogenesis of VaD. Due to the role of statins in cholesterol reduction it is biologically plausible they may be efficacious in the treatment of AD and dementia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of statins in the treatment of dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Specialized Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources (27 October 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double-blind, randomized controlled trials of statins given for at least six months in people with a diagnosis of dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted and assessed data independently against the inclusion criteria. Data were pooled where appropriate and entered into a meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies were identified (748 participants, age range 50-90 years). All patients had a diagnosis of probable or possible AD according to standard criteria and most patients were established on a cholinesterase inhibitor. Treatment in ADCLT 2005 consisted of 80mg atorvastatin compared to placebo for 52 weeks, serum low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was reduced by 54% in the atorvastatin group. Treatment in Simons 2002 consisted of 40mg simvastatin compared to placebo for 26 weeks, serum LDL cholesterol was reduced by 52% in the simvastatin group. Treatment in LEADe 2010 consisted of 80mg atorvastatin compared to placebo for 72 weeks, LDL cholesterol was reduced by 50.2% by month 3 and remained constant through month 18. Change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale- cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) from baseline was a primary outcome in 3 studies; when data were pooled there was considerable heterogeneity so the random effects model was used, statins did not provide any beneficial effect in this cognitive measure [mean difference -1.12, 95% CI -3.99, 1.75, p = 0.44]. All studies provided change in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) from baseline; again random effects model was used due to considerable heterogeneity: there was no significant benefit from statins in this cognitive measure when the data were pooled [mean difference -1.53, 95% CI -3.28, 0.21, p = 0.08]. There was some evidence that patients on statins in ADCLT 2005 maintained better cognitive function if serum cholesterol was high at baseline, MMSE was higher at baseline or if they had an apolipoprotein E4 allele present. This would need to be confirmed in larger studies however. Treatment related adverse effects were available from two studies, LEADe 2010 and Simons 2002; when data were pooled there was no significant difference between statins and placebo [odds ratio 2.45, 95% CI 0.69, 8.62, p = 0.16]. There was no significant difference in global function, behaviour or activities of daily living in the statin and placebo groups. One large randomised controlled trial (RCT) ( CLASP 2008) has not yet published its results. There were no studies identified assessing role of statins in treatment of VaD. There was no evidence that statins were detrimental to cognition. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to recommend statins for the treatment of dementia. Analysis from the studies available, including one large RCT, indicate statins have no benefit on the outcome measures ADAS-Cog or MMSE. We need to await full results from CLASP 2008 before we can be certain. This Cochrane review will be updated as these results become available.

Drug profile: transdermal rivastigmine patch in the treatment of Alzheimer disease.

Cholinesterase inhibitors constitute one of the mainstays of treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD). Gastrointestinal side effects, difficulty accessing therapeutic doses and poor patient compliance have been identified as barriers to effective treatment with these substances. The rivastigmine transdermal patch provides continuous delivery of drug through the skin into the bloodstream, avoiding the fluctuations in plasma concentration associated with oral administration. This pharmacokinetic profile is associated with reduced side effects, resulting in easier access to expected target doses. These benefits, along with other practical advantages of the transdermal patch, may contribute to enhanced patient compliance. Here, we present a review of the current literature on rivastigmine patch, and offer advice based on our own collective clinical experience. Rivastigmine patch provides an efficient option for managing patients with AD, to be considered among the first line therapies for the disease.