Mid-life social participation in people with intellectual disability: The 1958 British birth cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Low social participation is a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive deterioration in the general population and related to lower quality of life (QoL). We aimed to find out whether social participation is linked to cognitive deterioration and QoL for people with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability. METHOD: We used data from the National Child Development Study, consisting of people born during one week in 1958, to compare midlife social participation in people with mild intellectual disability, borderline intellectual functioning, and without intellectual impairment. We defined social participation as 1. confiding/emotional support from the closest person and social network contact frequency at age 44, and 2. confiding relationships with anyone at age 50. We then assessed the extent to which social participation mediated the association between childhood intellectual functioning and cognition and QoL at age 50. RESULTS: 14,094 participants completed cognitive tests at age 11. People with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability had more social contact with relatives and confiding/emotional support from their closest person, but fewer social contacts with friends and confiding relationships with anyone than those without intellectual disability. Having a confiding relationship partially mediated the association at age 50 between IQ and cognition (6.4%) and QoL (27.4%) for people with borderline intellectual functioning. CONCLUSION: We found adults with intellectual disability have positive family relationships but fewer other relationships. Even at the age of 50, confiding relationships may protect cognition for people with borderline intellectual functioning and are important for QoL.

Prevalence and Determinants of Diagnosed Dementia: A Registry Linkage Study Linking Diagnosis of Dementia in the Population-Based HUNT Study to Registry Diagnosis of Dementia in Primary Care and Hospitals in Norway.

Background: A timely diagnosis of dementia can be beneficial for providing good support, treatment, and care, but the diagnostic rate remains unknown and is probably low. Objective: To determine the dementia diagnostic rate and to describe factors associated with diagnosed dementia. Methods: This registry linkage study linked information on research-based study diagnoses of all-cause dementia and subtypes of dementias, Alzheimer's disease, and related dementias, in 1,525 participants from a cross-sectional population-based study (HUNT4 70+) to dementia registry diagnoses in both primary-care and hospital registries. Factors associated with dementia were analyzed with multiple logistic regression. Results: Among those with research-based dementia study diagnoses in HUNT4 70+, 35.6% had a dementia registry diagnosis in the health registries. The diagnostic rate in registry diagnoses was 19.8% among home-dwellers and 66.0% among nursing home residents. Of those with a study diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease, 35.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 32.6-39.0) had a registry diagnosis; for those with a study diagnosis of vascular dementia, the rate was 25.8% (95% CI 19.2-33.3) and for Lewy body dementias and frontotemporal dementia, the diagnosis rate was 63.0% (95% CI 48.7-75.7) and 60.0% (95% CI 43.3-75.1), respectively. Factors associated with having a registry diagnosis included dementia in the family, not being in the youngest or oldest age group, higher education, more severe cognitive decline, and greater need for help with activities of daily living. Conclusions: Undiagnosed dementia is common, as only one-third of those with dementia are diagnosed. Diagnoses appear to be made at a late stage of dementia.

Adult-onset hearing loss and incident cognitive impairment and dementia - A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: We comprehensively summarized the cohort evidence to date on adult-onset hearing loss as risk factor for incident cognitive impairment and dementia, and examined the evidence for dose-response, risk for various dementia subtypes, and other moderators. Previous meta-analyses were less comprehensive. METHODS: We included cohort studies with participants without dementia and with hearing assessments at baseline, minimum 2 years follow-up and incident cognitive outcomes. We used random-effect models and subgroup and meta-regression on moderator analyses. RESULTS: We identified fifty studies (N=1,548,754). Hearing loss (yes/no) was associated with incident dementia risk (HR=1.35 [95% CI = 1.26 - 1.45), mild cognitive impairment (MCI HR=1.29 [95% CI = 1.11 - 1.50]), cognitive decline not specified as MCI or dementia (HR=1.29 [95% CI = 1.17 - 1.42]), and Alzheimer's disease dementia (ADD, HR=1.56 [95% CI = 1.30 - 1.87]), but not with vascular dementia (HR, 1.30 [95% CI = 0.83 - 2.05]). Each 10-decibel worsening of hearing was associated with a 16% increase in dementia risk (95% CI = 1.07 - 1.27). The effect of hearing loss did not vary across potential moderators. CONCLUSIONS: Cohort studies consistently support that adult-onset hearing loss increases the risk of incident cognitive decline, dementia, MCI, and ADD.

The 2022 symposium on dementia and brain aging in low- and middle-income countries: Highlights on research, diagnosis, care, and impact.

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The projected increase in global dementia rates is expected to affect LMICs disproportionately. However, the majority of global dementia care costs occur in high-income countries (HICs), with dementia research predominantly focusing on HICs. This imbalance necessitates LMIC-focused research to ensure that characterization of dementia accurately reflects the involvement and specificities of diverse populations. Development of effective preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches for dementia in LMICs requires targeted, personalized, and harmonized efforts. Our article represents timely discussions at the 2022 Symposium on Dementia and Brain Aging in LMICs that identified the foremost opportunities to advance dementia research, differential diagnosis, use of neuropsychometric tools, awareness, and treatment options. We highlight key topics discussed at the meeting and provide future recommendations to foster a more equitable landscape for dementia prevention, diagnosis, care, policy, and management in LMICs. HIGHLIGHTS: Two-thirds of persons with dementia live in LMICs, yet research and costs are skewed toward HICs. LMICs expect dementia prevalence to more than double, accompanied by socioeconomic disparities. The 2022 Symposium on Dementia in LMICs addressed advances in research, diagnosis, prevention, and policy. The Nairobi Declaration urges global action to enhance dementia outcomes in LMICs.

Bi-directional association between outdoor or social activities and cognitive function: do the PM2.5 exposure catalyze the detrimental inactivity-poor cognition cycle?

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that lack of leisure activities, either outdoor or social activities, impedes cognitive function. However, the interrelationship between poor cognition and deficient activities is understudied. In addition, whether exposure to air pollution, such as PM2.5, can accelerate the detrimental 'inactivity-poor cognition' cycle, is worthy of investigation. METHODS: We used data from the 2008, 2011, 2014, and 2018 waves of the Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS). We assessed the frequency of outdoor or social activities at each wave. The cognitive function was examined using a China-Modified Mini-mental State Examination. We estimated the residential exposure to fine particular matter (PM2.5) via a satellite-based model. We applied cross-lagged panel (CLP) model to examine the bi-directional relationship between outdoor or social activities and cognitive function. We then examined the effect of PM2.5 exposure with sequent cognitive function and activities using generalized estimation equation (GEE) model. FINDINGS: Overall, we observed significant bi-directional associations between outdoor or social activities and cognitive function. Participants with better cognitive function in the last wave were more likely to engage in outdoor or social activities in the following wave (outdoor activities: ß = 0.37, 95% CI [0.27,0.48], P < 0.01; social activities: ß = 0.05, 95% CI [0.02,0.09] P < 0.01). Meanwhile, higher engagement in outdoor or social activities in the last wave was associated with more favorable cognitive function in the following wave (outdoor activities: ß = 0.06, 95% CI [0.03,0.09], P < 0.01; social activities: ß = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03,0.18], P < 0.01). Notably, an increase in PM2.5 exposure during the preceding year was significantly associated with a declining cognitive function (ß = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.08,-0.03], P < 0.01), outdoor activities (ß = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.04, -0.01], P < 0.01) and social activities (ß = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.02, -0.01], P < 0.01) in the current year; the lagged effects of the PM2.5 exposure in the past year of the last wave on activities and cognitive function of the following wave were also observed. INTERPRETATION: Our findings not only indicate the bi-directional links between the frequency of outdoor or social activities and cognitive function, but also report that PM2.5 exposure plays a role in catalyzing the detrimental inactivity-poor cognition cycle. Future research should investigate whether the policy-driven interventions, such as clean air policies, can break the unfavorable activity-cognition cycle, and thereby promoting health from the dual gains in leisure activities and cognition.

A longitudinal cohort study on the use of health and care services by older adults living at home with/without dementia before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: the HUNT study.

BACKGROUND: Older adults and people with dementia were anticipated to be particularly unable to use health and care services during the lockdown period following the COVID-19 pandemic. To better prepare for future pandemics, we aimed to investigate whether the use of health and care services changed during the pandemic and whether those at older ages and/or dementia experienced a higher degree of change than that observed by their counterparts. METHODS: Data from the Norwegian Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4 70 + , 2017-2019) were linked to two national health registries that have individual-level data on the use of primary and specialist health and care services. A multilevel mixed-effects linear regression model was used to calculate changes in the use of services from 18 months before the lockdown, (12 March 2020) to 18 months after the lockdown. RESULTS: The study sample included 10,607 participants, 54% were women and 11% had dementia. The mean age was 76 years (SD: 5.7, range: 68-102 years). A decrease in primary health and care service use, except for contact with general practitioners (GPs), was observed during the lockdown period for people with dementia (p < 0.001) and those aged ≥ 80 years without dementia (p = 0.006), compared to the 6-month period before the lockdown. The use of specialist health services decreased during the lockdown period for all groups (p ≤ 0.011), except for those aged < 80 years with dementia. Service use reached levels comparable to pre-pandemic data within one year after the lockdown. CONCLUSION: Older adults experienced an immediate reduction in the use of health and care services, other than GP contacts, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within primary care services, people with dementia demonstrated a more pronounced reduction than that observed in people without dementia; otherwise, the variations related to age and dementia status were small. Both groups returned to services levels similar to those during the pre-pandemic period within one year after the lockdown. The increase in GP contacts may indicate a need to reallocate resources to primary health services during future pandemics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identification number NCT04792086.

Validation of the Japanese version of the Social Functioning in Dementia scale and COVID-19 pandemic's impact on social function in mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to psychometrically evaluate and validate a Japanese version of the Social Functioning in Dementia scale (SF-DEM-J) and investigate changes in social function in people with dementia during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. DESIGN: We interviewed people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia and their caregivers during June 2020-March 2021 to validate patient- and caregiver-rated SF-DEM-J and compared their scores at baseline (April 2020 to May 2020) and at 6-8 months (January 2021 to March 2021) during a time of tighter COVID-19 restrictions. SETTING: The neuropsychology clinic in the Department of Psychiatry at Osaka University Hospital and outpatient clinic in the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology at Daini Osaka Police Hospital, Japan. PARTICIPANTS: 103 dyads of patients and caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: SF-DEM-J, Mini-Mental State Examination, Neuropsychiatric Inventory, UCLA Loneliness Scale, and Apathy Evaluation Scale. RESULTS: The scale's interrater reliability was excellent and test-retest reliability was substantial. Content validity was confirmed for the caregiver-rated SF-DEM-J, and convergent validity was moderate. Caregiver-rated SF-DEM-J was associated with apathy, irritability, loneliness, and cognitive impairment. The total score of caregiver-rated SF-DEM-J and the score of Section 2, "communication with others," significantly improved at 6-8 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-DEM-J is acceptable as a measure of social function in MCI and mild dementia. Our results show that the social functioning of people with dementia, especially communicating with others, improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, probably as a result of adaptation to the restrictive life.

Adapted problem adaptation therapy for depression in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Trials of effectiveness of treatment options for depression in dementia are an important priority. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial to assess adapted Problem Adaptation Therapy (PATH) for depression in mild/moderate dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six participants with mild or moderate dementia, >7 on Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), randomized to adapted PATH or treatment as usual. Mean age 77.0 years, 39.0% males, mean Mini-Mental State Examination 21.6, mean CSDD 12.9. For primary outcome (CSDD at 6 months), no statistically significant benefit with adapted PATH on the CSDD (6 months: -0.58; 95% CI -1.71 to 0.54). The CSDD at 3 months showed a small benefit with adapted PATH (-1.38; 95% CI -2.54 to -0.21) as did the EQ-5D (-4.97; 95% CI -9.46 to -0.48). DISCUSSION: An eight-session course of adapted PATH plus two booster sessions administered within NHS dementia services was not effective treatment for depression in people with mild and moderate dementia. Future studies should examine the effect of more intensive and longer-term therapy.

Sleep disturbance in people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review of general practice.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent condition among people living with dementia (PLwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Its assessment and management within primary care is complex because of the comorbidities, older age, and cognitive impairment typical of this patient group. AIM: To explore how primary care clinicians assess, understand, and manage sleep disturbance for PLwD or MCI; if and why such initiatives work; and how people and their carers experience sleep disturbance and its treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A realist review of existing literature conducted in 2022. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) were developed and refined. RESULTS: In total, 60 records were included from 1869 retrieved hits and 19 CMOCs were developed. Low awareness of and confidence in the treatment of sleep disturbance among primary care clinicians and patients, combined with time and resource constraints, meant that identifying sleep disturbance was difficult and not prioritised. Medication was perceived by clinicians and patients as the primary management tool, resulting in inappropriate or long-term prescription. Rigid nursing routines in care homes were reportedly not conducive to good-quality sleep. CONCLUSION: In primary care, sleep disturbance among PLwD or MCI is not adequately addressed. Over-reliance on medication, underutilisation of non-pharmacological strategies, and inflexible care home routines were reported as a result of low confidence in sleep management and resource constraints. This does not constitute effective and person-centred care. Future work should consider ways to tailor the assessment and management of sleep disturbance to the needs of individuals and their informal carers without overstretching services.

A psychosocial goal-setting and manualised support intervention for independence in dementia (NIDUS-Family) versus goal setting and routine care: a single-masked, phase 3, superiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although national guidelines recommend that everyone with dementia receives personalised post-diagnostic support, few do. Unlike previous interventions that improved personalised outcomes in people with dementia, the NIDUS-Family intervention is fully manualised and deliverable by trained and supervised, non-clinical facilitators. We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family in supporting the attainment of personalised goals set by people with dementia and their carers. METHODS: We did a two-arm, single-masked, multi-site, randomised, clinical trial recruiting patient-carer dyads from community settings. We randomly assigned dyads to either home-based goal setting plus NIDUS-Family or goal setting and routine care (control). Randomisation was blocked and stratified by site (2:1; intervention to control), with allocations assigned via a remote web-based system. NIDUS-Family is tailored to goals set by dyads by selecting modules involving behavioural interventions, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills, enablement, and environmental adaptations. The intervention involved six to eight video-call or telephone sessions (or in person when COVID-19-related restrictions allowed) over 6 months, then telephone follow-ups every 2-3 months for 6 months. The primary outcome was carer-rated goal attainment scaling (GAS) score at 12 months. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN11425138. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2020, and May 9, 2021, we assessed 1083 potential dyads for eligibility, 781 (72·1%) of whom were excluded. Of 302 eligible dyads, we randomly assigned 98 (32·4%) to the control group and 204 (67·5%) to the intervention group. The mean age of participants with dementia was 79·9 years (SD 8·2), 169 (56%) were women, and 133 (44%) were men. 247 (82%) dyads completed the primary outcome, which favoured the intervention (mean GAS score at 12 months 58·7 [SD 13·0; n=163] vs 49·0 [14·1; n=84]; adjusted difference in means 10·23 [95% CI 5·75-14·71]; p<0·001). 31 (15·2%) participants in the intervention group and 14 (14·3%) in the control group experienced serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, NIDUS-Family is the first readily scalable intervention for people with dementia and their family carers that improves attainment of personalised goals. We therefore recommend that it be implemented in health and care services. FUNDING: UK Alzheimer's Society.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives) for people living with dementia and their carers: a study protocol for a parallel multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Many people living with dementia experience sleep disturbance and there are no known effective treatments. Non-pharmacological treatment options should be the first-line sleep management. For family carers, relatives' sleep disturbance leads to interruption of their sleep, low mood and breakdown of care. Our team developed and delivered DREAMS START (Dementia RElAted Manual for Sleep; STrAtegies for RelaTives), a multimodal non-pharmacological intervention, showing it to be feasible and acceptable. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to establish whether DREAMS START is clinically cost-effective in reducing sleep disturbances in people living with dementia living at home compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit 370 participant dyads (people living with dementia and family carers) from memory services, community mental health teams and the Join Dementia Research Website in England. Those meeting inclusion criteria will be randomised (1:1) either to DREAMS START or to usual treatment. DREAMS START is a six-session (1 hour/session), manualised intervention delivered every 1-2 weeks by supervised, non-clinically trained graduates. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, 4 months and 8 months with the primary outcome being the Sleep Disorders Inventory score at 8 months. Secondary outcomes for the person with dementia (all proxy) include quality of life, daytime sleepiness, neuropsychiatric symptoms and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes for the family carer include quality of life, sleep disturbance, mood, burden and service use and caring/work activity. Analyses will be intention-to-treat and we will conduct a process evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Camden & Kings Cross Ethics Committee (20/LO/0894) approved the study. We will disseminate our findings in high-impact peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. This research has the potential to improve sleep and quality of life for people living with dementia and their carers, in a feasible and scalable intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13072268.

Scaling-up an evidence-based intervention for family carers of people with dementia: Current and future costs and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The STrAtegies for RelaTives (START) intervention is effective and cost-effective in supporting family carers of people with dementia. It is currently not available to all eligible carers in England. What would be the impacts on service costs and carer health-related quality of life if START was provided to all eligible carers in England, currently and in future? METHODS: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data from a previously conducted randomised controlled trial were combined with current and future projections of numbers of people with newly diagnosed dementia to estimate overall and component costs and health-related quality of life outcomes between 2015 (base year for projections) and 2040. RESULTS: Scaling-up START requires investments increasing annually but would lead to significant savings in health and social care costs. Family carers of people with dementia would experience improvements in mental health and quality of life, with clinical effects lasting at least 6 years. Scaling up the START intervention to eligible carers was estimated to cost £9.4 million in 2020, but these costs would lead to annual savings of £68 million, and total annual quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 1247. Although the costs of START would increase to £19.8 million in 2040, savings would rise to £142.7 million and Quality adjusted life years gained to 1883. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling-up START for family carers of people with dementia in England would improve the lives of family carers and reduce public sector costs. Family carers play a vital part in dementia care; evidence-based interventions that help them to maintain this role, such as START, should be available across the country.

Sex and Socioeconomic Disparities in Dementia Risk: A Population Attributable Fractions Analysis in Argentina.

INTRODUCTION, twelve modifiable risk factors (RF) account for 40% of dementia cases worldwide. However, limited data exists on such factors in middle- and low-income countries. We aimed to estimate the population-attributable fractions (PAFs) for the 12 RF in Argentina, assessing changes over a decade, and exploring socioeconomic and sex influences. METHODS, we conducted cross-sectional analyses of the 12 RF from Argentinian surveys conducted in 2009, 2015, and 2018, including 96,321 people. We calculated PAFs, and stratified estimates based on sex and income. RESULTS, we estimated an overall PAF of 59.6%(95%CI=58.9%-60.3%). The largest PAFs were hypertension=9.3%(8.7%-9.9%), physical inactivity=7.4%(6.8%-8.2%), and obesity=7.4%(6.8%-7.9%). Men were more impacted by excessive alcohol, while women by isolation and smoking. Lower income linked to higher PAFs in education, hypertension, and obesity. DISCUSSION, Argentina has a higher PAF for dementia than the world population, with distinct RF distribution. PAF varied by sex and economic status, advocating tailored prevention strategies.

Risk assessment for people living with dementia: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review identified key components of risk assessment for people with dementia, examined attitudes toward risk identification and risk assessment, and appraised existing risk assessment tools. METHODS: Systematic searches of five databases on two platforms (EBSCO, OVID) and gray literature databases (Open Grey, Base) were conducted. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined eligibility criteria and quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were tabulated and synthesized using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Our review found people with dementia, their family carers, and healthcare professionals differed in how risk is conceptualized, with views being shaped by media perceptions, personal experiences, socio-cultural influences, dementia knowledge, and dementia severity. We found that mobilization (causing falls inside and getting lost outside) is the most frequently identified risk factor. Our findings show people with dementia are generally risk-tolerant, while healthcare professionals may adopt risk-averse approaches because of organizational requirements. We found factors that disrupt daily routines, living and caring arrangements, medication management, and unclear care pathways contribute toward adverse risk events. We discovered that most studies about risk and risk assessment scales did not consider insight of the person with dementia into risks although this is important for the impact of a risk. No risk instrument identified had sufficient evidence that it was useful. CONCLUSION: Accurate risk assessment and effective communication strategies that include the perspectives of people with dementia are needed to enable risk-tolerant practice. No risk instrument to date was shown to be widely acceptable and useful in practice.

Umbrella review and Delphi study on modifiable factors for dementia risk reduction.

A 2013 systematic review and Delphi consensus study identified 12 modifiable risk and protective factors for dementia, which were subsequently merged into the "LIfestyle for BRAin health" (LIBRA) score. We systematically evaluated whether LIBRA requires revision based on new evidence. To identify modifiable risk and protective factors suitable for dementia risk reduction, we combined an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses with a two-round Delphi consensus study. The review of 608 unique primary studies and opinions of 18 experts prioritized six modifiable factors: hearing impairment, social contact, sleep, life course inequalities, atrial fibrillation, and psychological stress. Based on expert ranking, hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep were considered the most suitable candidates for inclusion in updated dementia risk scores. As such, the current study shows that dementia risk scores need systematic updates based on emerging evidence. Future studies will validate the updated LIBRA score in different cohorts. HIGHLIGHTS: An umbrella review was combined with opinions of 18 dementia experts. Various candidate targets for dementia risk reduction were identified. Experts prioritized hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep. Re-assessment of dementia risk scores is encouraged. Future work should evaluate the predictive validity of updated risk scores.

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer's disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial.

Background: Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives: To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design: Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting: Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants: Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions: Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures: Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding: Participants allocated 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results: Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (-1.74, 95% confidence interval -7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations: Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions: The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work: Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful. Study registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897/NCT03031184. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

It is common for people with Alzheimer's disease to experience agitation, for example feeling restless or unsettled. If left untreated, agitation can lead to poorer quality of life and increased hospitalisation and strain for family carers. Often these symptoms are treated with medications that are usually used to manage psychosis (antipsychotic drugs), but such medication has limited effectiveness and can cause serious adverse effects to patients, including risk of increased death. Two medications that are already commonly prescribed for other health issues, mirtazapine (an antidepressant) and carbamazepine (a drug used to treat epilepsy), had been identified as a possible alternative way of treating agitation in Alzheimer's disease that might not have the harms associated with antipsychotic medication. In this study, we compared the effects of giving mirtazapine or carbamazepine with a dummy drug (placebo) in people with Alzheimer's disease who were experiencing agitation. The results of the study showed that neither medication was any more effective than the placebo in reducing agitation over 12 weeks in terms of improving symptoms, or in economic terms. Mirtazapine may lead to additional carer costs as compared to placebo. The study findings are stronger for mirtazapine than carbamazepine because the carbamazepine arm was stopped when it had recruited less than half the numbers needed. That was done because the study was not recruiting quickly enough to support both the mirtazapine and the carbamazepine arms. The findings from this study show that mirtazapine should not be recommended to treat agitation in Alzheimer's disease. More work is needed to formulate effective ways and to test new drug and non-drug treatments for agitation in dementia.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Brief Cognitive Instruments to Evaluate Suspected Dementia in Chinese-Speaking Populations.

Background: Chinese is the most commonly spoken world language; however, most cognitive tests were developed and validated in the West. It is essential to find out which tests are valid and practical in Chinese speaking people with suspected dementia. Objective: We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of brief cognitive tests adapted for Chinese-speaking populations in people presenting for assessment of suspected dementia. Methods: We searched electronic databases for studies reporting brief (≤20 minutes) cognitive test's sensitivity and specificity as part of dementia diagnosis for Chinese-speaking populations in clinical settings. We assessed quality using Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) criteria and translation and cultural adaptation using the Manchester Translation Reporting Questionnaire (MTRQ), and Manchester Cultural Adaptation Reporting Questionnaire (MCAR). We assessed heterogeneity and combined sensitivity in meta-analyses. Results: 38 studies met inclusion criteria and 22 were included in meta-analyses. None met the highest CEBM criteria. Five studies met the highest criteria of MTRQ and MCAR. In meta-analyses of studies with acceptable heterogeneity (I2 <  75%), Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised &III (ACE-R & ACE-III) had the best sensitivity and specificity; specifically, for dementia (93.5% & 85.6%) and mild cognitive impairment (81.4% & 76.7%). Conclusions: Current evidence is that the ACE-R and ACE-III are the best brief cognitive assessments for dementia and mild cognitive impairment in Chinese-speaking populations. They may improve time taken to diagnosis, allowing people to access interventions and future planning.

South Asian, Black and White ethnicity and the effect of potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia: A study in English electronic health records.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate ethnic differences in the associations of potentially modifiable risk factors with dementia. METHODS: We used anonymised data from English electronic primary care records for adults aged 65 and older between 1997 and 2018. We used Cox regression to investigate main effects for each risk factor and interaction effects between each risk factor and ethnicity. RESULTS: We included 865,674 people with 8,479,973 person years of follow up. Hypertension, dyslipidaemia, obesity and diabetes were more common in people from minority ethnic groups than White people. The impact of hypertension, obesity, diabetes, low HDL and sleep disorders on dementia risk was increased in South Asian people compared to White people. The impact of hypertension was greater in Black compared to White people. DISCUSSION: Dementia prevention efforts should be targeted towards people from minority ethnic groups and tailored to risk factors of particular importance.

Dementia incidence trend in England and Wales, 2002-19, and projection for dementia burden to 2040: analysis of data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

BACKGROUND: Dementia incidence declined in many high-income countries in the 2000s, but evidence on the post-2010 trend is scarce. We aimed to analyse the temporal trend in England and Wales between 2002 and 2019, considering bias and non-linearity. METHODS: Population-based panel data representing adults aged 50 years and older from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were linked to the mortality register across wave 1 (2002-03) to wave 9 (2018-19) (90 073 person observations). Standard criteria based on cognitive and functional impairment were used to ascertain incident dementia. Crude incidence rates were determined in seven overlapping initially dementia-free subcohorts each followed up for 4 years (ie, 2002-06, 2004-08, 2006-10, 2008-12, 2010-14, 2012-16, and 2014-18). We examined the temporal trend of dementia incidence according to age, sex, and educational attainment. We estimated the trend of dementia incidence adjusted by age and sex with Cox proportional hazards and multistate models. Restricted cubic splines allowed for potential non-linearity in the time trend. A Markov model was used to project future dementia burden considering the estimated incidence trend. FINDINGS: Incidence rate standardised by age and sex declined from 2002 to 2010 (from 10·7 to 8·6 per 1000 person-years), then increased from 2010 to 2019 (from 8·6 to 11·3 per 1000 person-years). Adjusting for age and sex, and accounting for missing dementia cases due to death, estimated dementia incidence declined by 28·8% from 2002 to 2008 (incidence rate ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·58-0·88), and increased by 25·2% from 2008 to 2016 (1·25, 1·03-1·54). The group with lower educational attainment had a smaller decline in dementia incidence from 2002 to 2008 and a greater increase after 2008. If the upward incidence trend continued, there would be 1·7 million (1·62-1·75) dementia cases in England and Wales by 2040, 70% more than previously forecast. INTERPRETATION: Dementia incidence might no longer be declining in England and Wales. If the upward trend since 2008 continues, along with population ageing, the burden on health and social care will be large. FUNDING: UK Economic and Social Research Council.