Protection against discrimination in national dementia guideline recommendations: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: National dementia guidelines provide recommendations about the most effective approaches to diagnosis and interventions. Guidelines can improve care, but some groups such as people with minority characteristics may be disadvantaged if recommended approaches are the same for everyone. It is not known if dementia guidelines address specific needs related to patient characteristics. The objectives of this review are to identify which countries have national guidelines for dementia and synthesise recommendations relating to protected characteristics, as defined in the UK Equality Act 2010: age, disability, gender identity, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Medline databases and the Guideline International Network library from inception to March 4, 2020, for dementia guidelines in any language. We also searched, between April and September 2020, Google and the national health websites of all 196 countries in English and in each country's official languages. To be included, guidelines had to provide recommendations about dementia, which were expected to be followed by healthcare workers and be approved at a national policy level. We rated quality according to the iCAHE guideline quality checklist. We provide a narrative synthesis of recommendations identified for each protected characteristic, prioritising those from higher-quality guidelines. Forty-six guidelines from 44 countries met our criteria, of which 18 were rated as higher quality. Most guidelines (39/46; 85%) made at least one reference to protected characteristics, and we identified recommendations relating to age, disability, race (or culture, ethnicity, or language), religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Age was the most frequently referenced characteristic (31/46; 67%) followed by race (or culture, ethnicity, or language; 25/46; 54%). Recommendations included specialist investigation and support for younger people affected by dementia and consideration of culture when assessing whether someone had dementia and providing person-centred care. Guidelines recommended considering religion when providing person-centred and end-of-life care. For disability, it was recommended that healthcare workers consider intellectual disability and sensory impairment when assessing for dementia. Most recommendations related to sex recommended not using sex hormones to treat cognitive impairment in men and women. One guideline made one recommendation related to sexual orientation. The main limitation of this study is that we only included national guidelines applicable to a whole country meaning guidelines from countries with differing healthcare systems within the country may have been excluded. CONCLUSIONS: National guidelines for dementia vary in their consideration of protected characteristics. We found that around a fifth of the world's countries have guidelines for dementia. We have identified areas of good practice that can be considered for future guidelines and suggest that all guidelines provide specific evidence-based recommendations for minority groups with examples of how to implement them. This will promote equity in the care of people affected by dementia and help to ensure that people with protected characteristics also have high-quality clinical services.

Hospitalisation rates and predictors in people with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalisation is often harmful for people with dementia and results in high societal costs, so avoidance of unnecessary admissions is a global priority. However, no intervention has yet reduced admissions of community-dwelling people with dementia. We therefore aimed to examine hospitalisation rates of people with dementia and whether these differ from people without dementia and to identify socio-demographic and clinical predictors of hospitalisation. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to 9 May 2019. We included observational studies which (1) examined community-dwelling people with dementia of any age or dementia subtype, (2) diagnosed dementia using validated diagnostic criteria, and (3) examined all-cause general (i.e. non-psychiatric) hospital admissions. Two authors screened abstracts for inclusion and independently extracted data and assessed included studies for risk of bias. Three authors graded evidence strength using Cochrane's GRADE approach, including assessing for evidence of publication bias using Begg's test. We used random effects meta-analysis to pool estimates for hospitalisation risk in people with and without dementia. RESULTS: We included 34 studies of 277,432 people with dementia: 17 from the USA, 15 from Europe, and 2 from Asia. The pooled relative risk of hospitalisation for people with dementia compared to those without was 1.42 (95% confidence interval 1.21, 1.66) in studies adjusted for age, sex, and physical comorbidity. Hospitalisation rates in people with dementia were between 0.37 and 1.26/person-year in high-quality studies. There was strong evidence that admission is associated with older age, and moderately strong evidence that multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and lower functional ability are associated with admission. There was strong evidence that dementia severity alone is not associated. CONCLUSIONS: People with dementia are more frequently admitted to hospital than those without dementia, independent of physical comorbidities. Future interventions to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations should target potentially modifiable factors, such as polypharmacy and functional ability, in high-risk populations.

Population attributable fractions for risk factors for dementia in low-income and middle-income countries: an analysis using cross-sectional survey data.

BACKGROUND: Nine potentially modifiable risk factors (less childhood education, midlife hearing loss, hypertension, and obesity, and later-life smoking, depression, physical inactivity, social isolation, and diabetes) account for 35% of worldwide dementia, but most data to calculate these risk factors come from high-income countries only. We aimed to calculate population attributable fractions (PAFs) for dementia in selected low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to identify potential dementia prevention targets in these countries. METHODS: The study was an analysis of cross-sectional data obtained from the 10/66 Dementia Research surveys of representative populations in India, China, and six Latin America countries (Cuba, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela), which used identical risk factor ascertainment methods in each country. Between 2004 and 2006 (and between 2007 and 2010 for Puerto Rico), all residents aged 65 years and older in predefined catchment areas were invited to participate in the survey. We used risk factor prevalence estimates from this 10/66 survey data, and relative risk estimates from previous meta-analyses, to calculate PAFs for each risk factor. To account for individuals having overlapping risk factors, we adjusted PAF for communality between risk factors, and used these values to calculate overall weighted PAFs for India, China, and the Latin American sample. FINDINGS: The overall weighted PAF for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia was 39·5% (95% CI 37·5-41·6) in China (n=2162 participants), 41·2% (39·1-43·4) in India (n=2004), and 55·8% (54·9-56·7) in our Latin American sample (n=12 865). Five dementia risk factors were more prevalent in these LMICs than worldwide estimates, leading to higher PAFs for dementia: less childhood education (weighted PAF of 10·8% in China, 13·6% in India, and 10·9% in Latin America vs 7·5% worldwide), smoking (14·7%, 6·4%, and 5·7%, respectively, vs 5·5% worldwide), hypertension (6·4%, 4·0%, and 9·3%, vs 2·0%), obesity (5·6%, 2·9%, and 7·9%, vs 0·8%), and diabetes (1·6%, 1·7%, and 3·2%, vs 1·2%). INTERPRETATION: The dementia prevention potential in India, China, and this sample of Latin American countries is large, and greater than in high-income countries. Less education in early life, hypertension, hearing loss, obesity, and physical inactivity have particularly high PAFs and could be initial targets for dementia prevention strategies. FUNDING: No funding.

Amisulpride for very late-onset schizophrenia-like psychosis: the ATLAS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Very late-onset (aged ≥ 60 years) schizophrenia-like psychosis (VLOSLP) occurs frequently but no placebo-controlled, randomised trials have assessed the efficacy or risks of antipsychotic treatment. Most patients are not prescribed treatment. OBJECTIVES: The study investigated whether or not low-dose amisulpride is superior to placebo in reducing psychosis symptoms over 12 weeks and if any benefit is maintained by continuing treatment thereafter. Treatment safety and cost-effectiveness were also investigated. DESIGN: Three-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Participants who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. SETTING: Secondary care specialist old age psychiatry services in 25 NHS mental health trusts in England and Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for VLOSLP and scoring > 30 points on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to three arms in a two-stage trial: (1) 100 mg of amisulpride in both stages, (2) amisulpride then placebo and (3) placebo then amisulpride. Treatment duration was 12 weeks in stage 1 and 24 weeks (later reduced to 12) in stage 2. Participants, investigators and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were psychosis symptoms assessed by the BPRS and trial treatment discontinuation for non-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were extrapyramidal symptoms measured with the Simpson-Angus Scale, quality of life measured with the World Health Organization's quality-of-life scale, and cost-effectiveness measured with NHS, social care and carer work loss costs and EuroQol-5 Dimensions. RESULTS: A total of 101 participants were randomised. Ninety-two (91%) participants took the trial medication, 59 (64%) completed stage 1 and 33 (56%) completed stage 2 treatment. Despite suboptimal compliance, improvements in BPRS scores at 12 weeks were 7.7 points (95% CI 3.8 to 11.5 points) greater with amisulpride than with placebo (11.9 vs. 4.2 points; p = 0.0002). In stage 2, BPRS scores improved by 1.1 point in those who continued with amisulpride but deteriorated by 5.2 points in those who switched from amisulpride to placebo, a difference of 6.3 points (95% CI 0.9 to 11.7 points; p = 0.024). Fewer participants allocated to the amisulpride group stopped treatment because of non-efficacy in stages 1 (p = 0.01) and 2 (p = 0.031). The number of patients stopping because of extrapyramidal symptoms and other side effects did not differ significantly between groups. Amisulpride treatment in the base-case analyses was associated with non-significant reductions in combined NHS, social care and unpaid carer costs and non-significant reductions in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in both stages. Including patients who were intensive users of inpatient services in sensitivity analyses did not change the QALY result but resulted in placebo dominance in stage 1 and significant reductions in NHS/social care (95% CI -£8923 to -£122) and societal costs (95% CI -£8985 to -£153) for those continuing with amisulpride. LIMITATIONS: The original recruitment target of 300 participants was not achieved and compliance with trial medication was highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose amisulpride is effective and well tolerated as a treatment for VLOSLP, with benefits maintained by prolonging treatment. Potential adverse events include clinically significant extrapyramidal symptoms and falls. FUTURE WORK: Trials should examine the longer-term effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic treatment in this patient group, and assess interventions to improve their appreciation of potential benefits of antipsychotic treatment and compliance with prescribed medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45593573 and EudraCT2010-022184-35. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 67. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.