A qualitative study to inform adaptations to a brain health intervention for older adults with type 2 diabetes living in rural regions of Ireland.

AIMS: Type 2 diabetes is a risk factor for late-life dementia, but dementia prevention strategies have yet to be comprehensively evaluated in people with diabetes. The Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) demonstrated cognitive benefits of a 2-year multidomain lifestyle intervention. However, given the intensive nature of FINGER, there is uncertainty about whether it can be implemented in other high-risk populations. Our aim was to explore attitudes towards dementia risk, and barriers to an intervention based on the FINGER model in older adults with type 2 diabetes living in rural areas of Ireland. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with 21 adults (11 men and 10 women) aged 60+ years with type 2 diabetes living in border regions of north and south Ireland. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There was limited understanding of diabetes as a risk factor for late-life dementia. The main barriers to engagement with the multidomain intervention were eating foods that were not compatible with cultural norms, time and travel constraints, and perceived lack of self-efficacy and self-motivation for adopting the desired diet, exercise and computerised cognitive training (CCT) behaviours. Facilitators for intervention acceptability included the provision of culturally tailored and personalised education, support from a trusted source, and inclusion of goal setting and self-monitoring behavioural strategies. CONCLUSIONS: While there was high acceptability for a brain health intervention, several barriers including cultural food norms and low self-efficacy for adopting the diet, exercise and CCT components would need to be considered in the intervention design. Findings from this study will be used to inform local decisions regarding the adaptation of FINGER for people with type 2 diabetes. The feasibility of the adapted multidomain intervention will then be evaluated in a future pilot trial.

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.

Withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine or both, in people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive syndrome characterised by deterioration in memory, thinking and behaviour, and by impaired ability to perform daily activities. Two classes of drug - cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine - are widely licensed for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, and rivastigmine is also licensed for Parkinson's disease dementia. These drugs are prescribed to alleviate symptoms and delay disease progression in these and sometimes in other forms of dementia. There are uncertainties about the benefits and adverse effects of these drugs in the long term and in severe dementia, about effects of withdrawal, and about the most appropriate time to discontinue treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more). We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias. Compared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty). We found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.

Aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence. We identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence). We identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials. One trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence). One trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies.

"A tool doesn't add anything". The importance of added value: Use of observational pain tools with patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life-a qualitative study of physician and nurse experiences and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Observational pain tools (OPTs) are widely recommended in health care policies, clinical guidelines, and recommendations for pain assessment and management. However, it is unclear whether and how these tools are used for patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life. AIM: To explore hospice, secondary, and primary care physicians' and nurses' use of OPTs with patients dying with advanced dementia and their perspectives on practice development and training needs. METHODS: Twenty-three physicians and 24 nurses with experience of caring for people dying with advanced dementia were recruited from primary care surgeries (n = 5), hospitals (n = 6), hospices (n = 4), and nursing homes (n = 10). Semistructured, face-to-face interviews were conducted. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis applied to identify core themes. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: (1) use of OPTs in this vulnerable patient population, (2) barriers to the use of OPTs and lack of perceived "added value", and (3) perspectives on practice development and training in pain assessment in advanced dementia at end of life. Just over one-quarter of participants (n = 13) routinely used OPTs. Reasons for nonuse included perceived limitations of such tools, difficulties with their use and integration with existing practice, and lack of perceived added value. Most participants strongly emphasised a need for ongoing training and development which facilitated transfer of knowledge and multidisciplinary skills across professions and specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals require ongoing support in developing and integrating change to existing pain assessment protocols and approaches. These findings have important implications for health education, practice, and policy.

Effectiveness of advance care planning with family carers in dementia nursing homes: A paired cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In dementia care, a large number of treatment decisions are made by family carers on behalf of their family member who lacks decisional capacity; advance care planning can support such carers in the decision-making of care goals. However, given the relative importance of advance care planning in dementia care, the prevalence of advance care planning in dementia care is poor. AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of advance care planning with family carers in dementia care homes. DESIGN: Paired cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention comprised a trained facilitator, family education, family meetings, documentation of advance care planning decisions and intervention orientation for general practitioners and nursing home staff. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 24 nursing homes with a dementia nursing category located in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. Family carers of nursing home residents classified as having dementia and judged as not having decisional capacity to participate in advance care planning discussions. RESULTS: The primary outcome was family carer uncertainty in decision-making about the care of the resident (Decisional Conflict Scale). There was evidence of a reduction in total Decisional Conflict Scale score in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (-10.5, 95% confidence interval: -16.4 to -4.7; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Advance care planning was effective in reducing family carer uncertainty in decision-making concerning the care of their family member and improving perceptions of quality of care in nursing homes. Given the global significance of dementia, the implications for clinicians and policy makers include them recognizing the importance of family carer education and improving communication between family carers and formal care providers.

Improving adherence to multiple medications in older people in primary care: Selecting intervention components to address patient-reported barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is vital to ensuring optimal patient outcomes, particularly amongst multimorbid older people prescribed multiple medications. Interventions targeting adherence often lack a theoretical underpinning and this may impact on effectiveness. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) of behaviour can aid intervention development by systematically identifying key determinants of medication adherence. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (i) identify determinants (barriers, facilitators) of adherence to multiple medications from older people's perspectives; (ii) identify key domains to target for behaviour change; and (iii) map key domains to intervention components [behaviour change techniques (BCTs)] that could be delivered in an intervention by community pharmacists. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with older people (>65 years) receiving ≥4 medications. Questions explored the 12 domains of the TDF (eg "Knowledge," "Emotion"). Data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Identification of key domains and mapping to intervention components (BCTs) followed established methods. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were convened (50 participants). A wide range of determinants were identified as barriers (eg forgetfulness, prioritization of medications) and facilitators (eg social support, personalized routines) of adherence to multiple medications. Eight domains were identified as key targets for behaviour change (eg "Social influences," "Memory, attention and decision processes," "Motivation and goals") and mapped to 11 intervention components (BCTs) to include in an intervention [eg "Social support or encouragement (general)," "Self-monitoring of the behaviour," "Goal-setting (behaviour)"]. CONCLUSION: This study used a theoretical underpinning to identify potential intervention components (BCTs). Future work will incorporate the selected BCTs into an intervention that will undergo feasibility testing in community pharmacies.

Evaluation of the impact of telementoring using ECHO© technology on healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-efficacy in assessing and managing pain for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment and management in advanced and end-stage dementia are challenging; patients are at risk of under-diagnosis, under-assessment and under-treatment. Previous research has highlighted the importance of needs-driven training and development in this area for physicians, nurses and healthcare assistants (HCAs) across specialties, disciplines and care settings. This study used teleconferencing technology to connect healthcare professionals across multiple settings and disciplines in real-time clinics, based on the Project ECHO© model. This paper reports the evaluation of the clinics by physicians, nurses and HCAs, including their knowledge and self-efficacy in pain assessment and management for patients with advanced and end-stage dementia. METHODS: A mixed method evaluation comprising quantitative survey of self-reported knowledge and self-efficacy pre- and post-ECHO clinic participation, and qualitative exploration of experiences of the clinics using focus group interviews. A census approach to sampling was undertaken. Pre- and post-ECHO evaluations were administered electronically using Survey Monkey software. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to explore differences in knowledge and self-efficacy scores pre- and post-ECHO clinic participation. Statistical significance was set a-priori at p = 0.05. Focus groups were video- and audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun & Clarke's model of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Eighteen healthcare professionals [HCPs] (physicians [n = 7], nurses [n = 10], HCA [n = 1]) and twenty HCPs (physicians [n = 10], nurses [n = 10]) completed pre- and post-ECHO evaluations respectively, reporting improvements in knowledge and self-efficacy on participation in ECHO clinics and perceived utility of the clinics. Seven HCPs (physicians [n = 2], nurses [n = 5]) participated in two focus groups. Four themes emerged: knowledge and skills development and dissemination; protected time; areas for improvement; and the future of ECHO. CONCLUSIONS: Telementoring clinics for HCP education and training in pain assessment and management in advanced and end-stage dementia demonstrate a positive impact on knowledge and self-efficacy of HCPs and highlight the value of a cross-specialty network of practice which spans across disciplines/HCP types, care settings and geographical areas. Further development of ECHO services in this and in other clinical areas, shows significant potential to support delivery of high-quality care to complex patient populations.

The experiences and preparedness of family carers for best interest decision-making of a relative living with advanced dementia: A qualitative study.

AIM: To explore the experience and the preparedness of family carers in their caregiving role as best interest decision-makers of a relative living with advanced dementia. BACKGROUND: The prevalence of dementia is a global issue. The role of being a carer of a relative living with dementia does not necessarily lessen once they are admitted to a nursing home. Best interest decision-making including end-of-life care decisions need to be made and reaching these choices can be challenging. The preparedness of family carers in this role needs greater understanding. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study. METHODS: During 2015 twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted of family carers of nursing home residents living with advanced dementia, then analysed using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) Caring for someone living with dementia. The impact on the carer's holistic well-being and their experience of being a best interest decision-maker; (2) Accessing support. The influential nature of formal and informal networks; (3) Perceived knowledge and understanding of the dementia trajectory of carers and nursing staff. CONCLUSION: The experiences and preparedness of informal carers is a reflection of their personal response, but the distress experienced highlights the significant need of adequate support availability and of enhancing nursing staffs' dementia expertise to maximize their role in facilitating best interest decision-making. This has significant implications for nursing practice and for service user and nursing staff education. Considering the global impact of dementia, our findings have international relevance to similar nursing homes across the world.

Observational cohort study examining apolipoprotein E status and preoperative neuropsychological performance as predictors of post-operative delirium in an older elective arthroplasty population.

Introduction: delirium following surgery is common and is associated with negative outcomes. Preoperative cognitive impairment has been shown to be a risk factor for post-operative delirium. Often the cognitive tests used are cumbersome. This study tests the hypothesis that the quantification of brain vulnerability, using Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) status and neuropsychological tests, both traditional and more easily administered, can quantify the risk of post-operative delirium following elective primary arthroplasty surgery. Methods: this observational cohort study recruited participants aged 65 years or older admitted prior to elective primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Baseline data was collected and participants underwent neuropsychological testing and had blood taken for ApoE genotyping preoperatively. Post-operatively participants were assessed daily for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and charts were reviewed where possible for reports of delirium. Univariate and multivariate analyses of preoperative factors were undertaken to identify independent predictors of delirium. Results: between March 2012 and October 2014, 315 participants completed the study with an overall incidence of post-operative delirium of 40/315 (12.7%). Of these 18 fulfilled the CAM criteria for delirium and 22 were deemed delirious by consensus decision based on chart review. ApoE genotype was not associated with post-operative delirium in this cohort. Time taken to complete Colour Trails 2, errors in mini mental state examination and level of pain preoperatively were independent predictors of post-operative delirium. Conclusions: this study challenges the assertion that ApoE4 genotype predicts post-operative delirium. It replicates previous work suggesting cognitive impairment predicts post-operative delirium and shows for the 1st time that simple cognitive tests can be as effective as more detailed tests.

'There's a Catch-22' - The complexities of pain management for people with advanced dementia nearing the end of life: A qualitative exploration of physicians' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Pain management is a cornerstone of palliative care. The clinical issues encountered by physicians when managing pain in patients dying with advanced dementia, and how these may impact on prescribing and treatment, are unknown. AIM: To explore physicians' experiences of pain management for patients nearing the end of life, the impact of these on prescribing and treatment approaches, and the methods employed to overcome these challenges. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interview study exploring barriers to and facilitators of pain management, prescribing and treatment decisions, and training needs. Thematic analysis was used to elicit key themes. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 23 physicians, responsible for treating patients with advanced dementia approaching the end of life, were recruited from primary care ( n = 9), psychiatry ( n = 7) and hospice care ( n = 7). RESULTS: Six themes emerged: diagnosing pain, complex prescribing and treatment approaches, side effects and adverse events, route of administration, importance of sharing knowledge and training needs. Knowledge exchange was often practised through liaison with physicians from other specialities. Cross-speciality mentoring and the creation of knowledge networks were believed to improve pain management in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Pain management in end-stage dementia is complex, requiring cross-population of knowledge between palliative care specialists and non-specialists, in addition to collateral information provided by other health professionals and patients' families. Regular, cost- and time-effective mentoring and ongoing professional development are perceived to be essential in empowering physicians to meet clinical challenges in this area.

Exploring healthcare assistants' role and experience in pain assessment and management for people with advanced dementia towards the end of life: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain assessment and management are key aspects in the care of people with dementia approaching the end of life but become challenging when patient self-report is impaired or unavailable. Best practice recommends the use of observational pain assessments for these patients; however, difficulties have been documented with health professionals' use of these tools in the absence of additional collateral patient knowledge. No studies have explored the role, perspectives and experiences of healthcare assistants in pain assessment and management in dementia; this study provides insight into this important area. METHODS: A qualitative approach was adopted, using key informant interviews with healthcare assistants caring for people with advanced dementia approaching the end of life in hospice, nursing home and acute care settings. Thematic analysis was the analytic approach taken to interpretation of interview data. Data were collected between June 2014 and September 2015. RESULTS: Fourteen participants took part in the study. Participants' average length of caring experience was 15.4 years and most were female. Three key themes emerged: recognising pain, reporting pain, and upskilling. Participants were often the first to notice obvious causes of pain and to detect changes in patient norms which signified hidden causes of pain. Comprehensive knowledge of resident norms enabled participants to observe for behavioural and nonverbal indicators of pain and distinguish these from non-pain related behaviours. Pain reporting was heavily impacted by relationships with professional staff and the extent to which participants felt valued in their role. Positive relationships resulted in comprehensive pain reports; negative relationships led to perfunctory or ambiguous reporting. Participants emphasised a desire for further training and upskilling, including in the use and reporting of basic pain tools. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare assistants are frontline staff who have a key role in direct patient care, spending a considerable amount of time with patients in comparison to other health professionals. These staff are often first to notice changes in patients that may signify pain and to alert professional staff. However, to ensure the quality of these reports, further efforts must be made in reversing stigma attached to this role and in upskilling these members of the healthcare team.

Nurses' experiences of pain management for people with advanced dementia approaching the end of life: a qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore hospice, acute care and nursing home nurses' experiences of pain management for people with advanced dementia in the final month of life. To identify the challenges, facilitators and practice areas requiring further support. BACKGROUND: Pain management in end-stage dementia is a fundamental aspect of end-of-life care; however, it is unclear what challenges and facilitators nurses experience in practice, whether these differ across care settings, and whether training needs to be tailored to the context of care. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis to examine data. METHODS: Twenty-four registered nurses caring for people dying with advanced dementia were recruited from 10 nursing homes, three hospices and two acute hospitals across a region of the UK. Interviews were conducted between June 2014-September 2015. RESULTS: Three core themes were identified: challenges administering analgesia, the nurse-physician relationship, and interactive learning and practice development. Patient-related challenges to pain management were universal across care settings; nurse- and organisation-related barriers differed between settings. A need for interactive learning and practice development, particularly in pharmacology, was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving pain management in practice was highly challenging. A number of barriers were identified; however, the manner and extent to which these impacted on nurses differed across hospice, nursing home and acute care settings. Needs-based training to support and promote practice development in pain management in end-stage dementia is required. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses considered pain management fundamental to end-of-life care provision; however, nurses working in acute care and nursing home settings may be undersupported and under-resourced to adequately manage pain in people dying with advanced dementia. Nurse-to-nurse mentoring and ongoing needs-assessed interactive case-based learning could help promote practice development in this area. Nurses require continuing professional development in pharmacology.

Common polygenic variation enhances risk prediction for Alzheimer's disease.

The identification of subjects at high risk for Alzheimer's disease is important for prognosis and early intervention. We investigated the polygenic architecture of Alzheimer's disease and the accuracy of Alzheimer's disease prediction models, including and excluding the polygenic component in the model. This study used genotype data from the powerful dataset comprising 17 008 cases and 37 154 controls obtained from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP). Polygenic score analysis tested whether the alleles identified to associate with disease in one sample set were significantly enriched in the cases relative to the controls in an independent sample. The disease prediction accuracy was investigated in a subset of the IGAP data, a sample of 3049 cases and 1554 controls (for whom APOE genotype data were available) by means of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and positive and negative predictive values. We observed significant evidence for a polygenic component enriched in Alzheimer's disease (P = 4.9 × 10(-26)). This enrichment remained significant after APOE and other genome-wide associated regions were excluded (P = 3.4 × 10(-19)). The best prediction accuracy AUC = 78.2% (95% confidence interval 77-80%) was achieved by a logistic regression model with APOE, the polygenic score, sex and age as predictors. In conclusion, Alzheimer's disease has a significant polygenic component, which has predictive utility for Alzheimer's disease risk and could be a valuable research tool complementing experimental designs, including preventative clinical trials, stem cell selection and high/low risk clinical studies. In modelling a range of sample disease prevalences, we found that polygenic scores almost doubles case prediction from chance with increased prediction at polygenic extremes.

Statin withdrawal in people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: There are approximately 24 million people worldwide with dementia; this is likely to increase to 81 million by 2040. Dementia is a progressive condition, and usually leads to death eight to ten years after first symptoms. End-of-life care should emphasise treatments that optimise quality of life and physicians should minimise unnecessary or non-beneficial interventions. Statins are 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors; they have become the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy for the management of hypercholesterolaemia but their ability to provide benefit is unclear in the last weeks or months of life. Withdrawal of statins may improve quality of life in people with advanced dementia, as they will not be subjected to unnecessary polypharmacy or side effects. However, they may help to prevent further vascular events in people of advanced age who are at high risk of such events. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of statins in people with dementia on: cognitive outcomes, adverse events, behavioural and functional outcomes, mortality, quality of life, vascular morbidity, and healthcare costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register on 11 February 2016. We also ran additional searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Clinical.Trials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP on 11 February 2016, to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials with either a placebo or 'no treatment' control group. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed whether potentially relevant studies met the inclusion criteria, using standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We found no studies suitable for inclusion therefore analysed no data. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 28 unique references, all of which were excluded. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to enable us to make an informed decision about statin withdrawal in dementia. Randomised controlled studies need to be conducted to assess cognitive and other effects of statins in participants with dementia, especially when the disease is advanced.

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.

Development of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using a theory-based method.

BACKGROUND: It is advocated that interventions to improve clinical practice should be developed using a systematic approach and intervention development methods should be reported. However, previous interventions aimed at ensuring that older people receive appropriate polypharmacy have lacked details on their development. This study formed part of a multiphase research project which aimed to develop an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. METHODS: The target behaviours for the intervention were prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists. Intervention development followed a systematic approach, including previous mapping of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to key domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework that were perceived by GPs and pharmacists to influence the target behaviours. Draft interventions were developed to operationalise selected BCTs through team discussion. Selection of an intervention for feasibility testing was guided by a subset of the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness/cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects/safety, Equity) criteria. RESULTS: Three draft interventions comprising selected BCTs were developed, targeting patients, pharmacists and GPs, respectively. Following assessment of each intervention using a subset of the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, acceptability), the GP-targeted intervention was selected for feasibility testing. This intervention will involve a demonstration of the behaviour and will be delivered as an online video. The video demonstrating how GPs can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a typical consultation with an older patient will also demonstrate salience of consequences (feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour). Action plans and prompts/cues will be used as complementary intervention components. The intervention is designed to facilitate the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy in routine practice. CONCLUSION: A GP-targeted intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people has been developed using a systematic approach. Intervention content has been specified using an established taxonomy of BCTs and selected to maximise feasibility. The results of a future feasibility study will help to determine if the theory-based intervention requires further refinement before progressing to a larger scale randomised evaluation.

Donepezil and memantine for moderate-to-severe Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown the benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is not known whether treatment benefits continue after the progression to moderate-to-severe disease. METHODS: We assigned 295 community-dwelling patients who had been treated with donepezil for at least 3 months and who had moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease (a score of 5 to 13 on the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [SMMSE, on which scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function]) to continue donepezil, discontinue donepezil, discontinue donepezil and start memantine, or continue donepezil and start memantine. Patients received the study treatment for 52 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were scores on the SMMSE and on the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS, on which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). The minimum clinically important differences were 1.4 points on the SMMSE and 3.5 points on the BADLS. RESULTS: Patients assigned to continue donepezil, as compared with those assigned to discontinue donepezil, had a score on the SMMSE that was higher by an average of 1.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.5) and a score on the BADLS that was lower (indicating less impairment) by 3.0 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.3) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients assigned to receive memantine, as compared with those assigned to receive memantine placebo, had a score on the SMMSE that was an average of 1.2 points higher (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8; P<0.001) and a score on the BADLS that was 1.5 points lower (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.8; P=0.02). The efficacy of donepezil and of memantine did not differ significantly in the presence or absence of the other. There were no significant benefits of the combination of donepezil and memantine over donepezil alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate or severe Alzheimer's disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. (Funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council and the U.K. Alzheimer's Society; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49545035.).

Age-Related Macular Degeneration-Associated Genes in Alzheimer Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Given the clinical and pathological similarities between age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and Alzheimer disease (AD), to assess whether AMD-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), including those from complement-related genes, are associated with AD. DESIGN: A case-control association study-type design. SETTING: A UK tertiary care dementia clinic. PARTICIPANTS: 322 cognitively normal participants and 258 cases with a clinical diagnosis of AD. MEASUREMENTS: Polymorphisms in the following genes were studied: CFH, ARMS2, C2/CFB, C3, CFI/PLA2G12a, SERPING1, TLR3, TLR4, CRP, APOE, and TOMM40. Haplotypes were analysed for CFH, TOMM40, and APOE. Univariate analysis was performed for each genetic change and case-comparator status, and then correction for multiple testing performed. RESULTS: The presence of an ε4 APOE allele was significantly associated with AD. No association was evident between CFH SNPs or haplotypes, or other AMD-associated SNPs tested, and AD. The exceptions were TOMM40 SNPs, which were associated with AD even after correction for multiple comparisons. The associations disappeared, however, when entered into a regression model including APOE genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The results for most SNPs tested, as well as CFH haplotypes, are novel. The functional effects of abnormal complement activity in AD's pathogenesis may be contradictory, but methodological reasons may underlie the lack of association-for example, genetic changes other than SNPs being involved.

Assessment of factors that influence physician decision making regarding medication use in patients with dementia at the end of life.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which patient-related factors and physicians' country of practice (Northern Ireland [NI] and the Republic of Ireland [RoI]) influenced decision making regarding medication use in patients with end-stage dementia. METHODS: The study utilised a factorial survey design comprising four vignettes to evaluate initiating/withholding or continuing/discontinuing specific medications in patients with dementia nearing death. Questionnaires and vignettes were mailed to all hospital physicians in geriatric medicine and to all general practitioners (GPs) in NI (November 2010) and RoI (December 2010), with a second copy provided 3 weeks after the first mailing. Logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of patient-related factors and physicians' country of practice on decision making. Significance was set a priori at p ≤ 0.05. Free text responses to open questions were analysed qualitatively using content analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 20.6% (N = 662) [21.1% (N = 245) for GPs and 52.1% (N = 38) for hospital physicians in NI, 18.3% (N = 348) for GPs and 36.0% (N = 31) for hospital physicians in RoI]. There was considerable variability in decision making about initiating/withholding antibiotics and continuing/discontinuing the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor and memantine hydrochloride, and less variability in decision making regarding statins and antipsychotics. Patient place of residence and physician's country of practice had the strongest and most consistent effects on decision making although effect sizes were small. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required into other factors that may impact upon physicians' prescribing decisions for these vulnerable patients and to clarify how the factors examined in this study influence prescribing decisions.