Potentially Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of mild and major neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), also referred to as mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is rising globally. The prevention of NCDs is a major global public health interest. We sought to synthesize the literature on potentially modifiable risk factors for NCDs. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review using a systematic search across multiple databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Eligible reviews examined potentially modifiable risk factors for mild or major NCDs. We used a random-effects multi-level meta-analytic approach to synthesize risk ratios for each risk factor while accounting for overlap in the reviews. We further examined risk factors for major NCD due to two common etiologies: Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. RESULTS: A total of 45 reviews with 212 meta-analyses were synthesized. We identified fourteen broadly defined modifiable risk factors that were significantly associated with these disorders: alcohol consumption, body weight, depression, diabetes mellitus, diet, hypertension, less education, physical inactivity, sensory loss, sleep disturbance, smoking, social isolation, traumatic brain injury, and vitamin D deficiency. All 14 factors were associated with the risk of major NCD, and five were associated with mild NCD. We found considerably less research for vascular dementia and mild NCD. CONCLUSION: Our review quantifies the risk associated with 14 potentially modifiable risk factors for mild and major NCDs, including several factors infrequently included in dementia action plans. Prevention strategies should consider approaches that reduce the incidence and severity of these risk factors through health promotion, identification, and early management.

The complexity of examining laboratory-based biological markers associated with mortality in hospitalized patients during early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and evidence map.

IMPORTANCE: The measurement of laboratory biomarkers plays a critical role in managing patients with COVID-19. However, to date most systematic reviews examining the association between laboratory biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients early in the pandemic focused on small sets of biomarkers, did not account for multiple studies including patients within the same institutions during overlapping timeframes, and did not include a significant number of studies conducted in countries other than China. OBJECTIVE: To provide a comprehensive summary and an evidence map examining the relationship between a wide range of laboratory biomarkers and mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the early phase of the pandemic in multiple countries. EVIDENCE REVIEW: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched from Dec 2019 to March 9, 2021. A total of 14,049 studies were identified and screened independently by two raters; data was extracted by a single rater and verified by a second. Quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Case Series Critical Appraisal tool. To allow comparison across biomarkers, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used to quantify the relationship between laboratory biomarkers and hospital mortality. Meta-regression was conducted to account for clustering within institutions and countries. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 94 case-series studies from 30 countries. Across all biomarkers, the largest and most precise SMDs were observed for cardiac (troponin (1.03 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.21)), and BNP/NT-proBNP (0.93 (0.52 to 1.34)), inflammatory (IL-6 (0.97 (0.67 to 1.28) and Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (0.94 (0.59 to 1.29)), and renal biomarkers (blood urea nitrogen (1.01 (0.79 to 1.23)) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (-0.96 (-1.42 to -0.50)). There was heterogeneity for most biomarkers across countries with studies conducted in China generally having larger effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this study provide an early pandemic summary of the relationship between biomarkers and mortality in hospitalized patients. We found our estimated ESs were generally attenuated compared to previous systematic reviews which predominantly included studies conducted in China. Despite using sophisticated methodology to examine studies across countries, heterogeneity in reporting of case-series studies early in the pandemic limits clinical interpretability.

Assessment tools for measurement of dementia-friendliness of a community: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A quantitative assessment of the dementia-friendliness of a community can support planning and evaluation of dementia-friendly community (DFC) initiatives, internal review, and national/international comparisons, encouraging a more systematic and strategic approach to the advancement of DFCs. However, assessment of the dementia-friendliness of a community is not always conducted and continuous improvement and evaluation of the impact of dementia-friendly initiatives are not always undertaken. A dearth of applicable evaluation tools is one reason why there is a lack of quantitative assessments of the dementia-friendliness of communities working on DFC initiatives. PURPOSE: A scoping review was conducted to identify and examine assessment tools that can be used to conduct quantitative assessments of the dementia-friendliness of a community. DESIGN AND METHODS: Peer-reviewed studies related to DFCs were identified through a search of seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, EMCare, HealthSTAR, and AgeLine). Grey literature on DFCs was identified through a search of the World Wide Web and personal communication with community leads in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Characteristics of identified assessment tools were tabulated, and a narrative summary of findings was developed along with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of identified tools. RESULTS: Forty tools that assess DFC features (built environment, dementia awareness and attitudes, and community needs) were identified. None of the identified tools were deemed comprehensive enough for the assessment of community needs of people with dementia.