Implementation of an advance care planning intervention in nursing homes: an international multiple case study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The inability of individuals in the advanced stage of dementia to communicate about preferences in care at the end-of-life poses a challenge for healthcare professionals and family carers. The proven effective Family Carer Decision Support intervention, has been designed to inform family carers about end-of-life care options available to a person living with advanced dementia. The objectives of the mySupport study was to adapt the application of the intervention for use in different countries, assess impact on family satisfaction and decision-making and , and identify costs and supportive conditions for the implementation of the intervention. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multiple case study design was chosen where the nursing home was the case. Nursing homes were enrolled from six countries: Canada, Czech Republic, Italy, Netherlands, Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom. RESULTS: Seventeen cases (nursing homes) participated, with a total of 296 interviews completed including family carers, nursing home staff, and health providers. Five themes relevant to the implementation of the intervention were identified: supportive relationships; committed staff; perceived value of the intervention; the influence of external factors on the nursing home; and resource impact of delivery. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: There is a commonality of facilitators and barriers across countries when introducing practice innovation. A key learning point was the importance of implementation being accompanied with committed and supported nursing home leadership. The nursing home context is dynamic and multiple factors influence implementation at different points of time.

Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT).

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13296529.

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.

Intracranial electrical stimulation of corticolimbic sites modulates arousal in humans.

BACKGROUND: Humans routinely shift their sleepiness and wakefulness levels in response to emotional factors. The diversity of emotional factors that modulates sleep-wake levels suggests that the ascending arousal network may be intimately linked with networks that mediate mood. Indeed, while animal studies have identified select limbic structures that play a role in sleep-wake regulation, the breadth of corticolimbic structures that directly modulates arousal in humans remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether select regional activation of the corticolimbic network through direct electrical stimulation can modulate sleep-wake levels in humans, as measured by subjective experience and behavior. METHODS: We performed intensive inpatient stimulation mapping in two human participants with treatment resistant depression, who underwent intracranial implantation with multi-site, bilateral depth electrodes. Stimulation responses of sleep-wake levels were measured by subjective surveys (i.e. Stanford Sleepiness Scale and visual-analog scale of energy) and a behavioral arousal score. Biomarker analyses of sleep-wake levels were performed by assessing spectral power features of resting-state electrophysiology. RESULTS: Our findings demonstrated three regions whereby direct stimulation modulated arousal, including the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), subgenual cingulate (SGC), and, most robustly, ventral capsule (VC). Modulation of sleep-wake levels was frequency-specific: 100Hz OFC, SGC, and VC stimulation promoted wakefulness, whereas 1Hz OFC stimulation increased sleepiness. Sleep-wake levels were correlated with gamma activity across broad brain regions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence for the overlapping circuitry between arousal and mood regulation in humans. Furthermore, our findings open the door to new treatment targets and the consideration of therapeutic neurostimulation for sleep-wake disorders.

Metabolomics Analysis as a Tool to Measure Cobalt Neurotoxicity: An In Vitro Validation.

In this study, cobalt neurotoxicity was investigated in human astrocytoma and neuroblastoma (SH-SY5Y) cells using proliferation assays coupled with LC-MS-based metabolomics and transcriptomics techniques. Cells were treated with a range of cobalt concentrations between 0 and 200 µM. The 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay revealed cobalt cytotoxicity and decreased cell metabolism in a dose and time-dependent manner was observed by metabolomics analysis, in both cell lines. Metabolomic analysis also revealed several altered metabolites particularly those related to DNA deamination and methylation pathways. One of the increased metabolites was uracil which can be generated from DNA deamination or fragmentation of RNA. To investigate the origin of uracil, genomic DNA was isolated and analyzed by LC-MS. Interestingly, the source of uracil, which is uridine, increased significantly in the DNA of both cell lines. Additionally, the results of the qRT-PCR showed an increase in the expression of five genes Mlh1, Sirt2, MeCP2, UNG, and TDG in both cell lines. These genes are related to DNA strand breakage, hypoxia, methylation, and base excision repair. Overall, metabolomic analysis helped reveal the changes induced by cobalt in human neuronal-derived cell lines. These findings could unravel the effect of cobalt on the human brain.

Implementing a home-based personalised cognitive rehabilitation intervention for people with mild-to-moderate dementia: GREAT into Practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based rehabilitative interventions, if widely implemented, could equip people with dementia and their families to manage life with the condition and reduce the need for health and care services. The aim of this translational study, building on evidence from the GREAT randomised controlled trial, was to develop a foundation for implementing the GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation intervention in community-based services for people with mild-to-moderate dementia. METHODS: Key elements of the implementation strategy were identifying and supporting managerial and clinical leadership, conducting collaborative planning and target-setting, training and supporting practitioners, and providing external facilitation. We developed implementation plans with, and trained staff in, 14 organisations. We subsequently worked closely with 11 of these, 10 National Health Service organisations and one private home care provider, to support practitioners to deliver GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation over a 12-month period. Outcome evaluation examined the perspectives of local steering group members, practitioners and service users, and the reach, effectiveness and cost of the intervention. RESULTS: Implementation was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but six organisations completed at least six months of intervention delivery. Forty-one practitioners, mainly occupational therapists, provided the intervention, and 54 people with dementia completed a course of GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation. Goal attainment by people with dementia exceeded levels of improvement seen in the original trial. People with dementia, carers, practitioners and steering group members all evaluated the intervention positively, and economic analysis indicated that the intervention could be provided at modest cost. However, we identified a range of mainly organisational barriers that impeded implementation and limited the potential for sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: GREAT Cognitive Rehabilitation benefits people with dementia, can be delivered effectively at modest cost in routine services, and is viewed positively by people with dementia, family carers and practitioners. To fully realise these benefits and achieve widespread and sustainable implementation, however, requires sufficient resources and a reorientation of service priorities towards preventive and rehabilitative approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Central Portfolio Management System, registration number 38994.

Are profiles of social, cultural, and economic capital related to living well with dementia? Longitudinal findings from the IDEAL programme.

RATIONALE: Research exploring social, cultural, and economic capital among people with dementia is scarce. OBJECTIVE: We describe levels of social, cultural, and economic capital in people with dementia at baseline and levels of social and cultural capital 12 and 24 months later. We identify groups of people with dementia having different combinations of capital and explore whether the identified groups differ in personal characteristics at baseline and in quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with life (SwL), and well-being over time. METHOD: Baseline, 12-months, and 24-months data from 1537 people with dementia (age, mean = 76.4 years; SD = 8.5; Alzheimer's Disease = 55.4%) enrolled in the IDEAL cohort were analyzed. Social (interactions with friends, civic participation, social participation, neighborhood trust, social network), cultural (education, cultural participation) and economic (annual income) capital, QoL, SwL, well-being, and personal characteristics were assessed. RESULTS: Compared to people their age, people with dementia reported slightly lower frequency of interactions with friends, social networks and social support, civic and cultural participation, education, and annual income. However, social engagement, cultural participation, and annual income are low among British older adults. Latent profile analysis identified four groups that, based on their levels of social, cultural, and economic capital were named socially and economically privileged (18.0% of participants); financially secure (21.0% of participants); low capital (36.9% of participants); and very low capital (24.1% of participants). Latent growth curve models showed that over time QoL, SwL, and well-being remained largely stable for all groups. Compared to the low capital group, the socially and economically privileged and financially secure groups had higher QoL and well-being whereas the group with very low capital had poorer QoL, SwL, and well-being. CONCLUSIONS: New policies and efforts from the government, philanthropic foundations, the voluntary and primary care sectors are needed to address social, cultural, and economic disadvantage among people with dementia.

Implementation of Telemedicine Delivery of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Pennsylvania Treatment Programs During COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: Temporary policy changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic facilitated rapid expansion of medication for opioid use disorder via telemedicine (tele-MOUD). Evidence for tele-MOUD best practices and its impact on treatment engagement and retention remains limited. This quality improvement initiative compared tele-MOUD implementation among Pennsylvania medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) programs, evaluated sociodemographic characteristics of patients using tele-MOUD, and described trends in tele-MOUD use and patient engagement and retention. METHODS: Five health systems with MOUD programs completed questionnaires regarding their tele-MOUD models and provided aggregated sociodemographic data for MOUD patients with in-person and telemedicine visits in 2020. Three programs provided aggregated monthly appointment data (scheduled, completed, no-show, tele-MOUD visits) over the period in which tele-MOUD scaled up. RESULTS: Differences in tele-MOUD protocols related to provision of tele-MOUD inductions, patient eligibility for tele-MOUD, and operationalization of remote drug testing. Across programs, 88% of prescribers conducted tele-MOUD appointments, and 50% of patients used tele-MOUD in 2020. We observed sociodemographic differences, with a greater proportion of female, White, and non-Hispanic patients using tele-MOUD. Across programs with appointment data, overall patient enrollment increased, and new patient enrollment remained relatively constant. Engagement trends suggested a temporary decline in no-show appointments that aligned with the escalation of tele-MOUD in one program. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-MOUD protocol differences indicate a need for research to inform evidence-based guidance. Findings suggest that patients largely remained engaged and retained in MOUD as tele-MOUD was implemented but reveal inequities in tele-MOUD use, highlighting the need for efforts to overcome technology access barriers and avoid exacerbating disparities in MOUD access.

"Living Well" Trajectories Among Family Caregivers of People With Mild-to-Moderate Dementia in the IDEAL Cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Understanding whether and how caregivers' capability to "live well" changes over time, and the factors associated with change, could help target effective caregiver support. METHODS: We analyzed 3 time points (12 months apart) of Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) cohort data from coresident spouse caregivers of community-dwelling individuals who had mild-to-moderate dementia at baseline, using latent growth and growth mixture models. Capability to "live well" was derived from measures of quality of life, well-being, and satisfaction with life. RESULTS: Data from 995 spouse caregivers at Time 1, 780 at Time 2, and 601 at Time 3 were included. The mean "living well" score decreased slightly over time. We identified 3 classes of caregivers: one with higher baseline scores declining slightly over time (Stable; 66.8%), one with low baseline scores remaining stable (Lower Stable; 26.0%), and one with higher baseline scores showing marked decline (Declining; 7.2%). Scores on baseline measures differentiated the Lower Stable, but not the Declining, from the Stable class. Longitudinally, the Declining class was associated with care recipient cognitive decline and increasing hours providing care, as well as caregiver stress and depression. Findings were similar when caregivers with other kin relationships were included. DISCUSSION: The findings indicate the importance of prompt identification of, and support for, caregivers at risk of the declining capability to "live well" and may assist in identifying those caregivers who could benefit most from targeted support.

Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine for agitated behaviors in dementia: findings from a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to placebo over 12-week follow-up. DESIGN: Economic evaluation in a double-blind randomized controlled trial of mirtazapine vs. placebo. SETTING: Community settings and care homes in 26 UK centers. PARTICIPANTS: People with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease and agitation. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome included incremental cost of participants' health and social care per 6-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks. Secondary cost-utility analyses examined participants' and unpaid carers' gain in quality-adjusted life years (derived from EQ-5D-5L, DEMQOL-Proxy-U, and DEMQOL-U) from the health and social care and societal perspectives. RESULTS: One hundred and two participants were allocated to each group; 81 mirtazapine and 90 placebo participants completed a 12-week assessment (87 and 95, respectively, completed a 6-week assessment). Mirtazapine and placebo groups did not differ on mean CMAI scores or health and social care costs over the study period, before or after adjustment for center and living arrangement (independent living/care home). On the primary outcome, neither mirtazapine nor placebo could be considered a cost-effective strategy with a high level of confidence. Groups did not differ in terms of participant self- or proxy-rated or carer self-rated quality of life scores, health and social care or societal costs, before or after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: On cost-effectiveness grounds, the use of mirtazapine cannot be recommended for agitated behaviors in people living with dementia. Effective and cost-effective medications for agitation in dementia remain to be identified in cases where non-pharmacological strategies for managing agitation have been unsuccessful.

Cost-Effectiveness of an Online Intervention for Caregivers of People Living With Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Little evidence exists on costs or cost-effectiveness of online interventions for caregivers of people living with dementia. We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of online cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for dementia caregivers with mild-to-moderate depression/anxiety, with or without telephone support, relative to a psychoeducational control treatment. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study of data from 3-armed randomized controlled trial comparing computerized CBT (cCBT) or telephone-supported cCBT (cCBT+Telephone) to modular online educational program on dementia (Psychoeducation). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: UK-resident adult dementia caregivers with mild-to-moderate anxiety/depression. COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: We calculated health and social care costs, from participant-reported data collected at baseline, 12, 26 weeks, costs of intervention delivery. We examined 3 outcomes: cost of one-point reduction in General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) rating at 26-weeks, cost of prevented "caseness" on GHQ-12 at 26 weeks, and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) based on Short Form-6 Dimensions (SF-6D) over 26 weeks. RESULTS: Data from 176 participants (44 cCBT, 91 cCBT+Telephone, 41 Psychoeducation) were analyzed. Costs did not differ between cCBT and Psychoeducation; costs were £125 higher in cCBT+Telephone. Control and intervention groups did not differ on GHQ-12. Caseness was lower in cCBT+Telephone than Psychoeducation; cost of preventing a case was £610, and probability of cost-effectiveness on this outcome reached 98.5% at willingness to pay (WTP) of £12,900. Mean QALY did not differ between cCBT+Telephone and Psychoeducation. QALY gain in cCBT was 0.01 (95% CI 0.001, 0.021). Cost per QALY was £8130. Although base case probability of cost-effectiveness of cCBT was 93% at WTP-per-QALY of £27,600, sensitivity analyses suggested cCBT+Telephone was the more cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We report preliminary evidence for adopting telephone-supported online CBT. This may be cost-effective in preventing a case of mental health disorder if, absent a societally accepted WTP threshold for this outcome, payers are willing to pay £12,900. Future research should investigate whether supported/unsupported online CBT improves health-related quality of life.

PERFECTED enhanced recovery pathway (PERFECT-ER) versus standard acute hospital care for people after hip fracture surgery who have cognitive impairment: a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Assess feasibility of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to measure clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced recovery pathway for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment (CI). DESIGN: Feasibility trial undertaken between 2016 and 2018. SETTING: Eleven acute hospitals from three UK regions. PARTICIPANTS: 284 participants (208 female:69 male). INCLUSION CRITERIA: aged >60 years, confirmed proximal hip fracture requiring surgical fixation and CI; preoperative AMTS ≤8 in England or a 4AT score ≥1 in Scotland; minimum of 5 days on study ward; a 'suitable informant' able to provide proxy measures, recruited within 7 days of hip fracture surgery. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: no hip surgery; not expected to survive beyond 4 weeks; already enrolled in a clinical trial. INTERVENTION: PERFECT-ER, an enhanced recovery pathway with 15 quality targets supported by a checklist and manual, a service improvement lead a process lead and implemented using a plan-do-study-act model. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility outcomes: recruitment and attrition, intervention acceptability, completion of participant reported outcome measures, preliminary estimates of potential effectiveness using mortality, EQ-5D-5L, economic and clinical outcome scores. RESULTS: 282 participants were consented and recruited (132, intervention) from a target of 400. Mean recruitment rates were the same in intervention and control sites, (range: 1.2 and 2.7 participants/month). Retention was 230 (86%) at 1 month and 54%(144) at 6 months. At 3 months a relatively small effect (one quarter of an SD) was observed on health-related quality of life of the patient measured with EQ-5D-5L proxy in the intervention group. CONCLUSION: This trial design was feasible with modifications to recruitment. Mechanisms for delivering consistency in the PERFECT-ER intervention and participant retention need to be addressed. However, an RCT may be a suboptimal research design to evaluate this intervention due to the complexity of caring for people with CI after hip fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99336264.

Limited receipt of support services among people with mild-to-moderate dementia: Findings from the IDEAL cohort.

BACKGROUND: Global initiatives that promote public health responses to dementia have resulted in numerous countries developing new national policies. Current policy guidelines in England, for example, recommend that people diagnosed with mild-to-moderate dementia receive information and psychosocial interventions to improve their ability to 'live well'. However, it remains unclear to what extent these recommendations are being achieved. METHODS: Self-reported information from 1537 people living with dementia and informant-reported information from 1277 carers of people living with dementia was used to quantify receipt of community-based dementia support services, including health and social care services provided by statutory or voluntary-sector organisations, in Britain from 2014 to 2016. Demographic factors associated with differences in receipt of support services were also investigated to identify particularly vulnerable groups of people living with dementia. RESULTS: Both self- and informant reports suggested that approximately 50% of people living with dementia received support services for dementia. Receipt of support services was lower among people living with dementia who are older, female, and have fewer educational qualifications. Receipt of support services also differed according to diagnosis and carer status, but was unrelated to marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Limited receipt of dementia support services among people living with dementia in Britain provides a baseline to assess the efficacy of current policy guidelines regarding provision of information and support. Targeted efforts to facilitate receipt of support services among the particularly vulnerable groups identified in the current study could improve the efficacy of dementia support services both in Britain and internationally, and should inform policy development.

Longitudinal Trajectories of Quality of Life Among People With Mild-to-Moderate Dementia: A Latent Growth Model Approach With IDEAL Cohort Study Data.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine change over time in self-rated quality of life (QoL) in people with mild-to-moderate dementia and identify subgroups with distinct QoL trajectories. METHODS: We used data from people with mild-to-moderate dementia followed up at 12 and 24 months in the Improving the experience of Dementia and Enhancing Active Life (IDEAL) cohort study (baseline n = 1,537). A latent growth model approach examined mean change over time in QoL, assessed with the QoL-AD scale, and investigated associations of baseline demographic, cognitive, and psychological covariates with the intercept and slope of QoL. We employed growth mixture modeling to identify multiple growth trajectories. RESULTS: Overall mean QoL scores were stable and no associations with change over time were observed. Four classes of QoL trajectories were identified: 2 with higher baseline QoL scores, labeled Stable (74.9%) and Declining (7.6%), and 2 with lower baseline QoL scores, labeled Stable Lower (13.7%) and Improving (3.8%). The Declining class had higher baseline levels of depression and loneliness, and lower levels of self-esteem and optimism, than the Stable class. The Stable Lower class was characterized by disadvantage related to social structure, poor physical health, functional disability, and low psychological well-being. The Improving class was similar to the Stable Lower class but had lower cognitive test scores. DISCUSSION: Understanding individual trajectories can contribute to personalized care planning. Efforts to prevent decline in perceived QoL should primarily target psychological well-being. Efforts to improve QoL for those with poorer QoL should additionally address functional impairment, isolation, and disadvantage related to social structure.

The Use and Costs of Paid and Unpaid Care for People with Dementia: Longitudinal Findings from the IDEAL Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The drivers of costs of care for people with dementia are not well understood and little is known on the costs of care for those with rarer dementias. OBJECTIVE: To characterize use and costs of paid and unpaid care over time in a cohort of people with dementia living in Britain. To explore the relationship between cohort members' demographic and clinical characteristics and service costs. METHODS: We calculated costs of health and social services, unpaid care, and out-of-pocket expenditure for people with mild-to-moderate dementia participating in three waves of the IDEAL cohort (2014-2018). Latent growth curve modelling investigated associations between participants' baseline sociodemographic and diagnostic characteristics and mean weekly service costs. RESULTS: Data were available on use of paid and unpaid care by 1,537 community-dwelling participants with dementia at Wave 1, 1,199 at Wave 2, and 910 at Wave 3. In models of paid service costs, being female was associated with lower baseline costs and living alone was associated with higher baseline costs. Dementia subtype and caregiver status were associated with variations in baseline costs and the rate of change in costs, which was additionally influenced by age. CONCLUSION: Lewy body and Parkinson's disease dementias were associated with higher service costs at the outset, and Lewy body and frontotemporal dementias with more steeply increasing costs overall, than Alzheimer's disease. Planners of dementia services should consider the needs of people with these relatively rare dementia subtypes as they may require more resources than people with more prevalent subtypes.

Developing supportive local communities: Perspectives from people with dementia and caregivers participating in the IDEAL programme.

Communities play an important role in supporting people living with dementia. The aim of this study was to explore what could be changed in the local community to enable those with dementia to live well. People with dementia and carers taking part in the IDEAL programme responded to open-ended questions. Responses from 1,172 people with dementia and 702 caregivers were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: raising awareness, improving access to support services, providing social events and activities, and supporting people to engage in the community. These highlight the role of individuals, resources and the environment in supporting those with dementia. Longer-term investment in services is needed to underpin dementia-inclusive communities.

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Assistive technology and telecare to maintain independent living at home for people with dementia: the ATTILA RCT.

BACKGROUND: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. SETTING: This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview. RESULTS: Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£909, 95% confidence interval -£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group - control group difference: mean -£3545; 95% confidence interval -£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval -0.204 to -0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks. LIMITATIONS: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events. CONCLUSIONS: A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants' health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants' EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. FUTURE WORK: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017. 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. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many people with dementia living at home are recommended assistive technology and telecare to help them remain living safely and independently in the community. These devices are meant to assist and support activities such as taking medication or cooking, or to raise an alert when there is an issue, such as a fire; however, there is currently little evidence to support such claims. This trial investigated whether or not assistive technology and telecare could delay people moving into residential care and keep them any safer than alternatives, and whether or not they were cost-effective. We recruited 495 people with dementia and their unpaid caregivers, who were randomly assigned to receive either a package of assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional or alternative support involving only basic assistive technology and telecare. We monitored the residential status, the use of health-care services and the health and well-being of participants with dementia and their caregivers over a 2-year period. Researchers also spent time with participants to see how they were living with the technology. The trial found no difference in the time that people with dementia with full assistive technology and telecare remained at home, nor any reduction in the number of safety incidents, compared with the participants who received basic assistive technology and telecare only. Full assistive technology and telecare did not increase health and social care costs. It did not improve the well-being of people with dementia or that of their caregivers. People with dementia who had full assistive technology and telecare rated their quality of life poorer than those with basic assistive technology and telecare did, but their caregivers rated their quality of life as about the same as caregivers of people with basic assistive technology and telecare. The technology sometimes averted crises but also disrupted people's everyday lives. These results suggest that assistive technology and telecare for people with dementia provided in real-world conditions may not be as beneficial as previously claimed. The way that assistive technology and telecare services are organised bears further investigation to see how these services could be improved.