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.

Has COVID-19 affected dementia diagnosis rates in England?

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted on the provision of care and routine activity of all National Health Service (NHS) services. While General Practitioner referrals to memory services in England have returned to pre-pandemic levels, the estimated dementia diagnosis rate (DDR) fell by 5.4% between March 2020 and February 2023. METHODS: In this paper we explore whether this reduction is accurate or is an artefact of the way the NHS collects data. RESULTS: We explore the processes that may have affected national dementia diagnosis rates during and following the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: We discuss what action could be taken to improve the DDR in the future.

Free-Cog revisited: the diagnostic contribution of cognitive and executive function.

Aim: To examine Free-Cog, a recently described, hybrid screening instrument, as separate tests of cognitive (Free-Cog-Cog) and executive function (Free-Cog-Exec) to see if this improved screening accuracy for cognitive impairment compared with standard Free-Cog. Materials & methods: Free-Cog-Cog and Free-Cog-Exec were combined using Boolean logical 'AND' and 'OR' operators (serial and parallel combination), and also used to construct a stepwise decision tree. Results: Serial combination improved specificity and positive predictive value whereas parallel combination improved sensitivity, typical findings with these operators. Stepwise application identified groups with high and low probability of cognitive impairment but failed to differentiate adequately those in the intermediate uncertain diagnosis group. Conclusion: Study findings suggest limited benefit from reformulations of Free-Cog compared with the standard instrument.

Dementia and cognitive impairment are common, but how best to identify these conditions remains uncertain. Many instruments which screen cognitive function have been described. Free-Cog is a relatively new screening instrument which tests both cognition and function; impairment in both constructs is required to fulfil agreed definitions of dementia. This study sought to examine whether dissociating the two elements of Free-Cog might produce more accurate screening for dementia and cognitive impairment. The separate tests were combined in series or in parallel, or used to create a decision tree. Examination of these two methods, using the dataset of a previous Free-Cog test accuracy study, suggested some benefits but also some losses compared with standard unitary Free-Cog test.

Investigation of the association between the antibody responses to neurotropic viruses and dementia outcomes in the UK Biobank.

The causes that trigger the onset of dementia are still unknown. Recently there has been an increasing interest in the possible role of infectious agents in the brain in the pathogenesis of this condition. Amongst the viruses, members of the Herpesviridae family, namely herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV1), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus-6 (HHV6), human herpesvirus-7 (HHV7) and varicella zoster virus (VZV) have been suggested as potential causes of the disease. However, the relative importance of these and other viruses in contributing to dementia remains unclear. We evaluated the association between seropositivity status of all viruses available in a large, population-based dataset (the UK Biobank) and dementia risk in an unbiased way. Of the 15 viruses investigated, our results showed a statistically significant increase of dementia risk associated only with HSV1 seropositivity (OR 2.14, 95% C.I. 1.21-3.81). However, by combining the data we found that seropositivity for 4 viruses (HSV1, HHV6, HHV7 and VZV) also significantly increases the risk of dementia (OR = 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.43-3.92). These four viruses have been described previously as neurotropic viruses. Our results provide support for a role for neurotropic viruses in the pathology of dementia.

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.

A suggested shared aetiology of dementia - a colocalization study.

Identification of shared causal genes between dementia and its related clinical outcomes can help understand shared aetiology and multimorbidity surrounding dementia. We performed the HyPrColoc colocalization analysis to detect possible shared causal genes between dementia or Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 5 selected traits: stroke, diabetes, atherosclerosis, cholesterol level, and alcohol consumption within 601 dementia or AD associated genetic regions using summary results of the UK Biobank genome-wide association studies. Functional analysis was performed on the candidate causal genes to explore potential biological pathways. Rs150562240 in the LPIN3 gene was identified as a candidate shared causal variant across dementia, AD and atherosclerosis. Evidence for pairwise colocalization between dementia and stroke, dementia (or AD) and atherosclerosis, and dementia (or AD) and diabetes was found in 2, 6 and 2 genetic regions respectively. Colocalization signals between diabetes and the other 3 non-dementia/AD traits were detected in 5 regions. The colocalization evidence shown in our study suggested shared aetiology between dementia and related diseases such as stroke, atherosclerosis, and diabetes.

A Comparison of Well-Being of Carers of People with Dementia and Their Ability to Manage Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the IDEAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Social restriction measures imposed to curb the spread of COVID-19 in the United Kingdom impacted on carers of people with dementia, limiting access to support services and increasing perceived burden of caring. Few studies have compared data collected both during and before the pandemic to examine the effect of these changes. OBJECTIVE: To explore whether the COVID-19 pandemic affected the well-being of carers of people with dementia living in the community, and their ability to cope with their caring responsibilities. METHODS: Analysis was conducted on two groups of carers who were enrolled in the IDEAL programme; the 'pre-pandemic group' (n = 312), assessed at two time points prior to the pandemic, and the 'pandemic group', assessed prior to and several months into the pandemic (n = 156). For the pre-pandemic group, carers were matched 2:1 to carers in the pandemic group on certain characteristics. Differences in change over time between the two groups on self-reported well-being, quality of life, coping, perceived competence, and role captivity, were investigated using mixed effect modelling. RESULTS: Compared to the pre-pandemic group, those in the pandemic group appeared to cope better and had more stable self-rated competency and role captivity. They did not differ in terms of well-being or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite reports of negative impacts on carers early in the pandemic, the findings suggest the pandemic had little negative longer-term impact on carers of people with dementia, and in fact they appeared to have a more positive attitude towards coping several months into the pandemic.

Minimal Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on the Mental Health and Wellbeing of People Living With Dementia: Analysis of Matched Longitudinal Data From the IDEAL Study.

Objective: Research suggests a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of people with dementia (PwD) during the COVID-19 pandemic; however few studies have compared data collected pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Moreover, none have compared this change with what would be expected due to dementia progression. We explored whether PwD experienced changes in mental health and wellbeing by comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic data, and drew comparisons with another group of PwD questioned on two occasions prior to the pandemic. Methods: Community-dwelling PwD enrolled in the IDEAL programme were split into two groups matched for age group, sex, dementia diagnosis, and time since diagnosis. Although each group was assessed twice, one was assessed prior to and during the pandemic (pandemic group; n = 115) whereas the other was assessed prior to the pandemic (pre-pandemic group; n = 230). PwD completed measures of mood, sense of self, wellbeing, optimism, quality of life, and life satisfaction. Results: Compared to the pre-pandemic group, the pandemic group were less likely to report mood problems, or be pessimistic, but more likely to become dissatisfied with their lives. There were no changes in continuity in sense of self, wellbeing, and quality of life. Discussion: Results suggest the pandemic had little effect on the mental health and wellbeing of PwD, with any changes observed likely to be consistent with expected rates of decline due to dementia. Although personal accounts attest to the challenges experienced, PwD appear to have been resilient to the impact of lockdown and social restrictions during the pandemic.

Impact of COVID-19 on 'Living Well' with Mild-to-Moderate Dementia in the Community: Findings from the IDEAL Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with dementia have been widely-documented, but most studies have relied on carer reports and few have compared responses to information collected before the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the impact of the pandemic on community-dwelling individuals with mild-to-moderate dementia and compare responses with pre-pandemic data. METHODS: During the second wave of the pandemic, we conducted structured telephone interviews with 173 people with dementia and 242 carers acting as informants, all of whom had previously participated in the IDEAL cohort. Where possible, we benchmarked responses against pre-pandemic data. RESULTS: Significant perceived negative impacts were identified in cognitive and functional skills and ability to engage in self-care and manage everyday activities, along with increased levels of loneliness and discontinuity in sense of self and a decline in perceived capability to 'live well'. Compared to pre-pandemic data, there were lower levels of pain, depression, and anxiety, higher levels of optimism, and better satisfaction with family support. There was little impact on physical health, mood, social connections and relationships, or perceptions of neighborhood characteristics. CONCLUSION: Efforts to mitigate negative impacts of pandemic-related restrictions and restore quality of life could focus on reablement to address the effects on participation in everyday activities, creating opportunities for social contact to reduce loneliness, and personalized planning to reconnect people with their pre-COVID selves. Such efforts may build on the resilience demonstrated by people with dementia and carers in coping with the pandemic.

The older prisoner health and social care assessment and plan (OHSCAP) versus treatment as usual: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older people are the fastest-growing demographic group among prisoners in England and Wales and they have complex health and social care needs. Their care is frequently ad hoc and uncoordinated. No previous research has explored how to identify and appropriately address the needs of older adults in prison. We hypothesised that the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) would significantly increase the proportion of met health and social care needs 3 months after prison entry, compared to treatment as usual (TAU). METHODS: The study was a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting male prisoners aged 50 and over from 10 prisons in northern England. Participants received the OHSCAP or TAU. A clinical trials unit used minimisation with a random element as the allocation procedure. Data analysis was conducted blind to allocation status. The intervention group had their needs assessed using the OHSCAP tool and care plans were devised; processes that lasted approximately 30 min in total per prisoner. TAU included the standard prison health assessment and care. The intention to treat principle was followed. The trial was registered with the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (ISRCTN ID: 11841493) and was closed on 30 November 2016. RESULTS: Data were collected between 28 January 2014 and 06 April 2016. Two hundred and forty nine older prisoners were assigned TAU of which 32 transferred prison; 12 were released; 2 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Two hundred and fifty three 3 prisoners were assigned the OHSCAP of which 33 transferred prison; 11 were released; 6 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Consequently, data from 202 participants were analysed in each of the two groups. There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Needs - Forensic Short Version (CANFOR-S). The mean number of unmet needs for the OHSCAP group at follow-up was 2.03 (SD = 2.07) and 2.06 (SD = 2.11) for the TAU group (mean difference = 0.088; 95% CI - 0.276 to 0.449, p = 0.621). No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: The OHSCAP was fundamentally not implemented as planned, partly due to the national prison staffing crisis that ensued during the study period. Therefore, those receiving the OHSCAP did not experience improved outcomes compared to those who received TAU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11841493 , 25/10/2012.

Factors associated with shorter length of admission among people with dementia in England and Wales: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify aspects of the organisation and delivery of acute inpatient services for people with dementia that are associated with shorter length of hospital stay. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to 200 general hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 10 106 people with dementia who took part in the third round of National Audit of Dementia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Length of admission to hospital. RESULTS: The median length of stay was 12 days (IQR=6-23 days). People with dementia spent less time in hospital when discharge planning was initiated within 24 hours of admission (estimated effect -0.24, 95% CI: -0.29 to -0.18, p<0.001). People from ethnic minorities had shorter length of stay (difference -0.066, 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.002, p=0.043). Patients with documented evidence of discussions having taken place between their carers and medical staff spent longer in hospital (difference 0.26, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.32, p<0.001). These associations held true in a subsample of 669 patients admitted with hip fracture and data from 74 hospitals with above average carer-rated quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: The way that services for inpatients with dementia are delivered can influence how long they spend in hospital. Initiating discharge planning within the first 24 hours of admission may help reduce the amount of time that people with dementia spend in hospital.

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.

Shingles, Zostavax vaccination and risk of developing dementia: a nested case-control study-results from the UK Biobank cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between shingles and dementia, and between Zostavax vaccination and dementia. DESIGN: Nested case-control study. SETTINGS: Data were drawn from the UK Biobank cohort study with a total of 228 223 participants with Hospital Episodes Statistics and primary care linkage health records. PARTICIPANTS: The analyses included 2378 incident dementia cases and 225 845 controls. Inclusion criteria for incident cases were a dementia diagnosis 3 years or more after the first assessment date derived from all sources including International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, ICD-9, self-report and primary care linkage records. Subjects with no dementia code from all sources were coded as controls. Both shingles and Zostavax vaccination were investigated for their association with dementia risk. RESULTS: There was a small but non-significant increase in the risk of dementia in subjects with shingles diagnosed 3 years or more prior to dementia diagnosis (OR: 1.088 with 95% CI: 0.978 to 1.211). In those subjects who had had Zostavax vaccination, the risk of dementia significantly decreased (OR: 0.808 with 95% CI: 0.657 to 0.993). CONCLUSION: A history of shingles was not associated with an increased risk of dementia. In subjects who were eligible for the immunisation and vaccinated with Zostavax, we saw reduced risk of developing dementia.

Dementia wellbeing and COVID-19: Review and expert consensus on current research and knowledge gaps.

OBJECTIVES: In response to a commissioned research update on dementia during the COVID-19 pandemic, a UK-based working group, comprising dementia researchers from a range of fields and disciplines, aimed to describe the impact of the pandemic on dementia wellbeing and identify priorities for future research. METHODS: We supplemented a rapid literature search (including unpublished, non-peer reviewed and ongoing studies/reports) on dementia wellbeing in the context of COVID-19 with expert group members' consensus about future research needs. From this we generated potential research questions the group judged to be relevant that were not covered by the existing literature. RESULTS: Themes emerged from 141 studies within the six domains of the NHS England COVID-19 Dementia Wellbeing Pathway: Preventing Well, Diagnosing Well, Treating Well, Supporting Well, Living Well and Dying Well. We describe current research findings and knowledge gaps relating to the impact on people affected by dementia (individuals with a diagnosis, their carers and social contacts, health and social care practitioners and volunteers), services, research activities and organisations. Broad themes included the potential benefits and risks of new models of working including remote healthcare, the need for population-representative longitudinal studies to monitor longer-term impacts, and the importance of reporting dementia-related findings within broader health and care studies. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately negative impact on people affected by dementia. Researchers and funding organisations have responded rapidly to try to understand the impacts. Future research should highlight and resolve outstanding questions to develop evidence-based measures to improve the quality of life of people affected by dementia.

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.

COVID-19 and dementia: experience from six European countries.

The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been well documented across the world with an appreciation that older people and in particular those with dementia have been disproportionately and negatively affected by the pandemic. This is both in terms of their health outcomes (mortality and morbidity), care decisions made by health systems and the longer-term effects such as neurological damage. The International Dementia Alliance is a group of dementia specialists from six European countries and this paper is a summary of our experience of the effects of COVID-19 on our populations. Experience from England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland highlight the differential response from health and social care systems and the measures taken to maximise support for older people and those with dementia. The common themes include recognition of the atypical presentation of COVID-19 in older people (and those with dementia) need to pay particular attention to the care of people with dementia in care homes; the recognition of the toll that isolation can bring on older people and the complexity of the response by health and social services to minimise the negative impact of the pandemic. Potential new ways of working identified during the pandemic could serve as a positive legacy from the crisis.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of assistive technology and telecare for independent living in dementia: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The use of assistive technology and telecare (ATT) has been promoted to manage risks associated with independent living in people with dementia but with little evidence for effectiveness. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned to receive an ATT assessment followed by installation of all appropriate ATT devices or limited control of appropriate ATT. The primary outcomes were time to institutionalisation and cost-effectiveness. Key secondary outcomes were number of incidents involving risks to safety, burden and stress in family caregivers and quality of life. RESULTS: Participants were assigned to receive full ATT (248 participants) or the limited control (247 participants). After adjusting for baseline imbalance of activities of daily living score, HR for median pre-institutionalisation survival was 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.20. There were no significant differences between arms in health and social care (mean -£909; 95% CI, -£5,336 to £3,345, P = 0.678) and societal costs (mean -£3,545; 95% CI, -£13,914 to £6,581, P = 0.499). ATT group members had reduced participant-rated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 104 weeks (mean - 0.105; 95% CI, -0.204 to -0.007, P = 0.037) but did not differ in QALYs derived from proxy-reported EQ-5D. DISCUSSION: Fidelity of the intervention was low in terms of matching ATT assessment, recommendations and installation. This, however, reflects current practice within adult social care in England. CONCLUSIONS: Time living independently outside a care home was not significantly longer in participants who received full ATT and ATT was not cost-effective. Participants with full ATT attained fewer QALYs based on participant-reported EQ-5D than controls at 104 weeks.

A novel hybrid scale for the assessment of cognitive and executive function: The Free-Cog.

BACKGROUND: Scales measuring cognitive and executive functions are integral to the assessment and management of patients with suspected cognitive impairment. Some of the most commonly used cognitive tests are now subject to copyright restrictions. Furthermore, no existing scale assesses both executive and cognitive abilities. AIMS: We aimed to develop and validate a novel hybrid scale for use in clinical practice which integrate measures of cognition and executive abilities ('Free-Cog'). METHODS: The instrument was devised through a national collaboration including health professionals, those with lived experience of dementia and researchers. Following ethics committee approval, the Free-Cog was assessed in 25 real-world clinical settings across England, Wales and Scotland. It was compared to three other cognitive tests routinely administered in clinical practice: the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA), and the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE). RESULTS: The Free-Cog was tested in 960 patients with clinical diagnoses of dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and normal controls. Similar to the MMSE, MOCA and ACE, it discriminated well between the three groups (p < 0.001). It correlated well with the other instruments. Using a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, Free-Cog achieved an Area Under Curve of 0.94 for dementia versus controls, 0.80 for MCI versus controls and 0.77 for dementia versus MCI. A version of the tool adapted for telephone consultation, the Tele Free-Cog, also discriminated well between patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Free-Cog is a non-proprietary, empirically derived, concise assessment. Uniquely, it combines cognitive and executive function questions in the one instrument. It could be used to inform the assessment of people presenting with cognitive impairment and is available to anyone interested in trialling it.