Anticholinergic deprescribing interventions for reducing risk of cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with and without prior cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergics are medications that block the action of acetylcholine in the central or peripheral nervous system. Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden. A high anticholinergic burden may cause cognitive impairment in people who are otherwise cognitively healthy, or cause further cognitive decline in people with pre-existing cognitive problems. Reducing anticholinergic burden through deprescribing interventions may help to prevent onset of cognitive impairment or slow the rate of cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To assess the efficacy and safety of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in cognitively healthy older adults and older adults with pre-existing cognitive issues. Secondary Objectives • To compare the effectiveness of different types of reduction interventions (e.g. pharmacist-led versus general practitioner-led, educational versus audit and feedback) for reducing overall anticholinergic burden. • To establish optimal duration of anticholinergic reduction interventions, sustainability, and lessons learnt for upscaling • To compare results according to differing anticholinergic scales used in medication reduction intervention trials • To assess the efficacy of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving other clinical outcomes, including mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, and neurobehavioral outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL on 22 December 2022, and we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases from inception to 1 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people and that investigated cognitive outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we summarised them narratively. We used GRADE methods to rate our confidence in the review results. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with a total of 299 participants. All three trials were conducted in a cognitively mixed population (some cognitively healthy participants, some participants with dementia). Outcomes were assessed after one to three months. One trial reported significantly improved performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) in the intervention group (treatment difference 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.30), although there was no difference between the groups in the proportion of participants with reduced anticholinergic burden. Two trials successfully reduced anticholinergic burden in the intervention group. Of these, one reported no significant difference between the intervention versus control in terms of their effect on cognitive performance measured by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) immediate recall (mean between-group difference 0.54, 95% CI -0.91 to 2.05), CERAD delayed recall (mean between-group difference -0.23, 95% CI-0.85 to 0.38), CERAD recognition (mean between-group difference 0.77, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.94), and Mini-Mental State Examination (mean between-group difference 0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 1.75). The other trial reported a significant correlation between anticholinergic burden and a test of working memory after the intervention (which suggested reducing the burden improved performance), but reported no effect on multiple other cognitive measures. In GRADE terms, the results were of very low certainty. There were no reported between-group differences for any other clinical outcome we investigated. It was not possible to investigate differences according to type of reduction intervention or type of anticholinergic scale, to measure the sustainability of interventions, or to establish lessons learnt for upscaling. No trials investigated safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions on the effects of anticholinergic burden reduction interventions on cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without prior cognitive impairment. The evidence from RCTs was of very low certainty so cannot support or refute the hypothesis that actively reducing or stopping prescription of medications with anticholinergic properties can improve cognitive outcomes in older people. There is no evidence from RCTs that anticholinergic burden reduction interventions improve other clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, or neurobehavioral outcomes. Larger RCTs investigating long-term outcomes are needed. Future RCTs should also investigate potential benefits of anticholinergic reduction interventions in cognitively healthy populations and cognitively impaired populations separately.

Anticholinergic burden for prediction of cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric symptoms in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults with a pre-existing diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that a high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in people with dementia. Neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most frequent complication of dementia that require hospitalisation, accounting for almost half of admissions; hence, identification of modifiable prognostic factors for these outcomes is crucial. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, was a prognostic factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether anticholinergic burden was a prognostic factor for other adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, impaired physical function, and institutionalisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched these databases from inception to 29 November 2021: MEDLINE OvidSP, Embase OvidSP, PsycINFO OvidSP, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection on ISI Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies, with a minimum of one-month follow-up, which examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and the above stated adverse clinical outcomes, in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment. We summarised risk associations between anticholinergic burden and all clinical outcomes in a narrative fashion. We also evaluated the risk association between anticholinergic burden and mortality using a random-effects meta-analysis.  We established adjusted pooled rates for the anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria (102,684 older adults). Anticholinergic burden was measured using five distinct measurement scales: 12 studies used the ACB scale; 3 studies used the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) Scale; and 2 studies used a list developed by Tune and Egeli.  Risk associations between anticholinergic burden and adverse clinical outcomes were highly heterogenous. Four out of 10 (40%) studies reported a significantly increased risk of greater long-term cognitive decline for participants with an anticholinergic burden compared to participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No studies investigated neuropsychiatric disturbance outcomes. One out of four studies (25%) reported a significant association with reduced physical function for participants with an anticholinergic burden versus participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No study (out of one investigating study) reported a significant association between anticholinergic burden and risk of institutionalisation. Six out of 10 studies (60%) found a significantly increased risk of mortality for those with an anticholinergic burden compared to those with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. Pooled analysis of adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) measured anticholinergic burden with the ACB scale, and suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high ACB score relative to those with no or minimal ACB scores (HR 1.153, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030 to 1.292; 4 studies, 48,663 participants). An exploratory pooled analysis of adjusted mortality HRs across anticholinergic burden scales also suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high anticholinergic burden (HR 1.102, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.163; 6 studies, 68,381 participants).   Overall GRADE evaluation of results found low- or very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have a significant anticholinergic burden may be at increased risk of death. No firm conclusions can be drawn for risk of accelerated cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric disturbances, decline in physical function, or institutionalisation.

Diagnostic test accuracy of telehealth assessment for dementia and mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Many millions of people living with dementia around the world are not diagnosed, which has a negative impact both on their access to care and treatment and on rational service planning. Telehealth - the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to provide health services at a distance - may be a way to increase access to specialist assessment for people with suspected dementia, especially those living in remote or rural areas. It has also been much used during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to know whether diagnoses made using telehealth assessment are as accurate as those made in conventional, face-to-face clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: to assess the diagnostic accuracy of telehealth assessment for dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Secondary objectives: to identify the quality and quantity of the relevant research evidence; to identify sources of heterogeneity in the test accuracy data; to identify and synthesise any data on patient or clinician satisfaction, resource use, costs or feasibility of the telehealth assessment models in the included studies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases and clinical trial registers on 4 November 2020 for published and 'grey' literature and registered trials. We applied no search filters and no language restrictions. We screened the retrieved citations in duplicate and assessed in duplicate the full texts of papers considered potentially relevant. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included in the review cross-sectional studies with 10 or more participants who had been referred to a specialist service for assessment of a suspected cognitive disorder. Within a period of one month or less, each participant had to undergo two clinical assessments designed to diagnose dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI): a telehealth assessment (the index test) and a conventional face-to-face assessment (the reference standard). The telehealth assessment could be informed by some data collected face-to-face, e.g. by nurses working in primary care, but all contact between the patient and the specialist clinician responsible for synthesising the information and making the diagnosis had to take place remotely using ICT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies. Data extracted covered study design, setting, participants, details of index test and reference standard, and results in the form of numbers of participants given diagnoses of dementia or MCI. Data were also sought on dementia subtype diagnoses and on quantitative measures of patient or clinician satisfaction, resource use, costs and feasibility. We assessed risk of bias and applicability of each included study using QUADAS-2. We entered the results into 2x2 tables in order to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of telehealth assessment for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia, MCI, and any cognitive syndrome (combining dementia and MCI). We presented the results of included studies narratively because there were too few studies to derive summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies with 136 participants were eligible for inclusion. Two studies (20 and 100 participants) took place in community settings in Australia and one study (16 participants) was conducted in veterans' homes in the USA. Participants were referred from primary care with undiagnosed cognitive symptoms or were identified as being at high risk of having dementia on a screening test in the care homes. Dementia and MCI were target conditions in the larger study; the other studies targeted dementia diagnosis only. Only one small study used a 'pure' telehealth model, i.e. not involving any elements of face-to-face assessment. The studies were generally well-conducted. We considered two studies to be at high risk of incorporation bias because a substantial amount of information collected face-to-face by nurses was used to inform both index test and reference standard assessments. One study was at unclear risk of selection bias. For the diagnosis of all-cause dementia, sensitivity of telehealth assessment ranged from 0.80 to 1.00 and specificity from 0.80 to 1.00. We considered this to be very low-certainty evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency between studies and risk of bias. For the diagnosis of MCI, data were available from only one study (100 participants) giving a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.84) and a specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.84). We considered this to be low-certainty evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias. For diagnosis of any cognitive syndrome (dementia or MCI), data from the same study gave a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.99) and a specificity of 0.22 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.60). The majority of diagnostic disagreements concerned the distinction between MCI and dementia, occurring approximately equally in either direction. There was also a tendency for patients identified as cognitively healthy at face-to-face assessment to be diagnosed with MCI at telehealth assessment (but numbers were small). There were insufficient data to make any assessment of the accuracy of dementia subtype diagnosis. One study provided a small amount of data indicating a good level of clinician and especially patient satisfaction with the telehealth model. There were no data on resource use, costs or feasibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found only very few eligible studies with a small number of participants. An important difference between the studies providing data for the analyses was whether the target condition was dementia only (two studies) or dementia and MCI (one study). The data suggest that telehealth assessment may be highly sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of all-cause dementia when assessed against a reference standard of conventional face-to-face assessment, but the estimates are imprecise due to small sample sizes and between-study heterogeneity, and may apply mainly to telehealth models which incorporate a considerable amount of face-to-face contact with healthcare professionals other than the doctor responsible for making the diagnosis. For the diagnosis of MCI by telehealth assessment, best estimates of both sensitivity and specificity were somewhat lower, but were based on a single study. Errors occurred at the cognitively healthy/MCI and the MCI/dementia boundaries. However, there is no evidence that diagnostic disagreements were more frequent than would be expected due to the known variation between clinicians' opinions when assigning a dementia diagnosis.

Anticholinergic burden (prognostic factor) for prediction of dementia or cognitive decline in older adults with no known cognitive syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the 'anticholinergic burden' because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for development of cognitive decline or dementia. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 24 March 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies with a minimum of one year' follow-up that examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and GRADE assessment. We extracted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and linear data on the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive decline or dementia. We intended to pool each metric separately; however, only OR-based data were suitable for pooling via a random-effects meta-analysis. We initially established adjusted and unadjusted pooled rates for each available anticholinergic scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales. We examined variability based on severity of anticholinergic burden. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria (968,428 older adults). Twenty studies were conducted in the community care setting, two in primary care clinics, and three in secondary care settings. Eight studies (320,906 participants) provided suitable data for meta-analysis. The Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale (ACB scale) was the only scale with sufficient data for 'scale-based' meta-analysis. Unadjusted ORs suggested an increased risk for cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with an anticholinergic burden (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96) and adjusted ORs similarly suggested an increased risk for anticholinergic burden, defined according to the ACB scale (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.29). Exploratory analysis combining adjusted ORs across available scales supported these results (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.38), and there was evidence of variability in risk based on severity of anticholinergic burden (ACB scale 1: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29; ACB scale 2: OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.56; ACB scale 3: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.61); however, overall GRADE evaluation of certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults without cognitive impairment who take medications with anticholinergic effects may be at increased risk of cognitive decline or dementia.

ANTECEDENTES: A los adultos mayores se les prescriben con frecuencia fármacos con propiedades anticolinérgicas. El efecto anticolinérgico acumulado de todos los fármacos que toma una persona se denomina "carga anticolinérgica" por su potencial para causar efectos adversos. Es posible que una alta carga anticolinérgica sea un factor de riesgo para la aparición de un deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. Existen varias escalas para medir la carga anticolinérgica, pero la concordancia entre ellas suele ser mala. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar si la carga anticolinérgica, definida a nivel de cada escala individual, es un factor pronóstico de un futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos desde su creación hasta el 24 de marzo de 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) e ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios observacionales de cohortes y de casos y controles longitudinales prospectivos y retrospectivos con un seguimiento mínimo de un año, que examinaron la asociación entre una escala de medición de la carga anticolinérgica y el futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron los estudios para su inclusión y realizaron la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo y la evaluación GRADE. Se extrajeron los odds ratios (OR) y los cociente de riesgos instantáneos, con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%, y los datos lineales sobre la asociación entre la carga anticolinérgica y el deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. La intención fue agrupar cada métrica por separado; sin embargo, sólo los datos basados en el OR fueron aptos para agruparlos mediante un metanálisis de efectos aleatorios. Inicialmente se establecieron las tasas agrupadas ajustadas y no ajustadas para cada escala anticolinérgica disponible; luego, como un análisis exploratorio, se establecieron las tasas agrupadas sobre la asociación predeterminada entre las escalas. Se examinó la variabilidad según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 25 estudios que cumplían los criterios de inclusión (968 428 adultos mayores). Veinte estudios se realizaron en ámbitos de atención comunitaria, dos en centros de atención primaria y tres en ámbitos de atención secundaria. Ocho estudios (320 906 participantes) proporcionaron datos adecuados para el metanálisis. La escala Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (escala ACB) fue la única escala con datos suficientes para un metanálisis "basado en la escala". Los OR no ajustados indicaron un aumento en el riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia en los adultos mayores con sobrecarga anticolinérgica (OR 1,47; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 1,96) y los OR ajustados indicaron igualmente un aumento en el riesgo de sobrecarga anticolinérgica, definida según la escala ACB (OR 2,63; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 6,29). El análisis exploratorio que combina los OR ajustados entre las escalas disponibles apoyó estos resultados (OR 2,16; IC del 95%: 1,38 a 3,38) y hubo evidencia de variabilidad en el riesgo según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica (1 en escala ACB): OR 2,18; IC del 95%: 1,11 a 4,29; 2 en escala ACB: OR 2,71; IC del 95%: 2,01 a 3,56; 3 en escala ACB: OR 3,27; IC del 95%: 1,41 a 7,61); sin embargo, la evaluación global de la certeza de la evidencia con el método GRADE fue baja. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza baja de que los adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo que toman fármacos con efectos anticolinérgicos podrían tener un mayor riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia.

Interrater agreement in dementia diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Dementia remains a clinical diagnosis with a degree of subjective assessment and potential for interrater disagreement. We described interrater agreement of clinical dementia diagnosis for various diagnostic criteria. METHODS: We conducted a PROSPERO-registered (CRD42020168245) systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched multiple cross-disciplinary databases from inception until April 2020 for relevant papers, extracted data and described study quality in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. We used random-effects models to obtain summary estimates of interrater agreement using kappa and, where possible, Gwet's AC1/2 coefficients. RESULTS: We found 7577 titles and 22 eligible studies. Meta-analysis was possible for all-cause dementia using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders third edition revised (DSM-III-R) criteria (kappa = 0.66, 95% CI = [0.53,0.78]), Alzheimer's disease using the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria (kappa = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.65,0.77] for presence/absence and AC2 = 0.61, 95% CI = [0.53,0.70] when distinguishing probable/possible cases), and vascular dementia using the International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) criteria kappa = 0.79 (95% CI = [0.70,0.87]). Data was more limited for other criteria and dementia types. AC1/2 coefficients generally indicated higher agreement. One study was rated as high quality. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic criteria for clinical dementia may have good but imperfect agreement. This has important implications for clinical practice and research studies, which frequently assume these criteria are perfect tests, such as diagnostic test accuracy studies frequently conducted for biomarkers and neuropsychological tests, and for trials where incident dementia is the outcome.

Remotely delivered information, training and support for informal caregivers of people with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Many people with dementia are cared for at home by unpaid informal caregivers, usually family members. Caregivers may experience a range of physical, emotional, financial and social harms, which are often described collectively as caregiver burden. The degree of burden experienced is associated with characteristics of the caregiver, such as gender, and characteristics of the person with dementia, such as dementia stage, and the presence of behavioural problems or neuropsychiatric disturbances. It is a strong predictor of admission to residential care for people with dementia. Psychoeducational interventions might prevent or reduce caregiver burden. Overall, they are intended to improve caregivers' knowledge about the disease and its care; to increase caregivers' sense of competence and their ability to cope with difficult situations; to relieve feelings of isolation and allow caregivers to attend to their own emotional and physical needs. These interventions are heterogeneous, varying in their theoretical framework, components, and delivery formats. Interventions that are delivered remotely, using printed materials, telephone or video technologies, may be particularly suitable for caregivers who have difficulty accessing face-to-face services because of their own health problems, poor access to transport, or absence of substitute care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, containment measures in many countries required people to be isolated in their homes, including people with dementia and their family carers. In such circumstances, there is no alternative to remote delivery of interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and acceptability of remotely delivered interventions aiming to reduce burden and improve mood and quality of life of informal caregivers of people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE, Embase and four other databases, as well as two international trials registries, on 10 April 2020. We also examined the bibliographies of relevant review papers and published trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials that assessed the remote delivery of structured interventions for informal caregivers who were providing care for people with dementia living at home. Caregivers had to be unpaid adults (relatives or members of the person's community). The interventions could be delivered using printed materials, the telephone, the Internet or a mixture of these, but could not involve any face-to-face contact with professionals. We categorised intervention components as information, training or support. Information interventions included two key elements: (i) they provided standardised information, and (ii) the caregiver played a passive role. Support interventions promoted interaction with other people (professionals or peers). Training interventions trained caregivers in practical skills to manage care. We excluded interventions that were primarily individual psychotherapy. Our primary outcomes were caregiver burden, mood, health-related quality of life and dropout for any reason. Secondary outcomes were caregiver knowledge and skills, use of health and social care resources, admission of the person with dementia to institutional care, and quality of life of the person with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias in included studies were done independently by two review authors. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to describe the interventions. We conducted meta-analyses using a random-effects model to derive estimates of effect size. We used GRADE methods to describe our degree of certainty about effect estimates. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies in this review (2367 participants). We compared (1) interventions involving training, support or both, with or without information (experimental interventions) with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control (12 studies, 944 participants); and (2) the same experimental interventions with provision of information alone (14 studies, 1423 participants). We downgraded evidence for study limitations and, for some outcomes, for inconsistency between studies. There was a frequent risk of bias from self-rating of subjective outcomes by participants who were not blind to the intervention. Randomisation methods were not always well-reported and there was potential for attrition bias in some studies. Therefore, all evidence was of moderate or low certainty. In the comparison of experimental interventions with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control, we found that the experimental interventions probably have little or no effect on caregiver burden (nine studies, 597 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to 0.23); depressive symptoms (eight studies, 638 participants; SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.12); or health-related quality of life (two studies, 311 participants; SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.32). The experimental interventions probably result in little or no difference in dropout for any reason (eight studies, 661 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.53). In the comparison of experimental interventions with a control condition of information alone, we found that experimental interventions may result in a slight reduction in caregiver burden (nine studies, 650 participants; SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.04); probably result in a slight improvement in depressive symptoms (11 studies, 1100 participants; SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.06); may result in little or no difference in caregiver health-related quality of life (two studies, 257 participants; SMD -0.03, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.21); and probably result in an increase in dropouts for any reason (12 studies, 1266 participants; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.20). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Remotely delivered interventions including support, training or both, with or without information, may slightly reduce caregiver burden and improve caregiver depressive symptoms when compared with provision of information alone, but not when compared with usual treatment, waiting list or attention control. They seem to make little or no difference to health-related quality of life. Caregivers receiving training or support were more likely than those receiving information alone to drop out of the studies, which might limit applicability. The efficacy of these interventions may depend on the nature and availability of usual services in the study settings.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchas personas con demencia son atendidas en casa por cuidadores informales no remunerados, generalmente miembros de la familia. Los cuidadores pueden sufrir una serie de efectos perjudiciales físicos, emocionales, económicos y sociales, que a menudo se describen colectivamente como una carga para el cuidador. El grado de carga que se experimenta está asociado con las características del cuidador, como el género, y con las características de la persona con demencia, como la etapa de la demencia, y la presencia de problemas de comportamiento o trastornos neuropsiquiátricos. Es un fuerte predictor del ingreso en una residencia para personas con demencia. Las intervenciones psicoeducativas pueden prevenir o reducir la carga del cuidador. En general, tienen como objetivo mejorar los conocimientos de los cuidadores sobre la enfermedad y su cuidado; aumentar el sentido de competencia de los cuidadores y su capacidad para afrontar situaciones difíciles; aliviar los sentimientos de aislamiento y permitir que los cuidadores atiendan sus propias necesidades emocionales y físicas. Estas intervenciones son heterogéneas y varían en su marco teórico, sus componentes y sus formatos de administración. Las intervenciones que se realizan a distancia, utilizando material impreso, el teléfono o las tecnologías de vídeo, pueden ser particularmente adecuadas para los cuidadores que tienen dificultades para acceder a los servicios de forma presencial debido a sus propios problemas de salud, al escaso acceso al transporte o a la falta de un cuidado alternativo. Durante la pandemia de covid­19, las medidas de contención en muchos países exigían que las personas estuvieran aisladas en sus hogares, incluidas las personas con demencia y sus familiares cuidadores. En tales circunstancias, no hay alternativa a la realización de intervenciones a distancia. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia y la aceptabilidad de las intervenciones realizadas a distancia con el fin de reducir la carga y mejorar el estado de ánimo y la calidad de vida de los cuidadores informales de personas con demencia. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: El 10 de abril de 2020 se realizaron búsquedas en el Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Demencia y trastornos cognitivos (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group), MEDLINE, Embase y otras cuatro bases de datos, así como en dos registros internacionales de ensayos. También se examinaron las bibliografías de documentos de revisión pertinentes y de ensayos publicados. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Sólo se incluyeron los ensayos controlados aleatorizados que evaluaron la administración a distancia de intervenciones estructuradas para los cuidadores informales que atendían a personas con demencia que vivían en el domicilio. Los cuidadores debían ser adultos no remunerados (parientes o miembros de la comunidad de la persona). Las intervenciones se podían realizar utilizando materiales impresos, el teléfono, la internet o una mezcla de estos, pero no podían implicar un contacto presencial con profesionales. Los componentes de la intervención se clasificaron como información, formación o apoyo. Las intervenciones de información incluyeron dos elementos clave: i) proporcionaron información estandarizada, y ii) el cuidador desempeñaba un papel pasivo. Las intervenciones de apoyo promovieron la interacción con otras personas (profesionales o iguales). Las intervenciones de formación entrenaron a los cuidadores en habilidades prácticas para proporcionar la atención. Se excluyeron las intervenciones que consistieron principalmente en psicoterapia individual. Los desenlaces principales fueron la carga del cuidador, el estado de ánimo, la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud y el abandono por cualquier motivo. Los desenlaces secundarios fueron los conocimientos y aptitudes de los cuidadores, la utilización de los recursos de atención sanitaria y social, el ingreso de la persona con demencia en una institución y la calidad de vida de la persona con demencia. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión realizaron de forma independiente la selección de los estudios, la extracción de los datos y la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo de los estudios incluidos. Se utilizó la Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) para describir las intervenciones. Los metanálisis se realizaron mediante un modelo de efectos aleatorios para obtener las estimaciones del tamaño del efecto. Se utilizaron los métodos GRADE para describir el grado de certeza sobre las estimaciones del efecto. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: En esta revisión se incluyeron 26 estudios (2367 participantes). Se compararon (1) las intervenciones que incluyeron formación, apoyo o ambos, con o sin información (intervenciones experimentales) con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención (12 estudios, 944 participantes); y (2) las mismas intervenciones experimentales con el suministro de información solamente (14 estudios, 1423 participantes). La calidad de la evidencia se redujo por las limitaciones de los estudios y, en el caso de algunos desenlaces, por la falta de consistencia entre los estudios. Hubo un riesgo frecuente de sesgo debido a la autocalificación de los desenlaces subjetivos por parte de participantes que no estaban cegados a la intervención. Los métodos de asignación al azar no siempre se informaron bien y hubo un posible sesgo de desgaste en algunos estudios. Por lo tanto, toda la evidencia fue de certeza moderada o baja. En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales probablemente tienen poco o ningún efecto sobre la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 597 participantes; diferencia de medias estandarizada [DME] ­0,06; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: ­0,35 a 0,23); los síntomas depresivos (ocho estudios, 638 participantes; DME ­0,05; IC del 95%: ­0,22 a 0,12) o la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (dos estudios, 311 participantes; DME 0,10; IC del 95%: ­0,13 a 0,32). Las intervenciones experimentales probablemente dan lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el abandono por cualquier motivo (ocho estudios, 661 participantes; razón de riesgos [RR] 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,87 a 1,53). En la comparación de las intervenciones experimentales con una condición control de información sola, se encontró que las intervenciones experimentales pueden dar lugar a una leve reducción de la carga del cuidador (nueve estudios, 650 participantes; DME ­0,24; IC del 95%: ­0,51 a 0,04); probablemente dan lugar a una leve mejoría de los síntomas depresivos (11 estudios, 1100 participantes; DME ­0,25; IC del 95%: ­0,43 a ­0,06); podrían dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los cuidadores (dos estudios, 257 participantes; DME ­0,03; IC del 95%: ­0,28 a 0,21); y probablemente dé lugar a un aumento de los abandonos por cualquier motivo (12 estudios, 1266 participantes; RR 1,51; IC del 95%: 1,04 a 2,20). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Las intervenciones realizadas a distancia, como el apoyo, la formación o ambas, con o sin información, podrían reducir ligeramente la carga del cuidador y mejorar los síntomas depresivos del cuidador en comparación con el suministro de información únicamente, pero no en comparación con el tratamiento habitual, una lista de espera o el control de la atención. Parecen dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud. Los cuidadores que recibieron formación o apoyo tuvieron más probabilidades de abandonar los estudios que los que recibieron sólo información, lo que podría limitar la aplicabilidad. La eficacia de esas intervenciones puede depender de la naturaleza y la disponibilidad de los servicios habituales en los ámbitos de estudio.

Pharmacotherapies for sleep disturbances in dementia.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances, including reduced nocturnal sleep time, sleep fragmentation, nocturnal wandering, and daytime sleepiness are common clinical problems in dementia, and are associated with significant carer distress, increased healthcare costs, and institutionalisation. Although non-drug interventions are recommended as the first-line approach to managing these problems, drug treatment is often sought and used. However, there is significant uncertainty about the efficacy and adverse effects of the various hypnotic drugs in this clinically vulnerable population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects, including common adverse effects, of any drug treatment versus placebo for sleep disorders in people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 19 February 2020, using the terms: sleep, insomnia, circadian, hypersomnia, parasomnia, somnolence, rest-activity, and sundowning. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a drug with placebo, and that had the primary aim of improving sleep in people with dementia who had an identified sleep disturbance at baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data on study design, risk of bias, and results. We used the mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect, and where possible, synthesised results using a fixed-effect model. Key outcomes to be included in our summary tables were chosen with the help of a panel of carers. We used GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We found nine eligible RCTs investigating: melatonin (5 studies, n = 222, five studies, but only two yielded data on our primary sleep outcomes suitable for meta-analysis), the sedative antidepressant trazodone (1 study, n = 30), the melatonin-receptor agonist ramelteon (1 study, n = 74, no peer-reviewed publication), and the orexin antagonists suvorexant and lemborexant (2 studies, n = 323). Participants in the trazodone study and most participants in the melatonin studies had moderate-to-severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD); those in the ramelteon study and the orexin antagonist studies had mild-to-moderate AD. Participants had a variety of common sleep problems at baseline. Primary sleep outcomes were measured using actigraphy or polysomnography. In one study, melatonin treatment was combined with light therapy. Only four studies systematically assessed adverse effects. Overall, we considered the studies to be at low or unclear risk of bias. We found low-certainty evidence that melatonin doses up to 10 mg may have little or no effect on any major sleep outcome over eight to 10 weeks in people with AD and sleep disturbances. We could synthesise data for two of our primary sleep outcomes: total nocturnal sleep time (TNST) (MD 10.68 minutes, 95% CI -16.22 to 37.59; 2 studies, n = 184), and the ratio of day-time to night-time sleep (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.03; 2 studies; n = 184). From single studies, we found no evidence of an effect of melatonin on sleep efficiency, time awake after sleep onset, number of night-time awakenings, or mean duration of sleep bouts. There were no serious adverse effects of melatonin reported. We found low-certainty evidence that trazodone 50 mg for two weeks may improve TNST (MD 42.46 minutes, 95% CI 0.9 to 84.0; 1 study, n = 30), and sleep efficiency (MD 8.53%, 95% CI 1.9 to 15.1; 1 study, n = 30) in people with moderate-to-severe AD. The effect on time awake after sleep onset was uncertain due to very serious imprecision (MD -20.41 minutes, 95% CI -60.4 to 19.6; 1 study, n = 30). There may be little or no effect on number of night-time awakenings (MD -3.71, 95% CI -8.2 to 0.8; 1 study, n = 30) or time asleep in the day (MD 5.12 minutes, 95% CI -28.2 to 38.4). There were no serious adverse effects of trazodone reported. The small (n = 74), phase 2 trial investigating ramelteon 8 mg was reported only in summary form on the sponsor's website. We considered the certainty of the evidence to be low. There was no evidence of any important effect of ramelteon on any nocturnal sleep outcomes. There were no serious adverse effects. We found moderate-certainty evidence that an orexin antagonist taken for four weeks by people with mild-to-moderate AD probably increases TNST (MD 28.2 minutes, 95% CI 11.1 to 45.3; 1 study, n = 274) and decreases time awake after sleep onset (MD -15.7 minutes, 95% CI -28.1 to -3.3: 1 study, n = 274) but has little or no effect on number of awakenings (MD 0.0, 95% CI -0.5 to 0.5; 1 study, n = 274). It may be associated with a small increase in sleep efficiency (MD 4.26%, 95% CI 1.26 to 7.26; 2 studies, n = 312), has no clear effect on sleep latency (MD -12.1 minutes, 95% CI -25.9 to 1.7; 1 study, n = 274), and may have little or no effect on the mean duration of sleep bouts (MD -2.42 minutes, 95% CI -5.53 to 0.7; 1 study, n = 38). Adverse events were probably no more common among participants taking orexin antagonists than those taking placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.99; 2 studies, n = 323). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We discovered a distinct lack of evidence to guide decisions about drug treatment of sleep problems in dementia. In particular, we found no RCTs of many widely prescribed drugs, including the benzodiazepine and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, although there is considerable uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks for these common treatments. We found no evidence for beneficial effects of melatonin (up to 10 mg) or a melatonin receptor agonist. There was evidence of some beneficial effects on sleep outcomes from trazodone and orexin antagonists and no evidence of harmful effects in these small trials, although larger trials in a broader range of participants are needed to allow more definitive conclusions to be reached. Systematic assessment of adverse effects in future trials is essential.

Aromatherapy for dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications licensed for the treatment of dementia have limited efficacy against cognitive impairment or against the distressed behaviours (behavioural and psychological symptoms, or behaviour that challenges) which are also often the most distressing aspect of the disorder for caregivers. Complementary therapies, including aromatherapy, are attractive to patients, practitioners and families, because they are perceived as being unlikely to cause adverse effects. Therefore there is interest in whether aromatherapy might offer a safe means of alleviating distressed behaviours in dementia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of aromatherapy for people with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 5 May 2020 using the terms: aromatherapy, lemon, lavender, rose, aroma, alternative therapies, complementary therapies, essential oils. In addition, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO (all via Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (via Thompson Web of Science), LILACS (via BIREME), CENTRAL (via the Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) on 5 May 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials which compared fragrance from plants in an intervention defined as aromatherapy for people with dementia with placebo aromatherapy or with treatment as usual. All doses, frequencies and fragrances of aromatherapy were considered. Participants in the included studies had a diagnosis of dementia of any subtype and severity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies, involving other authors to reach consensus decisions where necessary. We did not perform any meta-analyses because of heterogeneity between studies, but presented a narrative synthesis of results from the included trials. Because of the heterogeneity of analysis methods and inadequate or absent reporting of data from some trials, we used statistical significance (P ≤ or > 0.5) as a summary metric when synthesising results across studies. As far as possible, we used GRADE methods to assess our confidence in the results of the trials, downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with 708 participants. All participants had dementia and in the 12 trials which described the setting, all were resident in institutional care facilities. Nine trials recruited participants because they had significant agitation or other behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia (BPSD) at baseline. The fragrances used were lavender (eight studies); lemon balm (four studies); lavender and lemon balm, lavender and orange, and cedar extracts (one study each). For six trials, assessment of risk of bias and extraction of results was hampered by poor reporting. Four of the other seven trials were at low risk of bias in all domains, but all were small (range 18 to 186 participants; median 66), reducing our confidence in the results. Our primary outcomes were agitation, overall behavioural and psychological symptoms, and adverse effects. Ten trials assessed agitation using various scales. Among the five trials for which our confidence in the results was moderate or low, four trials reported no significant effect on agitation and one trial reported a significant benefit of aromatherapy. The other five trials either reported no useable data or our confidence in the results was very low. Eight trials assessed overall BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory and we had moderate or low confidence in the results of five of them. Of these, four reported significant benefit from aromatherapy and one reported no significant effect. Adverse events were poorly reported or not reported at all in most trials. No more than two trials assessed each of our secondary outcomes of quality of life, mood, sleep, activities of daily living, caregiver burden. We did not find evidence of benefit on these outcomes. Three trials assessed cognition: one did not report any data and the other two trials reported no significant effect of aromatherapy on cognition. Our confidence in the results of these studies was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found any convincing evidence that aromatherapy (or exposure to fragrant plant oils) is beneficial for people with dementia although there are many limitations to the data. Conduct or reporting problems in half of the included studies meant that they could not contribute to the conclusions. Results from the other studies were inconsistent. Harms were very poorly reported in the included studies. In order for clear conclusions to be drawn, better design and reporting and consistency of outcome measurement in future trials would be needed.

When is Alzheimer's not dementia-Cochrane commentary on The National Institute on Ageing and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework for Alzheimer's Disease.

Early 2018 saw the release of new diagnostic guidance on Alzheimer's disease from the National Institute on Ageing and the Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA). This proposed research framework represents a fundamental change in how we think about Alzheimer's disease, moving from diagnosis based on clinical features to diagnosis based solely on biomarkers. These recommendations are contentious and have important implications for patients, clinicians, policy makers and the pharmaceutical industry. In this commentary, we offer a summary of the NIA-AA research framework. We then focus on five key areas: divorcing neuropathology from the clinical syndrome; the emphasis placed on one dementia subtype; validity of available biomarkers; the changing meaning of the term 'Alzheimer's disease'; and the potential for a research framework to influence clinical practice.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. Supplementation of the diet with various vitamins and minerals has been suggested as a means of maintaining cognitive function, or even of preventing dementia, in later life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function in cognitively healthy people aged 40 years or more. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP from inception to 26th January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the cognitive effects on people aged 40 years or more of any vitamin or mineral supplements taken by mouth for at least three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were done in duplicate. Vitamins were considered broadly in the categories of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and combinations of both. Minerals were considered separately, where possible. If interventions and outcomes were considered sufficiently similar, then data were pooled. In order to separate short-term cognitive effects from possible longer-term effects on the trajectory of cognitive decline, data were pooled for various treatment durations from 3 months to 12 months and up to 10 years or more. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 28 studies with more than 83,000 participants. There were some general limitations of the evidence. Most participants were enrolled in studies which were not designed primarily to assess cognition. These studies often had no baseline cognitive assessment and used only brief cognitive assessments at follow-up. Very few studies assessed the incidence of dementia. Most study reports did not mention adverse events or made only very general statements about them. Only 10 studies had a mean follow-up > 5 years. Only two studies had participants whose mean age was < 60 years at baseline. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low, other than a risk of attrition bias for longer-term outcomes. We considered the certainty of the evidence behind almost all results to be moderate or low.We included 14 studies with 27,882 participants which compared folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, or a combination of these to placebo. The majority of participants were aged over 60 years and had a history of cardio- or cerebrovascular disease. We found that giving B vitamin supplements to cognitively healthy adults, mainly in their 60s and 70s, probably has little or no effect on global cognitive function at any time point up to 5 years (SMD values from -0.03 to 0.06) and may also have no effect at 5-10 years (SMD -0.01). There were very sparse data on adverse effects or on incidence of cognitive impairment or dementia.We included 8 studies with 47,840 participants in which the active intervention was one or more of the antioxidant vitamins: ß-carotene, vitamin C or vitamin E. Results were mixed. For overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of benefit associated with ß-carotene after a mean of 18 years of treatment (MD 0.18 TICS points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35) and of vitamin C after 5 years to 10 years (MD 0.46 TICS points, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78), but not at earlier time points. From two studies which reported on dementia incidence, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of an antioxidant vitamin combination or of vitamin E, either alone or combined with selenium. One of the included studies had been designed to look for effects on the incidence of prostate cancer; it found a statistically significant increase in prostate cancer diagnoses among men taking vitamin E.One trial with 4143 participants compared vitamin D3 (400 IU/day) and calcium supplements to placebo. We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence of no effect of vitamin D3 and calcium supplements at any time-point up to 10 years on overall cognitive function (MD after a mean of 7.8 years -0.1 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.61) or the incidence of dementia (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24). A pilot study with 60 participants used a higher dose of vitamin D3 (4000 IU on alternate days) and found preliminary evidence that this dose probably has no effect on cognitive function over six months.We included data from one trial of zinc and copper supplementation with 1072 participants. There was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no effect on overall cognitive function (MD 0.6 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.39) or on the incidence of cognitive impairment after 5 years to 10 years. A second smaller trial provided no usable data, but reported no cognitive effects of six months of supplementation with zinc gluconate.From one study with 3711 participants, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of approximately five years of selenium supplementation on the incidence of dementia (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13).Finally, we included three trials of complex supplements (combinations of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals) with 6306 participants. From the one trial which assessed overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on the TICS (MD after a mean of 8.5 years 0.12, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that any vitamin or mineral supplementation strategy for cognitively healthy adults in mid or late life has a meaningful effect on cognitive decline or dementia, although the evidence does not permit definitive conclusions. There were very few data on supplementation starting in midlife (< 60 years); studies designed to assess cognitive outcomes tended to be too short to assess maintenance of cognitive function; longer studies often had other primary outcomes and used cognitive measures which may have lacked sensitivity. The only positive signals of effect came from studies of long-term supplementation with antioxidant vitamins. These may be the most promising for further research.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for preventing dementia or delaying cognitive decline in people with mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals have many functions in the nervous system which are important for brain health. It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. In this review, we sought to examine the evidence for this in people who already had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACs, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated orally administered vitamin or mineral supplements in participants with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and which assessed the incidence of dementia or cognitive outcomes, or both. We were interested in studies applicable to the general population of older people and therefore excluded studies in which participants had severe vitamin or mineral deficiencies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We sought data on our primary outcomes of dementia incidence and overall cognitive function and on secondary outcomes of episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, quality of life, functional performance, clinical global impression, adverse events, and mortality. We conducted data collection and analysis according to standard Cochrane systematic review methods. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We grouped vitamins and minerals according to their putative mechanism of action and, where we considered it to be clinically appropriate, we pooled data using random-effects methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with 879 participants which investigated B vitamin supplements. In four trials, the intervention was a combination of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid; in one, it was folic acid only. Doses varied. We considered there to be some risks of performance and attrition bias and of selective outcome reporting among these trials. Our primary efficacy outcomes were the incidence of dementia and scores on measures of overall cognitive function. None of the trials reported the incidence of dementia and the evidence on overall cognitive function was of very low-quality. There was probably little or no effect of B vitamins taken for six to 24 months on episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, or quality of life. The evidence on our other secondary clinical outcomes, including harms, was very sparse or very low-quality. There was evidence from one study that there may be a slower rate of brain atrophy over two years in participants taking B vitamins. The same study reported subgroup analyses based on the level of serum homocysteine (tHcy) at baseline and found evidence that B vitamins may improve episodic memory in those with tHcy above the median at baseline.We included one trial (n = 516) of vitamin E supplementation. Vitamin E was given as 1000 IU of alpha-tocopherol twice daily. We considered this trial to be at risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. There was probably no effect of vitamin E on the probability of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's dementia over three years (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; n = 516; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of an effect at intermediate time points. The available data did not allow us to conduct analyses, but the authors reported no significant effect of three years of supplementation with vitamin E on overall cognitive function, episodic memory, speed of processing, clinical global impression, functional performance, adverse events, or mortality (five deaths in each group). We considered this to be low-quality evidence.We included one trial (n = 256) of combined vitamin E and vitamin C supplementation and one trial (n = 26) of supplementation with chromium picolinate. In both cases, there was a single eligible cognitive outcome, but we considered the evidence to be very low-quality and so could not be sure of any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on vitamin and mineral supplements as treatments for MCI is very limited. Three years of treatment with high-dose vitamin E probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia, but we have no data on this outcome for other supplements. Only B vitamins have been assessed in more than one RCT. There is no evidence for beneficial effects on cognition of supplementation with B vitamins for six to 24 months. Evidence from a single study of a reduced rate of brain atrophy in participants taking vitamin B and a beneficial effect of vitamin B on episodic memory in those with higher tHcy at baseline warrants attempted replication.

Antidepressants for treating depression in dementia.

BACKGROUND: The use of antidepressants in dementia accompanied by depressive symptoms is widespread, but their clinical efficacy is uncertain. This review updates an earlier version, first published in 2002. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of any type of antidepressant for patients who have been diagnosed as having dementia of any type and depression as defined by recognised criteria. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register, on 16 August 2017. ALOIS contains information on trials retrieved from databases and from a number of trial registers and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all relevant double-blind, randomised trials comparing any antidepressant drug with placebo, for patients diagnosed as having dementia and depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion and extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Where clinically appropriate, we pooled data for treatment periods up to three months and from three to nine months. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten studies with a total of 1592 patients. Eight included studies reported sufficiently detailed results to enter into analyses related to antidepressant efficacy. We split one study which included two different antidepressants and therefore had nine groups of patients treated with antidepressants compared with nine groups receiving placebo treatment. Information needed to make 'Risk of bias' judgements was often missing.We found high-quality evidence of little or no difference in scores on depression symptom rating scales between the antidepressant and placebo treated groups after 6 to 13 weeks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to 0.06; 614 participants; 8 studies). There was probably also little or no difference between groups after six to nine months (mean difference (MD) 0.59 point, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.3, 357 participants; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence on response rates at 12 weeks was of low quality, and imprecision in the result meant we were uncertain of any effect of antidepressants (antidepressant: 49.1%, placebo: 37.7%; odds ratio (OR) 1.71, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.67; 116 participants; 3 studies). However, the remission rate was probably higher in the antidepressant group than the placebo group (antidepressant: 40%, placebo: 21.7%; OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.59; 240 participants; 4 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The largest of these studies continued for another 12 weeks, but because of imprecision of the result we could not be sure of any effect of antidepressants on remission rates after 24 weeks. There was evidence of no effect of antidepressants on performance of activities of daily living at weeks 6 to 13 (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.25; 173 participants; 4 studies; high-quality evidence) and probably also little or no effect on cognition (MD 0.33 point on the Mini-Mental State Examination, 95% CI -1.31 to 1.96; 194 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence).Participants on antidepressants were probably more likely to drop out of treatment than those on placebo over 6 to 13 weeks (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.14; 836 participants; 9 studies). The meta-analysis of the number of participants suffering at least one adverse event showed a significant difference in favour of placebo (antidepressant: 49.2%, placebo: 38.4%; OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.98, 1073 participants; 3 studies), as did the analyses for participants suffering one event of dry mouth (antidepressant: 19.6%, placebo: 13.3%; OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.63, 1044 participants; 5 studies), and one event of dizziness (antidepressant: 19.2%, placebo: 12.5%; OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.98, 1044 participants; 5 studies). Heterogeneity in the way adverse events were reported in studies presented a major difficulty for meta-analysis, but there was some evidence that antidepressant treatment causes more adverse effects than placebo treatment does. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is of variable quality and does not provide strong support for the efficacy of antidepressants for treating depression in dementia, especially beyond 12 weeks. On the only measure of efficacy for which we had high-quality evidence (depression rating scale scores), antidepressants showed little or no effect. The evidence on remission rates favoured antidepressants but was of moderate quality, so future research may find a different result. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about individual antidepressant drugs or about subtypes of dementia or depression. There is some evidence that antidepressant treatment may cause adverse events.

Core outcome measures for interventions to prevent or slow the progress of dementia for people living with mild to moderate dementia: Systematic review and consensus recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There are no disease-modifying treatments for dementia. There is also no consensus on disease modifying outcomes. We aimed to produce the first evidence-based consensus on core outcome measures for trials of disease modification in mild-to-moderate dementia. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We defined disease-modification interventions as those aiming to change the underlying pathology. We systematically searched electronic databases and previous systematic reviews for published and ongoing trials of disease-modifying treatments in mild-to-moderate dementia. We included 149/22,918 of the references found; with 81 outcome measures from 125 trials. Trials involved participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) alone (n = 111), or AD and mild cognitive impairment (n = 8) and three vascular dementia. We divided outcomes by the domain measured (cognition, activities of daily living, biological markers, neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, global). We calculated the number of trials and of participants using each outcome. We detailed psychometric properties of each outcome. We sought the views of people living with dementia and family carers in three cities through Alzheimer's society focus groups. Attendees at a consensus conference (experts in dementia research, disease-modification and harmonisation measures) decided on the core set of outcomes using these results. Recommended core outcomes were cognition as the fundamental deficit in dementia and to indicate disease modification, serial structural MRIs. Cognition should be measured by Mini Mental State Examination or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale. MRIs would be optional for patients. We also made recommendations for measuring important, but non-core domains which may not change despite disease modification. LIMITATIONS: Most trials were about AD. Specific instruments may be superseded. We searched one database for psychometric properties. INTERPRETATION: This is the first review to identify the 81 outcome measures the research community uses for disease-modifying trials in mild-to-moderate dementia. Our recommendations will facilitate designing, comparing and meta-analysing disease modification trials in mild-to-moderate dementia, increasing their value. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42015027346.

Development of a core outcome set for disease modification trials in mild to moderate dementia: a systematic review, patient and public consultation and consensus recommendations.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no disease-modifying treatment available to halt or delay the progression of the disease pathology in dementia. An agreed core set of the best-available and most appropriate outcomes for disease modification would facilitate the design of trials and ensure consistency across disease modification trials, as well as making results comparable and meta-analysable in future trials. OBJECTIVES: To agree a set of core outcomes for disease modification trials for mild to moderate dementia with the UK dementia research community and patient and public involvement (PPI). DATA SOURCES: We included disease modification trials with quantitative outcomes of efficacy from (1) references from related systematic reviews in workstream 1; (2) searches of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group study register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and PsycINFO on 11 December 2015, and clinical trial registries [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) and clinicaltrials.gov] on 22 and 29 January 2016; and (3) hand-searches of reference lists of relevant systematic reviews from database searches. REVIEW METHODS: The project consisted of four workstreams. (1) We obtained related core outcome sets and work from co-applicants. (2) We systematically reviewed published and ongoing disease modification trials to identify the outcomes used in different domains. We extracted outcomes used in each trial, recording how many used each outcome and with how many participants. We divided outcomes into the domains measured and searched for validation data. (3) We consulted with PPI participants about recommended outcomes. (4) We presented all the synthesised information at a conference attended by the wider body of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) dementia researchers to reach consensus on a core set of outcomes. RESULTS: We included 149 papers from the 22,918 papers screened, referring to 125 individual trials. Eighty-one outcomes were used across trials, including 72 scales [31 cognitive, 12 activities of daily living (ADLs), 10 global, 16 neuropsychiatric and three quality of life] and nine biological techniques. We consulted with 18 people for PPI. The conference decided that only cognition and biological markers are core measures of disease modification. Cognition should be measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and brain changes through structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a subset of participants. All other domains are important but not core. We recommend using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for neuropsychiatric symptoms: the Disability Assessment for Dementia for ADLs, the Dementia Quality of Life Measure for quality of life and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale to measure dementia globally. LIMITATIONS: Most of the trials included participants with Alzheimer's disease, so recommendations may not apply to other types of dementia. We did not conduct economic analyses. The PPI consultation was limited to members of the Alzheimer's Society Research Network. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive outcomes and biological markers form the core outcome set for future disease modification trials, measured by the MMSE or ADAS-Cog, and structural MRI in a subset of participants. FUTURE WORK: We envisage that the core set may be superseded in the future, particularly for other types of dementia. There is a need to develop an algorithm to compare scores on the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. STUDY REGISTRATION: The project was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials [ www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/819?result=true (accessed 7 April 2016)]. The systematic review protocol is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027346. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Diagnosis in vascular dementia, applying 'Cochrane diagnosis rules' to 'dementia diagnostic tools'.

In this issue of Clinical Science, Biesbroek and colleagues describe recent work on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based cerebral lesion location and its association with cognitive decline. The authors conclude that diagnostic neuroimaging in dementia should shift from whole-brain evaluation to focused quantitative analysis of strategic brain areas. This commentary uses the review of lesion location mapping to discuss broader issues around studies of dementia test strategies. We draw upon work completed by the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group designed to improve design, conduct and reporting of dementia biomarker studies.