Social prescribing for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers: what works, for whom, under what circumstances and why - protocol for a complex intervention systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023428625.

Adapted problem adaptation therapy for depression in mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease dementia: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Trials of effectiveness of treatment options for depression in dementia are an important priority. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial to assess adapted Problem Adaptation Therapy (PATH) for depression in mild/moderate dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-six participants with mild or moderate dementia, >7 on Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), randomized to adapted PATH or treatment as usual. Mean age 77.0 years, 39.0% males, mean Mini-Mental State Examination 21.6, mean CSDD 12.9. For primary outcome (CSDD at 6 months), no statistically significant benefit with adapted PATH on the CSDD (6 months: -0.58; 95% CI -1.71 to 0.54). The CSDD at 3 months showed a small benefit with adapted PATH (-1.38; 95% CI -2.54 to -0.21) as did the EQ-5D (-4.97; 95% CI -9.46 to -0.48). DISCUSSION: An eight-session course of adapted PATH plus two booster sessions administered within NHS dementia services was not effective treatment for depression in people with mild and moderate dementia. Future studies should examine the effect of more intensive and longer-term therapy.

Sleep disturbance in people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review of general practice.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent condition among people living with dementia (PLwD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Its assessment and management within primary care is complex because of the comorbidities, older age, and cognitive impairment typical of this patient group. AIM: To explore how primary care clinicians assess, understand, and manage sleep disturbance for PLwD or MCI; if and why such initiatives work; and how people and their carers experience sleep disturbance and its treatment. DESIGN AND SETTING: A realist review of existing literature conducted in 2022. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched. Context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) were developed and refined. RESULTS: In total, 60 records were included from 1869 retrieved hits and 19 CMOCs were developed. Low awareness of and confidence in the treatment of sleep disturbance among primary care clinicians and patients, combined with time and resource constraints, meant that identifying sleep disturbance was difficult and not prioritised. Medication was perceived by clinicians and patients as the primary management tool, resulting in inappropriate or long-term prescription. Rigid nursing routines in care homes were reportedly not conducive to good-quality sleep. CONCLUSION: In primary care, sleep disturbance among PLwD or MCI is not adequately addressed. Over-reliance on medication, underutilisation of non-pharmacological strategies, and inflexible care home routines were reported as a result of low confidence in sleep management and resource constraints. This does not constitute effective and person-centred care. Future work should consider ways to tailor the assessment and management of sleep disturbance to the needs of individuals and their informal carers without overstretching services.

What really is nontokenistic fully inclusive patient and public involvement/engagement in research?

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is critically important in healthcare research. A useful starting point for researchers to understand the scope of PPIE is to review the definition from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) as, 'research being carried out "with" or "by" members of the public rather than "to", "about" or "for" them'. PPIE does not refer to participation in research, but to actively shaping its direction. The 'Effectiveness of a decision support tool to optimise community-based tailored management of sleep for people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (TIMES)' study is funded through the NIHR programme grant for applied research. TIMES has thoroughly embraced PPIE by ensuring the person's voice is heard, understood, and valued. This editorial showcases how the TIMES project maximised inclusivity, and we share our experiences and top tips for other researchers. We base our reflections on the six key UK standards for public involvement; Inclusive Opportunities, Working Together, Support and Learning, Communications, Impact and Governance. We present our work, which had been co-led by our PPIE leads, academics and partners including, together in dementia everyday, Innovations in Dementia, The UK Network of Dementia Voices (Dementia Engagement & Empowerment Project) and Liverpool Chinese Wellbeing. We have a Lived Experience Advisory Forum on Sleep, which includes people with dementia, family carers, representatives of the South Asian Community and the Chinese community.

Maintaining independence in individuals with dementia at home after a fall: a protocol for the UK pilot cluster randomised controlled trial MAINTAIN.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with dementia face an increased risk of falls. Falls can cause a decline in the individual's overall functionality. All types of falls, including those that do not result in injury, can lead to psychosocial consequences, such as diminished confidence and a fear of falling. Projections indicate a rising trend in dementia diagnoses, implying an increase in fall incidents. Yet, there is a lack of evidence to support interventions for people living with dementia who have fallen. Our objective is to test the feasibility of a falls intervention trial for people with dementia. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a UK-based two-arm pilot cluster randomised controlled trial. In this study, six collaborating sites, which form the clusters, will be randomly allocated to either the intervention arm or the control arm (receiving treatment as usual) at a 1:1 ratio. During the 6 month recruitment phase, each cluster will enrol 10 dyads, comprising 10 individuals with dementia and their respective carers, leading to a total sample size of 60 dyads. The primary outcomes are the feasibility parameters for a full trial (ie, percentage consented, follow-up rate and cost framework). Secondary outcomes include activities of daily living, quality of life, fall efficacy, mobility, goal attainment, cognitive status, occurrence of falls, carer burden and healthcare service utilisation. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline and 28 weeks, with an additional assessment scheduled at 12 weeks for the healthcare service utilisation questionnaire. An embedded process evaluation, consisting of interviews and observations with participants and healthcare professionals, will explore how the intervention operates and the fidelity of study processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the NHS and local authority research governance and research ethics committees (NHS REC reference: 23/WA/0126). The results will be shared at meetings and conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16413728.

Impact of the iWHELD digital person-centered care program on quality of life, agitation and psychotropic medications in people with dementia living in nursing homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: iWHELD is a digital person-centered care program for people with dementia in nursing homes adapted for remote delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A 16-week two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial in 149 UK nursing homes compared iWHELD with treatment as usual (TAU). Primary outcome was the overall quality of life with secondary outcomes of agitation and psychotropic use. RESULTS: iWHELD conferred benefit to quality of life on the primary (F = 4.3, p = 0.04) and secondary measures of quality of life (F = 6.45, p = 0.01) and reduced psychotropic medication use (χ2  = 4.08, p = 0.04) with no worsening of agitation. Benefit was seen in participants who contracted COVID-19, those with agitation at baseline, and those taking psychotropic medications. DISCUSSION: iWHELD confers benefits to quality of life and key measures of well-being, can be delivered during the challenging conditions of a pandemic, and should be considered for use alongside any emerging pharmacological treatment for neuropsychiatric symptoms. HIGHLIGHTS: iWHELD is the only remote, digital delivery nursing home training programme for dementia care iWHELD improved quality of life in people with dementia and reduced antipsychotic use without worsening of agitation Residents who contracted Covid-19 during the study also experienced benefits from iWHELD iWHELD offers a valuable, pandemic-safe tool for improving dementia care.

Protocol for a realist evaluation of Recovery College dementia courses: understanding coproduction through ethnography.

INTRODUCTION: Support following a dementia diagnosis in the UK is variable. Attending a Recovery College course with and for people with dementia, their supporters and healthcare professionals (staff), may enable people to explore and enact ways to live well with dementia. Recovery Colleges are established within mental health services worldwide, offering peer-supported short courses coproduced in partnership between staff and people with lived experience of mental illness. The concept of recovery is challenging in dementia narratives, with little evidence of how the Recovery College model could work as a method of postdiagnostic dementia support. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a realist evaluation approach, this research will examine and define what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why, in Recovery College dementia courses. The ethnographic study will recruit five case studies from National Health Service Mental Health Trusts across England. Sampling will seek diversity in new or long-standing courses, delivery methods and demographics of population served. Participant observations will examine course coproduction. Interviews will be undertaken with people with dementia, family and friend supporters and staff involved in coproducing and commissioning the courses, as well as people attending. Documentary materials will be reviewed. Analysis will use a realist logic of analysis to develop a programme theory containing causal explanations for outcomes, in the form of context-mechanism-outcome-configurations, at play in each case. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received approval from Coventry & Warwickshire Research Ethics Committee (22/WM/0215). Ethical concerns include not privileging any voice, consent for embedded observational fieldwork with people who may experience fluctuating mental capacity and balancing researcher 'embedded participant' roles in publicly accessible learning events. Drawing on the realist programme theory, two stakeholder groups, one people living with dementia and one staff will work with researchers to coproduce resources to support coproducing Recovery College dementia courses aligned with postdiagnostic services.

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.

Multimorbidity pattern and risk of dementia in later life: an 11-year follow-up study using a large community cohort and linked electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: Several long-term chronic illnesses are known to be associated with an increased risk of dementia independently, but little is known how combinations or clusters of potentially interacting chronic conditions may influence the risk of developing dementia. METHODS: 447 888 dementia-free participants of the UK Biobank cohort at baseline (2006-2010) were followed-up until 31 May 2020 with a median follow-up duration of 11.3 years to identify incident cases of dementia. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify multimorbidity patterns at baseline and covariate adjusted Cox regression was used to investigate their predictive effects on the risk of developing dementia. Potential effect moderations by C reactive protein (CRP) and Apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype were assessed via statistical interaction. RESULTS: LCA identified four multimorbidity clusters representing Mental health, Cardiometabolic, Inflammatory/autoimmune and Cancer-related pathophysiology, respectively. Estimated HRs suggest that multimorbidity clusters dominated by Mental health (HR=2.12, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.39) and Cardiometabolic conditions (2.02, p<0.001, 1.87 to 2.19) have the highest risk of developing dementia. Risk level for the Inflammatory/autoimmune cluster was intermediate (1.56, p<0.001, 1.37 to 1.78) and that for the Cancer cluster was least pronounced (1.36, p<0.001, 1.17 to 1.57). Contrary to expectation, neither CRP nor APOE genotype was found to moderate the effects of multimorbidity clusters on the risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Early identification of older adults at higher risk of accumulating multimorbidity of specific pathophysiology and tailored interventions to prevent or delay the onset of such multimorbidity may help prevention of dementia.

Implementing an intervention to enhance care delivery and consistency for people with hip fracture and cognitive impairment in acute hospital wards: a mixed methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled feasibility trial (PERFECTED).

OBJECTIVES: To determine how, and under what circumstances, the PERFECT-ER intervention was implemented in five acute hospital wards and impacted on staff practices and perceptions. DESIGN: Mixed methods process evaluation (undertaken between 2016 and 2018). SETTING: Five acute hospital wards across three different UK regions. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (n=3) admitted to acute wards with hip fracture and cognitive impairment, their relatives (n=29) and hospital staff (n=63). INTERVENTIONS: PERFECT-ER, a multicomponent intervention designed to enhance the recovery of patients with hip fracture and cognitive impairment was implemented for 18 months. PERFECT-ER was implemented at ward level ensuring that multiple new and existing practices were undertaken consistently, on the assumption that collectively, small individual advances would improve care delivery for patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Implementation of the PERFECT-ER intervention examined through regular intervention scores, service improvement staff reports and action plans, and semi-structured interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: The process evaluation identified points of implementation vulnerability and strength. All wards implemented some elements of PERFECT-ER. Implementation was fragile when ward pressures were high and when ward staff perceived the relative priority of intervention practices to be low. Adaptations to the implementation process may have reduced whole-ward staff engagement with implementation. However, strategical enlistment of senior ward influencers (such as ward managers, orthogeriatricians) combined with service improvement lead in-ward peer pressure tactics facilitated implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that implementation was expediated when senior staff were on board as opinion leaders and formally appointed internal implementation leaders exerted their power. Within hierarchical settings such as acute wards, key individuals appeared to influence implementation through endorsement and sometimes enforcement. This indicates that whole-ward interventions may not always require cognitive engagement from all ward staff to implement changes. Future ward-level implementation studies could consider how best to engage staff and most importantly, which staff to best target. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99336264.

Implementing PERFECT-ER with Plan-Do-Study-Act on acute orthopaedic hospital wards: Building knowledge from an implementation study using Normalization Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: Delivering care to growing numbers of patients with increasingly 'complex' needs is currently compromised by a system designed to treat patients within organizational clinical specialties, making this difficult to reconfigure to fit care to needs. Problematic experiences of people with cognitive impairment(s) admitted to hospitals with a hip fracture, exemplify the complex challenges that result if their care is not tailored. This study explored whether a flexible, multicomponent intervention, adapting services to the needs of this patient group, could be implemented in acute hospital settings. METHODS: We used action research with case study design to introduce the intervention using a Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model to three different hospital sites (cases) across England. The qualitative data for this paper was researcher-generated (notes from observations and teleconference meetings) and change agent-generated (action plans and weekly reflective reports of change agents' activities). Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used to analyze and explain the work of interacting actors in implementing and then normalizing (embedding) the intervention across contexts and times. Data analysis was abductive, generating inductive codes then identified with NPT constructs. Across the three cases, change agents had to work through numerous implementation challenges: needing to make sense of the intervention package, the PDSA model as implementation method, and their own role as change agents and to orientate these within their action context (coherence). They had to work to encourage colleagues to invest in these changes (cognitive participation) and find ways to implement the intervention by mobilising changes (collective action). Finally, they created strategies for clinical routines to continue to self-review, reconfiguring actions and future plans to enable the intervention to be sustained (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of the (PERFECT-ER) intervention requires change agents to recognize and engage with local values, and then to enable its fit with practice and wider contextual goals. A context of constant change fragments normalization. Thus, sustaining practice change over time is fragile and requires change agents to continue a recursive two-way sense-making process. This enables implementation and normalization to re-energize and overcome barriers to change.

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic prescribing for people with dementia in nursing home settings.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on neuropsychiatric symptoms and antipsychotic use in people with dementia living in nursing homes. METHODS: This was a comparative analysis of baseline data from two large nursing home studies, one conducted during (COVID-iWHELD study) and one prior (WHELD study) to the pandemic. It involves data from 69 and 149 nursing homes, and 1006 and 666 participants respectively. Participants were people with established dementia (score >1 on Clinical Dementia Rating Scale). Resident data included demographics, antipsychotic prescriptions and neuropsychiatric symptoms using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Nursing Home version. Nursing home data collected were nursing home size and staffing information. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms was unchanged from pre-pandemic prevalence. Mean antipsychotic use across the sample was 32.0%, increased from 18% pre-pandemic (Fisher's exact test p < 0.0001). At a nursing home level, the medians for the low, medium and high tertiles for antipsychotic use were 7%, 20% and 59% respectively, showing a disproportionate rise in tertile three. Residents in these homes also showed a small but significant increase in agitation. CONCLUSION: There has been a significant increase in antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes since the COVID-19 pandemic, with a disproportionate rise in one third of homes, where median prescription rates for antipsychotics were almost 60%. Strategies are urgently needed to identify these nursing homes and introduce pro-active support to bring antipsychotic prescription rates back to pre-pandemic levels.

A realist evaluation of a multifactorial falls prevention programme in care homes.

BACKGROUND: falls in care homes are common, costly and hard to prevent.Multifactorial falls programmes demonstrate clinical and cost-effectiveness, but the heterogeneity of the care home sector is a barrier to their implementation. A fuller appreciation of the relationship between care home context and falls programme delivery will guide development and support implementation. METHODS: this is a multi-method process evaluation informed by a realist approach.Data include fidelity observations, stakeholder interviews, focus groups, documentary review and falls-rate data. Thematic analysis of qualitative data and descriptive statistics are synthesised to generate care home case studies. RESULTS: data were collected in six care homes where a falls programme was trialled. Forty-four interviews and 11 focus groups complemented observations and document review.The impact of the programme varied. Five factors were identified: (i) prior practice and (ii) training may inhibit new ways of working; (iii) some staff may be reluctant to take responsibility for falls; (iv) some may feel that residents living with dementia cannot be prevented from falling; and, (v) changes to management may disturb local innovation.In some care homes, training and improved awareness generated a reduction in falls without formal assessments being carried out. CONCLUSIONS: different aspects of the falls programme sparked different mechanisms in different settings, with differing impact upon falls.The evaluation has shown that elements of a multifactorial falls programme can work independently of each other and that it is the local context (and local challenges faced), which should shape how a falls programme is implemented.

Understanding primary care diagnosis and management of sleep disturbance for people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The increasingly ageing population is associated with greater numbers of people living with dementia (PLwD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There are an estimated 55 million PLwD and approximately 6% of people over 60 years of age are living with MCI, with the figure rising to 25% for those aged between 80 and 84 years. Sleep disturbances are common for this population, but there is currently no standardised approach within UK primary care to manage this. Coined as a 'wicked design problem', sleep disturbances in this population are complex, with interventions supporting best management in context. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this realist review is to deepen our understanding of what is considered 'sleep disturbance' in PLwD or MCI within primary care. Specifically, we endeavour to better understand how sleep disturbance is assessed, diagnosed and managed. To co-produce this protocol and review, we have recruited a stakeholder group comprising individuals with lived experience of dementia or MCI, primary healthcare staff and sleep experts. This review will be conducted in line with Pawson's five stages including the development of our initial programme theory, literature searches and the refinement of theory. The Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and reporting standards will also be followed. The realist review will be an iterative process and our initial realist programme theory will be tested and refined in response to our data searches and stakeholder discussions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. We will follow the RAMESES standards to ensure we produce a complete and transparent report. Our final programme theory will help us to devise a tailored sleep management tool for primary healthcare professionals, PLwD and their carers. Our dissemination strategy will include lay summaries via email and our research website, peer-reviewed publications and social media posts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022304679.

Noradrenergic Add-on Therapy with Extended-Release Guanfacine in Alzheimer's Disease (NorAD): study protocol for a randomised clinical trial and COVID-19 amendments.

BACKGROUND: Guanfacine is a α2A adrenergic receptor agonist approved for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is thought to act via postsynaptic receptors in the prefrontal cortex, modulating executive functions including the regulation of attention. Attention is affected early in Alzheimer's disease (AD), and this may relate to pathological changes within the locus coeruleus, the main source of noradrenergic pathways within the brain. Given that cholinergic pathways, also involved in attention, are disrupted in AD, the combination of noradrenergic and cholinergic treatments may have a synergistic effect on symptomatic AD. The primary objective of the NorAD trial is to evaluate the change in cognition with 12 weeks of treatment of extended-release guanfacine (GXR) against a placebo as a combination therapy with cholinesterase inhibitors in participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. METHODS/DESIGN: NorAD is a 3-month, single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial of extended-release guanfacine (GXR) in participants with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. A total of 160 participants will be randomised to receive either daily guanfacine or placebo in combination with approved cholinesterase treatment for 12 weeks. The primary outcome is the change in cognition, as measured by the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog), from baseline to follow-up in the treatment group compared to the placebo group. Secondary outcomes include the change in additional cognitive measures of attention (Tests of Attention: Trails A and B, digit-symbol substitution, Test of Everyday Attention and CANTAB-RVP), neuropsychiatric symptoms (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), caregiver burden (Zarit Burden Interview) and activities of daily living (Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study - Activities of Daily Living Inventory). From July 2020, observation of change following cessation of treatment is also being assessed. DISCUSSION: There is strong evidence for early noradrenergic dysfunction in Alzheimer's disease. The NorAD trial aims to determine whether guanfacine, a noradrenergic alpha-2 agonist, improves attention and cognition when used in addition to standard cholinergic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116126 . Registered on 14 April 2017 EudraCT: 2016-002598-36.

A novel Artificial Intelligence-based tool to assess anticholinergic burden: a survey.

BACKGROUND: many medications possess anticholinergic activity. Their use is associated with a number of serious adverse effects including cognitive effects. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of medications as assessed by tools such as the anticholinergic burden scale (AchB) can identify people particularly at risk of anticholinergic side-effects. Currently, >20 tools are available for clinicians to use, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate tool. METHODS: a newly created online tool-International Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Tool (IACT)-based on natural language processing and chemical structure analysis, was developed and made available for clinicians to test its functions. We carried out a survey (between 8th of February and 31st of March 2021) to assess the overall need for an assessment tool as well as the usability of the IACT. RESULTS: a total of 110 responses were received from different countries and practitioners' groups. The majority of the participants (86.11%) stated they would use a tool for AchB assessment if available and when they were asked to rate the IACT against other tools, amongst 34 responders, 20.59% rated it better and 8.82% rated it significantly better, 44.12% rated it neither better, nor worse, 14.71% rated it worse and 11.76% somewhat worse. CONCLUSION: there is a need for an anticholinergic burden calculator to assess the anticholinergicity of medications. Tools such as the IACT potentially could meet this demand due to its ability to assign scores to current and new medications appearing on the market based both on their chemical structure and reported adverse pharmacological effects.

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.

International consensus conference recommendations on ultrasound education for undergraduate medical students.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to provide expert consensus recommendations to establish a global ultrasound curriculum for undergraduate medical students. METHODS: 64 multi-disciplinary ultrasound experts from 16 countries, 50 multi-disciplinary ultrasound consultants, and 21 medical students and residents contributed to these recommendations. A modified Delphi consensus method was used that included a systematic literature search, evaluation of the quality of literature by the GRADE system, and the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and consensus decisions. The process included four in-person international discussion sessions and two rounds of online voting. RESULTS: A total of 332 consensus conference statements in four curricular domains were considered: (1) curricular scope (4 statements), (2) curricular rationale (10 statements), (3) curricular characteristics (14 statements), and (4) curricular content (304 statements). Of these 332 statements, 145 were recommended, 126 were strongly recommended, and 61 were not recommended. Important aspects of an undergraduate ultrasound curriculum identified include curricular integration across the basic and clinical sciences and a competency and entrustable professional activity-based model. The curriculum should form the foundation of a life-long continuum of ultrasound education that prepares students for advanced training and patient care. In addition, the curriculum should complement and support the medical school curriculum as a whole with enhanced understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiological processes and clinical practice without displacing other important undergraduate learning. The content of the curriculum should be appropriate for the medical student level of training, evidence and expert opinion based, and include ongoing collaborative research and development to ensure optimum educational value and patient care. CONCLUSIONS: The international consensus conference has provided the first comprehensive document of recommendations for a basic ultrasound curriculum. The document reflects the opinion of a diverse and representative group of international expert ultrasound practitioners, educators, and learners. These recommendations can standardize undergraduate medical student ultrasound education while serving as a basis for additional research in medical education and the application of ultrasound in clinical practice.

DHA-Enriched Fish Oil Ameliorates Deficits in Cognition Associated with Menopause and the APOE4 Genotype in Rodents.

Female APOE4 carriers have a greater predisposition to developing Alzheimer's disease (AD) compared to their male counterparts, which may partly be attributed to menopause. We previously reported that a combination of menopause and APOE4 led to an exacerbation of cognitive and neurological deficits, which were associated with reduced brain DHA and DHA:AA ratio. Here, we explored whether DHA-enriched fish oil (FO) supplementation mitigated the detrimental impact of these risk factors. Whilst DHA-enriched fish oil improved recognition memory (NOR) in APOE4 VCD (4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide)-treated mice (p < 0.05), no change in spatial working memory (Y-maze) was observed. FO supplementation increased brain DHA and nervonic acid and the DHA:AA ratio. The response of key bioenergetic and blood−brain barrier related genes and proteins provided mechanistic insights into these behavioural findings, with increased BDNF protein concentration as well as mitigation of aberrant Erß, Cldn1 and Glut-5 expression in APOE4 mice receiving fish oil supplementation (p < 0.05). In conclusion, supplementation with a physiologically relevant dose of DHA-enriched fish oil appears to offer protection against the detrimental effects of menopause, particularly in "at-risk" APOE4 female carriers.

Quality management in radiotherapy treatment delivery.

Radiation Oncology continues to rely on accurate delivery of radiation, in particular where patients can benefit from more modulated and hypofractioned treatments that can deliver higher dose to the target while optimising dose to normal structures. These deliveries are more complex, and the treatment units are more computerised, leading to a re-evaluation of quality assurance (QA) to test a larger range of options with more stringent criteria without becoming too time and resource consuming. This review explores how modern approaches of risk management and automation can be used to develop and maintain an effective and efficient QA programme. It considers various tools to control and guide radiation delivery including image guidance and motion management. Links with typical maintenance and repair activities are discussed, as well as patient-specific quality control activities. It is demonstrated that a quality management programme applied to treatment delivery can have an impact on individual patients but also on the quality of treatment techniques and future planning. Developing and customising a QA programme for treatment delivery is an important part of radiotherapy. Using modern multidisciplinary approaches can make this also a useful tool for department management.