OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to assess, in middle- and older-aged people, the relationship between dietary sodium intake and cognitive outcomes including cognitive function, risk of cognitive decline, or dementia.
METHODS: Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Psych info, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to 1 March 2020. Data extraction included information on study design, population characteristics, sodium reduction strategy (trials) or assessment of dietary sodium intake (observational studies), measurement of cognitive function or dementia, and summary of main results. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) assessment tool.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria including one clinical trial, six cohorts, and eight cross-sectional studies. Studies reported mixed associations between sodium levels and cognition. Results from the only clinical trial showed that a lower sodium intake was associated with improved cognition over six months. In analysis restricted to only high-quality studies, three out of four studies found that higher sodium intake was associated with impaired cognitive function.
CONCLUSION: There is some evidence that high salt intake is associated with poor cognition. However, findings are mixed, likely due to poor methodological quality, and heterogeneous dietary, analytical, and cognitive assessment methods and design of the studies. Reduced sodium intake may be a potential target for intervention. High quality prospective studies and clinical trials are needed.
OBJECTIVE: Given this information, this study systematically explores what risk factors may be associated with ADRD in Indigenous populations.
METHODS: A search of all published literature was conducted in October 2016, March 2018, and July 2019 using Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO. Subject headings explored were inclusive of all terms related to Indigenous persons, dementia, and risk. All relevant words, phrases, and combinations were used. To be included in this systematic review, articles had to display an association of a risk factor and ADRD. Only studies that reported a quantifiable measure of risk, involved human subjects, and were published in English were included.
RESULTS: Of 237 articles originally identified through database searches, 45 were duplicates and 179 did not meet a priori inclusion criteria, resulting in 13 studies eligible for inclusion in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION: The large number of potentially modifiable risk factors reported relative to non-modifiable risk factors illustrates the importance of socioeconomic context in the pathogenesis of ADRD in Indigenous populations. The tendency to prioritize genetic over social explanations when encountering disproportionately high disease rates in Indigenous populations can distract from modifiable proximal, intermediate, and distal determinants of health.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of animal-assisted therapy for people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS: the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 5 September 2019. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of major healthcare databases, trial registries, and grey literature sources. We also searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ISI Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO's trial registry portal.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised trials, and randomised cross-over trials that compared AAT versus no AAT, AAT using live animals versus alternatives such as robots or toys, or AAT versus any other active intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using the standard methods of Cochrane Dementia. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and risk of bias of the retrieved records. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs from 10 reports. All nine studies were conducted in Europe and the US. Six studies were parallel-group, individually randomised RCTs; one was a randomised cross-over trial; and two were cluster-RCTs that were possibly related where randomisation took place at the level of the day care and nursing home. We identified two ongoing trials from trial registries. There were three comparisons: AAT versus no AAT (standard care or various non-animal-related activities), AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, and AAT using live animals versus the use of a soft animal toy. The studies evaluated 305 participants with dementia. One study used horses and the remainder used dogs as the therapy animal. The duration of the intervention ranged from six weeks to six months, and the therapy sessions lasted between 10 and 90 minutes each, with a frequency ranging from one session every two weeks to two sessions per week. There was a wide variety of instruments used to measure the outcomes. All studies were at high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias. Our certainty about the results for all major outcomes was very low to moderate. Comparing AAT versus no AAT, participants who received AAT may be slightly less depressed after the intervention (MD -2.87, 95% CI -5.24 to -0.50; 2 studies, 83 participants; low-certainty evidence), but they did not appear to have improved quality of life (MD 0.45, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.18; 3 studies, 164 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There were no clear differences in all other major outcomes, including social functioning (MD -0.40, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.61; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence), problematic behaviour (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.30; 3 studies, 142 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), agitation (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.10; 3 studies, 143 participants; very-low-certainty evidence), activities of daily living (MD 4.65, 95% CI -16.05 to 25.35; 1 study, 37 participants; low-certainty evidence), and self-care ability (MD 2.20, 95% CI -1.23 to 5.63; 1 study, 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on adverse events. Comparing AAT using live animals versus robotic animals, one study (68 participants) found mixed effects on social function, with longer duration of physical contact but shorter duration of talking in participants who received AAT using live animals versus robotic animals (median: 93 seconds with live versus 28 seconds with robotic for physical contact; 164 seconds with live versus 206 seconds with robotic for talk directed at a person; 263 seconds with live versus 307 seconds with robotic for talk in total). Another study showed no clear differences between groups in behaviour measured using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (MD -6.96, 95% CI -14.58 to 0.66; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence) or quality of life (MD -2.42, 95% CI -5.71 to 0.87; 78 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data on the other outcomes. Comparing AAT using live animals versus a soft toy cat, one study (64 participants) evaluated only social functioning, in the form of duration of contact and talking. The data were expressed as median and interquartile ranges. Duration of contact was slightly longer in participants in the AAT group and duration of talking slightly longer in those exposed to the toy cat. This was low-certainty evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that AAT may slightly reduce depressive symptoms in people with dementia. We found no clear evidence that AAT affects other outcomes in this population, with our certainty in the evidence ranging from very-low to moderate depending on the outcome. We found no evidence on safety or effects on the animals. Therefore, clear conclusions cannot yet be drawn about the overall benefits and risks of AAT in people with dementia. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to improve the certainty of the evidence. In view of the difficulty in achieving blinding of participants and personnel in such trials, future RCTs should work on blinding outcome assessors, document allocation methods clearly, and include major patient-important outcomes such as affect, emotional and social functioning, quality of life, adverse events, and outcomes for animals.
METHODS: The methodology of this study is based on a literature review of accessible peer-review articles from three recognized databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. The findings of the selected studies were compared and evaluated.
RESULTS: The findings showed that e-learning educational programs/courses helped caregivers feel more confident about dementia care, reduced their perceived stress and enhanced their feelings of empathy, understanding and concern.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study reveal that the exploitation of e-learning as a support tool, especially for informal caregivers, in the management of dementia may be a promising method, but its implementation requires professional training of informal caregivers in the use of this technology. More evidence-based studies are needed on this topic.
METHODS: Data from TUA cohort study involving 1366 older adults (aged 60 years and above) categorized as low-income were analysed, for risk of MCR syndrome based on defined criteria. Chi-square analysis and independent t test were employed to examine differences in socioeconomic, demographic, chronic diseases and lifestyle factors between MCR and non-MCR groups. Risk factors of MCR syndrome were determined using hierarchical logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 3.4% of participants fulfilled the criteria of MCR syndrome. Majority of them were female (74.5%, p = 0.001), single/widow/widower/divorced (55.3%, p = 0.002), living in rural area (72.3%, p = 0.011), older age (72.74 ± 7.08 year old, p dementia, especially among individuals with low socioeconomic status.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 202 caregivers to PWD in home-based settings. Recruited caregivers were administered questionnaires regarding BPSD which was measured using Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q), caregiver burden using Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), Brief COPE for coping strategies and Big-Five Inventory which measured personality traits.
RESULTS: Majority of the caregivers were female (71.3%), aged 50 and above (55%), single (46%), married (43.6%), working full time (45%) while the rest work part time (22.3%), unemployed (7.4%) and retiree (25.2%), and majority were parents (58.9%) and spouse (18.3%). The duration of caregiving was less than a year (33.7%) while the rest are more than a year. Results demonstrated that the most frequent types of BPSD exhibited by PWD was irritability, followed by apathy and agitation. All of the types of BPSD showed to be significantly correlated to caregiver burden except for anxiety, elation and appetite. Of personality traits, only conscientiousness was found to mediate the relationship between BPSD and caregiver burden (p
STUDY DESIGN: A review of articles was performed.
METHODS: A search strategy was used by using electronic bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL for published studies and reference list of published studies. The articles were exported to a bibliographic database for further screening process. Two reviewers worked independently to screen results and extract data from the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved and confirmed by the consensus of all authors.
RESULTS: There were three screening approaches for detecting MCI and dementia - screening by a healthcare provider, screening by a self-administered questionnaire and caretaker informant screening. Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was the most common and preferable tool for MCI screening (sensitivity [Sn]: 81-97%; specificity [Sp]: 60-86%), whereas Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination (ACE) was the preferable tool for dementia screening (Sn: 79-100%; Sp: 86%).
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that there are three screening approaches for detecting early dementia and MCI at primary health care. ACE and MoCA are recommended tools for screening of dementia and MCI, respectively.
METHODS: To guide clinical practice in the Asian region, the Asian Clinical Expert Group on Neurocognitive Disorders compiled evidence-based consensus recommendations regarding the use of EGb 761® in neurocognitive disorders with/without cerebrovascular disease.
RESULTS: Key randomized trials and robust meta-analyses have demonstrated significant improvement in cognitive function, neuropsychiatric symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL) and quality of life with EGb 761® versus placebo in patients with mild-to-moderate dementia. In those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), EGb 761® has also demonstrated significant symptomatic improvement versus placebo. World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry guidelines list EGb 761® with the same strength of evidence as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists e.g. memantine (Grade 3 recommendation; Level B evidence). Only EGb 761® had Level B evidence in improving cognition, behaviour, and ADL in both AD and vascular dementia patients. Safety analyses show EGb 761® to have a positive risk-benefit profile. While concerns have been raised regarding a possible increased bleeding risk, several randomized trials and two meta-analyses have not supported this association.
CONCLUSIONS: The Expert Group foresee an important role for EGb 761® , used alone or as an add-on therapy, in the treatment of MCI and dementias, particularly when patients do not derive benefit from acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or NMDA antagonists. EGb 761® should be used in alignment with local clinical practice guidelines.
METHOD: Following the European QI protocol, auditing and data extraction of medical records of consenting residents with dementia were conducted by trained auditors with relevant health care backgrounds. Detailed field notes by the auditors were also obtained to describe the characteristics of the participating care facilities, as well as key issues and challenges encountered, for each of the 12 QIs.
RESULTS: Sixteen residential care facilities in the seven Asia-Pacific sites participated in this study. Data from 275 residents' records revealed each of the 12 Qis' endorsement varied widely within and between the study sites (0%-100%). Quality of the medical records, family and cultural differences, definitions and scoring of certain indicators, and time-consuming nature of the QI administration were main concerns for implementation.
CONCLUSION: Several items in the European QIs in the current format were deemed problematic when used to measure the quality of psychosocial care in the residential aged care settings in participating Asia-Pacific countries. We propose refinements of the European QIs for the Asian-Pacific context, taking into account multiple factors identified in this study. Our findings provide crucial insights for future research and implementation of psychosocial dementia care QIs in this region.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to 7 February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments to alleviate agitation in people with all-types dementia. Data were extracted using standardized forms and study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. The primary outcome, efficacy, was 8-week response rates defined as a 50% reduction in baseline agitation score. The secondary outcome was treatment acceptability defined as treatment continuation for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs comprising 5585 participants (30.9% male; mean ± standard deviation age, 81.8 ± 4.9 years) were included. Dextromethorphan/quinidine [odds ratio (OR) 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-5.66], risperidone (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.49-2.59) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53) were found to be significantly more efficacious than placebo. Haloperidol appeared less efficacious than nearly all comparators. Most treatments had noninferior treatment continuation compared to placebo, except oxcarbazepine, which was inferior. Findings were supported by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone, serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class and dextromethorphan/quinidine demonstrated evidence of efficacy for agitation in dementia, although findings for dextromethorphan/quinidine were based on a single RCT. Our findings do not support prescribing haloperidol due to lack of efficacy, or oxcarbazepine due to lack of acceptability. The decision to prescribe should be based on comprehensive consideration of the benefits and risks, including those not evaluated in this meta-analysis.