METHODS: A nationwide survey was conducted among individuals aged ≥60 years. Cognition was assessed with the Identification and Intervention for Dementia in Elderly Africans (IDEA) tool. QoL of older caregivers was assessed using the Control, Autonomy, Self-Realization and Pleasure (CASP-19) questionnaire.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were used from the Well-being of the Singapore Elderly (WiSE) study, a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey among Singapore residents aged 60 years and above. Caregiver dependence was ascertained by asking the informant (the person who knows the older person best) a series of open-ended questions about the older person's care needs.

RESULTS: The older adult sample comprised 57.1% females and the majority were aged 60 to 74 years (74.8%), while 19.5% were 75 to 84 years, and 5.7% were 85 years and above. The prevalence of caregiver dependence was 17.2% among older adults. Significant sociodemographic risk factors of caregiver dependence included older age (75 to 84 years, and 85 years and above, P <0.001), Malay and Indian ethnicity (P <0.001), those who have never been married (P = 0.048) or have no education (P = 0.035), as well as being homemakers or retired (P <0.001). After adjusting for sociodemographic variables and all health conditions in multiple logistic regression analyses, dementia (P <0.001), depression (P = 0.011), stroke (P = 0.002), eyesight problems (P = 0.003), persistent cough (P = 0.016), paralysis (P <0.001), asthma (P = 0.016) and cancer (P = 0.026) were significantly associated with caregiver dependence.

METHODS: Data were from the 10/66 Study. Individuals aged 65 years or older and without dementia at baseline were selected from China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Dementia incidence was assessed over 3-5 years, with diagnosis according to the 10/66 Study diagnostic algorithm. Discrimination and calibration were tested for five models: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia risk score (CAIDE); the Study on Aging, Cognition and Dementia (AgeCoDe) model; the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI); the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI); and the Rotterdam Study Basic Dementia Risk Model (BDRM). Models were tested with use of Cox regression. The discriminative accuracy of each model was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c)-statistic, with a value of 0·70 or higher considered to indicate acceptable discriminative ability. Calibration (model fit) was assessed statistically using the Grønnesby and Borgan test.

FINDINGS: 11 143 individuals without baseline dementia and with available follow-up data were included in the analysis. During follow-up (mean 3·8 years [SD 1·3]), 1069 people progressed to dementia across all sites (incidence rate 24·9 cases per 1000 person-years). Performance of the models varied. Across countries, the discriminative ability of the CAIDE (0·52≤c≤0·63) and AgeCoDe (0·57≤c≤0·74) models was poor. By contrast, the ANU-ADRI (0·66≤c≤0·78), BDSI (0·62≤c≤0·78), and BDRM (0·66≤c≤0·78) models showed similar levels of discriminative ability to those of the development cohorts. All models showed good calibration, especially at low and intermediate levels of predicted risk. The models validated best in Peru and poorest in the Dominican Republic and China.

INTERPRETATION: Not all dementia prediction models developed in HICs can be simply extrapolated to LMICs. Further work defining what number and which combination of risk variables works best for predicting risk of dementia in LMICs is needed. However, models that transport well could be used immediately for dementia prevention research and targeted risk reduction in LMICs.

METHODS: A literature review was conducted for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and scoping reviews published between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2023. Literature assessing individuals with pre-existing neurological diseases and COVID-19 infection was included. Information regarding infection severity was extracted, and potential limitations were identified.

RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles met inclusion criteria, with data assessing >3 million patients from 51 countries. 26/51 (50.9%) of countries analyzed were classified as high income, while the remaining represented middle-low income countries (25/51; 49.0%). A majority of evidence focused on the impact of cerebrovascular disease (17/39; 43.5%) and dementia (5/39; 12.8%) on COVID-19 severity and mortality. 92.3% of the articles (36/39) suggested a significant association between neurological conditions and increased risk of severe COVID-19 and mortality. Cerebrovascular disease, dementia, Parkinson's disease, and epilepsy were associated with increased COVID severity and mortality.

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.

METHODS: Participants attended the workshop and completed pre- (Time 1) and post-workshop (Time 2) questionnaires consisting of validated measures exploring attitudes towards dementia and older people more broadly.

RESULTS: A total of 97 students were recruited. Attitudes towards people with dementia showed significant positive changes between Time 1 and Time 2, whereas no differences were found for attitudes towards older people.