METHODS: We followed up 240 participants (112 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 78 amnestic mild cognitive impairment [aMCI], and 50 Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia [ADD]) for 2 years from 9 referral centers in South Korea. Participants were assessed with neuropsychological tests and 18F-flutemetamol (FMM) positron emission tomography (PET). Ten regions (frontal, precuneus/posterior cingulate (PPC), lateral temporal, parietal, and striatum of each hemisphere) were visually examined in the FMM scan, and participants were divided into three groups: No-FMM, Focal-FMM (FMM uptake in 1-9 regions), and Diffuse-FMM. We used mixed-effects model to investigate the speed of cognitive decline in the Focal-FMM group according to the cognitive level, extent, and location of Aß involvement, in comparison with the No- or Diffuse-FMM group.
RESULTS: Forty-five of 240 (18.8%) individuals were categorized as Focal-FMM. The rate of cognitive decline in the Focal-FMM group was faster than the No-FMM group (especially in the CU and aMCI stage) and slower than the Diffuse-FMM group (in particular in the CU stage). Within the Focal-FMM group, participants with FMM uptake to a larger extent (7-9 regions) showed faster cognitive decline compared to those with uptake to a smaller extent (1-3 or 4-6 regions). The Focal-FMM group was found to have faster cognitive decline in comparison with the No-FMM when there was uptake in the PPC, striatum, and frontal cortex.
CONCLUSIONS: When predicting cognitive decline of patients with focal Aß deposition, the patients' cognitive level, extent, and location of the focal involvement are important.
METHODS: We consider several PRSs trained using European and/or Asian GWAS. For each PRS, we evaluate the discrimination and calibration of three absolute risk models among 41 031 women from the Korean Cancer Prevention Study (KCPS)-II Biobank: (i) a model using incidence, mortality and risk factor distributions (reference inputs) among US women and European relative risks; (ii) a recalibrated model, using Korean reference but European relative risks; and (iii) a fully Korean-based model using Korean reference and relative risk estimates from KCPS.
RESULTS: All Asian and European PRS improved discrimination over lifestyle, clinical and environmental (Qx) factors in Korean women. US-based absolute risk models overestimated the risks for women aged ≥50 years, and this overestimation was larger for models that only included PRS (expected-to-observed ratio E/O = 1.2 for women <50, E/O = 2.7 for women ≥50). Recalibrated and Korean-based risk models had better calibration in the large, although the risk in the highest decile was consistently overestimated. Absolute risk projections suggest that risk-reducing lifestyle changes would lead to larger absolute risk reductions among women at higher PRS.
CONCLUSIONS: Absolute risk models incorporating PRS trained in European and Asian GWAS and population-appropriate average age-specific incidences may be useful for risk-stratified interventions in Korean women.
METHODS: A cross sectional study was conducted in Malaysia and Korea. The study sample consisted of 574 Korean participants and 562 Malaysian participants. The mean age of the participants was 19.8 (SD = 1.29) for the Korean sample and 19.8 (SD = 1.22) for the Malaysian sample. Participants were invited to complete the DB scale with the 10-item and two factors (i.e., perceived benefit and perceived barriers). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and invariance test were conducted on the data by using Mplus 8.3.
RESULTS: The CFA results based on the hypothesised measurement model of two factors and ten items showed sufficient construct validity after adding residual covariance between items within the same factor: CFI = 0.979, TLI = 0.970, SRMR = 0.036, RMSEA = 0.036 for the Korea sample, and CFI = 0.964, TLI = 0.949, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.066 for the Malay sample. For the Korea sample, the construct reliability was 0.62 and 0.74 for perceived benefits and perceived barriers respectively. For the Malay sample, the construct reliability was 0.75 and 0.77 for perceived benefits and perceived barriers respectively. The findings presented evidence for measurement and structural invariance of the DB scale for the Korea and Malaysia samples.
CONCLUSION: The DB scale was a valid and reliable measure for assessing exercise behaviour and for making comparisons between Korean and Malaysian samples.
METHODS: A modified questionnaire was sent to the PV team heads of 21 PV agencies based in the APEC countries, between June 28 and September 12, 2017, to gather information on the structure, process, and outcome of PV status in these countries.
RESULTS: Of the 21 APEC countries, 15 responded. We found harmonized laws and regulations for general PV and risk management systems. However, variations were found in PV structure: for example, 11 out of 15 countries had national regulatory representatives responsible for PV in pharmaceutical companies, while four did not. For PV process, discrepancies were also found in the source type of adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports and reporting of medication errors and therapeutic ineffectiveness in cumulative ADR reports. With respect to PV outcomes, among countries that performed active surveillance, the United States of America was more active, with hundreds of projects including additional pharmacoepidemiological studies etc. Among the nine countries that responded, Japan had the greatest number of product label changes followed by Taiwan, Malaysia, and Korea.
CONCLUSION: We have identified substantial variations in the structures, processes, and outcomes of PV status among the countries of the APEC region. Therefore, efforts to reduce variations in the PV administration and regulation are warranted for harmonization of PV within the APEC region.