MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Estimating prevalence of subjective cognitive decline in and across international cohort studies of aging: a COSMIC study

Röhr S, Pabst A, Riedel-Heller SG, Jessen F, Turana Y, Handajani YS, et al.

Alzheimers Res Ther, 2020 12 18;12(1):167.
PMID: 33339532 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-020-00734-y

BACKGROUND: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is recognized as a risk stage for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias, but its prevalence is not well known. We aimed to use uniform criteria to better estimate SCD prevalence across international cohorts.
METHODS: We combined individual participant data for 16 cohorts from 15 countries (members of the COSMIC consortium) and used qualitative and quantitative (Item Response Theory/IRT) harmonization techniques to estimate SCD prevalence.
RESULTS: The sample comprised 39,387 cognitively unimpaired individuals above age 60. The prevalence of SCD across studies was around one quarter with both qualitative harmonization/QH (23.8%, 95%CI = 23.3-24.4%) and IRT (25.6%, 95%CI = 25.1-26.1%); however, prevalence estimates varied largely between studies (QH 6.1%, 95%CI = 5.1-7.0%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%; IRT: 7.8%, 95%CI = 6.8-8.9%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%). Across studies, SCD prevalence was higher in men than women, in lower levels of education, in Asian and Black African people compared to White people, in lower- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, and in studies conducted in later decades.
CONCLUSIONS: SCD is frequent in old age. Having a quarter of older individuals with SCD warrants further investigation of its significance, as a risk stage for AD and other dementias, and of ways to help individuals with SCD who seek medical advice. Moreover, a standardized instrument to measure SCD is needed to overcome the measurement variability currently dominant in the field.
Fulltext Sex differences in dementia risk and risk factors: Individual-participant data analysis using 21 cohorts across six continents from the COSMIC consortium

Gong J, Harris K, Lipnicki DM, Castro-Costa E, Lima-Costa MF, Diniz BS, et al.

Alzheimers Dement, 2023 Aug;19(8):3365-3378.
PMID: 36790027 DOI: 10.1002/alz.12962

INTRODUCTION: Sex differences in dementia risk, and risk factor (RF) associations with dementia, remain uncertain across diverse ethno-regional groups.
METHODS: A total of 29,850 participants (58% women) from 21 cohorts across six continents were included in an individual participant data meta-analysis. Sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs), and women-to-men ratio of hazard ratios (RHRs) for associations between RFs and all-cause dementia were derived from mixed-effect Cox models.
RESULTS: Incident dementia occurred in 2089 (66% women) participants over 4.6 years (median). Women had higher dementia risk (HR, 1.12 [1.02, 1.23]) than men, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income economies. Associations between longer education and former alcohol use with dementia risk (RHR, 1.01 [1.00, 1.03] per year, and 0.55 [0.38, 0.79], respectively) were stronger for men than women; otherwise, there were no discernible sex differences in other RFs.
DISCUSSION: Dementia risk was higher in women than men, with possible variations by country-level income settings, but most RFs appear to work similarly in women and men.
Fulltext [Not Available]

Van Asbroeck S, Köhler S, van Boxtel MPJ, Lipnicki DM, Crawford JD, Castro-Costa E, et al.

Alzheimers Dement, 2024 Jun;20(6):3972-3986.
PMID: 38676366 DOI: 10.1002/alz.13846

INTRODUCTION: The LIfestyle for BRAin Health (LIBRA) index yields a dementia risk score based on modifiable lifestyle factors and is validated in Western samples. We investigated whether the association between LIBRA scores and incident dementia is moderated by geographical location or sociodemographic characteristics.
METHODS: We combined data from 21 prospective cohorts across six continents (N = 31,680) and conducted cohort-specific Cox proportional hazard regression analyses in a two-step individual participant data meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A one-standard-deviation increase in LIBRA score was associated with a 21% higher risk for dementia. The association was stronger for Asian cohorts compared to European cohorts, and for individuals aged ≤75 years (vs older), though only within the first 5 years of follow-up. No interactions with sex, education, or socioeconomic position were observed.
DISCUSSION: Modifiable risk and protective factors appear relevant for dementia risk reduction across diverse geographical and sociodemographic groups.
HIGHLIGHTS: A two-step individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted. This was done at a global scale using data from 21 ethno-regionally diverse cohorts. The association between a modifiable dementia risk score and dementia was examined. The association was modified by geographical region and age at baseline. Yet, modifiable dementia risk and protective factors appear relevant in all investigated groups and regions.
Comparison of the accuracy of the 7-item HADS Depression subscale and 14-item total HADS for screening for major depression: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Wu Y, Levis B, Daray FM, Ioannidis JPA, Patten SB, Cuijpers P, et al.

Psychol Assess, 2023 Feb;35(2):95-114.
PMID: 36689386 DOI: 10.1037/pas0001181

The seven-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Depression subscale (HADS-D) and the total score of the 14-item HADS (HADS-T) are both used for major depression screening. Compared to the HADS-D, the HADS-T includes anxiety items and requires more time to complete. We compared the screening accuracy of the HADS-D and HADS-T for major depression detection. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis and fit bivariate random effects models to assess diagnostic accuracy among participants with both HADS-D and HADS-T scores. We identified optimal cutoffs, estimated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, and compared screening accuracy across paired cutoffs via two-stage and individual-level models. We used a 0.05 equivalence margin to assess equivalency in sensitivity and specificity. 20,700 participants (2,285 major depression cases) from 98 studies were included. Cutoffs of ≥7 for the HADS-D (sensitivity 0.79 [0.75, 0.83], specificity 0.78 [0.75, 0.80]) and ≥15 for the HADS-T (sensitivity 0.79 [0.76, 0.82], specificity 0.81 [0.78, 0.83]) minimized the distance to the top-left corner of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Across all sets of paired cutoffs evaluated, differences of sensitivity between HADS-T and HADS-D ranged from -0.05 to 0.01 (0.00 at paired optimal cutoffs), and differences of specificity were within 0.03 for all cutoffs (0.02-0.03). The pattern was similar among outpatients, although the HADS-T was slightly (not nonequivalently) more specific among inpatients. The accuracy of HADS-T was equivalent to the HADS-D for detecting major depression. In most settings, the shorter HADS-D would be preferred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Probability of major depression diagnostic classification based on the SCID, CIDI and MINI diagnostic interviews controlling for Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression subscale scores: An individual participant data meta-analysis of 73 primary studies

Wu Y, Levis B, Sun Y, Krishnan A, He C, Riehm KE, et al.

J Psychosom Res, 2020 02;129:109892.
PMID: 31911325 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109892

OBJECTIVE: Two previous individual participant data meta-analyses (IPDMAs) found that different diagnostic interviews classify different proportions of people as having major depression overall or by symptom levels. We compared the odds of major depression classification across diagnostic interviews among studies that administered the Depression subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D).
METHODS: Data accrued for an IPDMA on HADS-D diagnostic accuracy were analysed. We fit binomial generalized linear mixed models to compare odds of major depression classification for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), controlling for HADS-D scores and participant characteristics with and without an interaction term between interview and HADS-D scores.
RESULTS: There were 15,856 participants (1942 [12%] with major depression) from 73 studies, including 15,335 (97%) non-psychiatric medical patients, 164 (1%) partners of medical patients, and 357 (2%) healthy adults. The MINI (27 studies, 7345 participants, 1066 major depression cases) classified participants as having major depression more often than the CIDI (10 studies, 3023 participants, 269 cases) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.70 (0.84, 3.43)) and the semi-structured SCID (36 studies, 5488 participants, 607 cases) (aOR = 1.52 (1.01, 2.30)). The odds ratio for major depression classification with the CIDI was less likely to increase as HADS-D scores increased than for the SCID (interaction aOR = 0.92 (0.88, 0.96)).
CONCLUSION: Compared to the SCID, the MINI may diagnose more participants as having major depression, and the CIDI may be less responsive to symptom severity.