METHOD: Data were obtained from 36 members of COSMIC, representing 28 countries across 6 continents (HICs: Australia, Canada, Faroe Islands, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, & USA; LMICs: Brazil, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Republic of Congo, & Tanzania). For each member study, we calculated incidence rates for all-cause dementia. Findings from 14 studies, with a consensus diagnosis are presented in the results. Using an Item Response Theory approach, we are currently calculating a comparable incidence rate for those studies without a consensus diagnosis.
RESULT: Consistent with previous trends, incidence rates (per 100 person-years) increased with age, from 65-70 years-old to 85-90 years-old, for both males (i.e., Republic of Congo, 4.41 to 19.57; France, 0.46 to 3.89; USA, 0.17 to 3.22; Spain, 0.31 to 4.22; 65-70 & 85-90 cohorts respectively) and females (i.e., Republic of Congo, 3.57 to 15.31; France, 0.45 to 3.72; USA, 0.22 to 4.25; Spain, 0.36 to 4.96; 65-70 & 85-90 cohorts respectively). There were no sex differences in incidence rates in younger age groups (60-65). Among older age groups, however, women tended to have higher incidence rates than men, in some countries (Faroe Islands, Germany, Sweden, and USA).
CONCLUSION: Geographical differences in dementia incidence rates likely represent inherent variation among countries, beyond methodological considerations. We are working to expand the range of studies and regions for which we calculate dementia incidence rates. This involves the development of approaches to classify and harmonise incident dementia in studies lacking consensus diagnoses. Doing so will bolster LMIC representation.
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.
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.
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.