Search

ObjectiveTo identify trends in the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, and to determine risk factors associated with the early detection of dementia among U.S. middle-aged and older adults.MethodsWe used 10-year nationally representative longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) (2006–2016). Adults aged 55 years or older were included to examine the trend. To identify the associated factors, adults aged 55 years or older in 2006 who developed MCI or dementia in subsequent waves until the 2016 wave were included. Early and late detection of dementia were identified using the Langa-Weir classification of cognitive function. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with the early detection of dementia.ResultsThe sample size for the analysis of the prevalence of MCI and dementia ranged from 14,935 to 16,115 in the six survey years, and 3,729 individuals were identified to determine associated factors of the early detection of dementia. Among them, participants aged 65 years or older accounted for 77.9%, and male participants accounted for 37.2%. The 10-year prevalence of MCI and dementia was 14.5 and 6.6%, respectively. We also found decreasing prevalence trends in MCI (from 14.9 to 13.6%) and dementia (from 7.4 to 6.0%) overall in the past decade. Using logistic regression controlling for the year, non-Hispanic black (MCI: OR = 2.83, P < 0.001; dementia: OR = 2.53, P < 0.001) and Hispanic (MCI: OR = 2.52, P < 0.001; dementia: OR = 2.62, P < 0.001) had a higher prevalence of both MCI and dementia than non-Hispanic white participants. In addition, men had a lower prevalence of MCI (OR = 0.94, P = 0.035) and dementia (OR = 0.84, P < 0.001) compared to women. Associated factors of the early detection of dementia include age, gender, race, educational attainment, stroke, arthritis diseases, heart problems, and pensions.ConclusionThis study found a decreasing trend in the prevalence of MCI and dementia in the past decade and associated racial/ethnic and gender disparities among U.S. middle-aged and older adults. Healthcare policies and strategies may be needed to address health disparities in the prevalence and take the associated factors of the early detection of dementia into account in clinical settings.

Objectives: Pharmacoeconomics evaluation (PE) is increasingly used in the healthcare decision-making process in China. Little is known about PE conducted in Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHMs). We aimed to systematically review trends, characteristics, and quality of PE of CHMS.Methods: We systematically searched both Chinese (CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) and English (Pubmed) databases. Studies were included if they were PE studies comparing both costs and outcomes between two or more interventions published in Chinese or English. Assessment of the quality of studies was conducted using the Quality of Health Economic Analyses (QHES) instrument. T-test and Chi-square tests were used to compare the studies before and after the first edition of China Guidelines for PE published in 2011, and between studies published in Chinese and English.Results: A total of 201 articles were included. There was an increasing trend of PE studies on CHMs during the study period. The top three studied diseases were central nervous system (CNS), mental, and behavioral disorders; cardiovascular diseases; and blood, immune and endocrine diseases. The average QHES score for the included studies was 63.37. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) accounted for the majority (76.6%) of the included studies. Only a quarter of the articles (27.4%) were funded, and there were significantly more studies funded after the publication of China guidelines for PE. About 96.5% of studies did not specify evaluation perspectives and 89.6% of studies had a sample size of less than 300. Around half of the studies (55%) used incremental analysis, but only a few of them considered using a threshold. Half of the studies lacked sensitivity analysis. There was no significant improvement in the quality of studies published after the publication of China Guidelines for PE, and English articles had significantly higher quality than Chinese articles.Conclusion: This study identified several problems in PE studies on CHMs, including having small sample sizes, lacking necessary research elements, and using single evaluation methods. The quality of PE studies on CHMs was not sufficient. Researchers need to understand the standardized way to conduct PE studies and improve the quality and level of PE studies on CHMs.

Background: Two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have received emergency use authorizations in the U.S. However, the safety of these vaccines in the real-world remains unknown.Methods: We reviewed adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccination among adults in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from December 14, 2020, through January 22, 2021. We compared the top 10 AEs, serious AEs, along with office and emergency room (ER) visits by age (18–64 years, ≥65 years) and gender (female, male).Results: There were age and gender disparities among adults with AEs following COVID-19 vaccination. Compared to younger adults aged between 18 and 64 years, older adults were more likely to report serious AEs, death, permanent disability, and hospitalization. Males were more likely to report serious AEs, death, and hospitalization compared to females.Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe but possible age and gender disparities in reported AEs may exist.

Background: The emergency use authorization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines brought both hopes and concerns to the Americans and others. We aimed to estimate the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccination and presented characteristics of deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.Methods: Data on deaths following COVID-19 vaccination were obtained from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) from December 11, 2020 through January 8, 2021. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID Data Tracker was used to identify the total number of people receiving COVID-19 vaccines during the same period to estimate the mortality rate. Stratified analysis was conducted by the location of vaccination.Results: As of January 8, 2021, 55 deaths were reported, and the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccination was 8.2 per million population. A total of 37 deaths were reported among long-term care facility residents, and the mortality rate was 53.4 per million population. Top reported comorbidities associated with deaths included hypertension, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and heart failure. In addition, dementia was more likely to be associated with deaths vaccinated at long-term care facilities than at other locations.Conclusion: The benefits of COVID-19 vaccines outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations, and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated. However, continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination is still warranted.