Search

Two of every three persons living with dementia reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The projected increase in global dementia rates is expected to affect LMICs disproportionately. However, the majority of global dementia care costs occur in high-income countries (HICs), with dementia research predominantly focusing on HICs. This imbalance necessitates LMIC-focused research to ensure that characterization of dementia accurately reflects the involvement and specificities of diverse populations. Development of effective preventive, diagnostic, and therapeutic approaches for dementia in LMICs requires targeted, personalized, and harmonized efforts. Our article represents timely discussions at the 2022 Symposium on Dementia and Brain Aging in LMICs that identified the foremost opportunities to advance dementia research, differential diagnosis, use of neuropsychometric tools, awareness, and treatment options. We highlight key topics discussed at the meeting and provide future recommendations to foster a more equitable landscape for dementia prevention, diagnosis, care, policy, and management in LMICs. HIGHLIGHTS: Two-thirds of persons with dementia live in LMICs, yet research and costs are skewed toward HICs. LMICs expect dementia prevalence to more than double, accompanied by socioeconomic disparities. The 2022 Symposium on Dementia in LMICs addressed advances in research, diagnosis, prevention, and policy. The Nairobi Declaration urges global action to enhance dementia outcomes in LMICs.

BackgroundMost people living with dementia want to remain living in their own homes and are supported to do so by family carers. No interventions have consistently demonstrated improvements to people with dementia's life quality, functioning, or other indices of living as well as possible with dementia. We have co-produced, with health and social care professionals and family carers of people with dementia, a new intervention (NIDUS-family). To our knowledge, NIDUS-family is the first manualised intervention that can be tailored to personal goals of people living with dementia and their families and is delivered by facilitators without clinical training. The intervention utilizes components of behavioural management, carer support, psychoeducation, communication and coping skills training, enablement, and environmental adaptations, with modules selected to address dyads' selected goals. We will evaluate the effect of NIDUS-family and usual care on goal attainment, as measured by Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) rated by family carers, compared to usual care alone at 12-month follow-up. We will also determine whether NIDUS-family and usual care is more cost-effective than usual care alone over 12 months.MethodsA randomised, two-arm, single-masked, multi-site clinical trial involving 297 people living with dementia-family carer dyads. Dyads will be randomised 2:1 to receive the NIDUS-family intervention with usual care (n = 199) or usual care alone (n = 98). The intervention group will be offered, over 1 year, via 6-8 video call or telephone sessions (or face to face if COVID-19 restrictions allow in the recruitment period) in the initial 6 months, followed by telephone follow-ups every 1-2 months to support implementation, with a trained facilitator.DiscussionIncreasing the time lived at home by people living with dementia is likely to benefit lives now and in the future. Our intervention, which we adapted to include remote delivery prior to trial commencement due to the COVID-19 pandemic, aims to address barriers to living as well and as independently as possible that distress people living with dementia, exacerbate family carer(s) stress, negatively affect relationships, lead to safety risks, and frequently precipitate avoidable moves to a care home.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN11425138 . Registered on 7 October 2019.

Background: Low social participation is a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive deterioration in the general population and related to lower quality of life (QoL). We aimed to find out whether social participation is linked to cognitive deterioration and QoL for people with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability. Method: We used data from the National Child Development Study, consisting of people born during one week in 1958, to compare midlife social participation in people with mild intellectual disability, borderline intellectual functioning, and without intellectual impairment. We defined social participation as 1. confiding/emotional support from the closest person and social network contact frequency at age 44, and 2. confiding relationships with anyone at age 50. We then assessed the extent to which social participation mediated the association between childhood intellectual functioning and cognition and QoL at age 50. Results: 14,094 participants completed cognitive tests at age 11. People with borderline intellectual functioning and mild intellectual disability had more social contact with relatives and confiding/emotional support from their closest person, but fewer social contacts with friends and confiding relationships with anyone than those without intellectual disability. Having a confiding relationship partially mediated the association at age 50 between IQ and cognition (6.4%) and QoL (27.4%) for people with borderline intellectual functioning. Conclusion: We found adults with intellectual disability have positive family relationships but fewer other relationships. Even at the age of 50, confiding relationships may protect cognition for people with borderline intellectual functioning and are important for QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 2013 systematic review and Delphi consensus study identified 12 modifiable risk and protective factors for dementia, which were subsequently merged into the "LIfestyle for BRAin health" (LIBRA) score. We systematically evaluated whether LIBRA requires revision based on new evidence. To identify modifiable risk and protective factors suitable for dementia risk reduction, we combined an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses with a two‐round Delphi consensus study. The review of 608 unique primary studies and opinions of 18 experts prioritized six modifiable factors: hearing impairment, social contact, sleep, life course inequalities, atrial fibrillation, and psychological stress. Based on expert ranking, hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep were considered the most suitable candidates for inclusion in updated dementia risk scores. As such, the current study shows that dementia risk scores need systematic updates based on emerging evidence. Future studies will validate the updated LIBRA score in different cohorts. Highlights: An umbrella review was combined with opinions of 18 dementia experts.Various candidate targets for dementia risk reduction were identified.Experts prioritized hearing impairment, social contact, and sleep.Re‐assessment of dementia risk scores is encouraged.Future work should evaluate the predictive validity of updated risk scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background National dementia guidelines provide recommendations about the most effective approaches to diagnosis and interventions. Guidelines can improve care, but some groups such as people with minority characteristics may be disadvantaged if recommended approaches are the same for everyone. It is not known if dementia guidelines address specific needs related to patient characteristics. The objectives of this review are to identify which countries have national guidelines for dementia and synthesise recommendations relating to protected characteristics, as defined in the UK Equality Act 2010: age, disability, gender identity, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Methods and findings We searched CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Medline databases and the Guideline International Network library from inception to March 4, 2020, for dementia guidelines in any language. We also searched, between April and September 2020, Google and the national health websites of all 196 countries in English and in each country's official languages. To be included, guidelines had to provide recommendations about dementia, which were expected to be followed by healthcare workers and be approved at a national policy level. We rated quality according to the iCAHE guideline quality checklist. We provide a narrative synthesis of recommendations identified for each protected characteristic, prioritising those from higher-quality guidelines. Forty-six guidelines from 44 countries met our criteria, of which 18 were rated as higher quality. Most guidelines (39/46; 85%) made at least one reference to protected characteristics, and we identified recommendations relating to age, disability, race (or culture, ethnicity, or language), religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Age was the most frequently referenced characteristic (31/46; 67%) followed by race (or culture, ethnicity, or language; 25/46; 54%). Recommendations included specialist investigation and support for younger people affected by dementia and consideration of culture when assessing whether someone had dementia and providing person-centred care. Guidelines recommended considering religion when providing person-centred and end-of-life care. For disability, it was recommended that healthcare workers consider intellectual disability and sensory impairment when assessing for dementia. Most recommendations related to sex recommended not using sex hormones to treat cognitive impairment in men and women. One guideline made one recommendation related to sexual orientation. The main limitation of this study is that we only included national guidelines applicable to a whole country meaning guidelines from countries with differing healthcare systems within the country may have been excluded. Conclusions National guidelines for dementia vary in their consideration of protected characteristics. We found that around a fifth of the world's countries have guidelines for dementia. We have identified areas of good practice that can be considered for future guidelines and suggest that all guidelines provide specific evidence-based recommendations for minority groups with examples of how to implement them. This will promote equity in the care of people affected by dementia and help to ensure that people with protected characteristics also have high-quality clinical services., Author(s): Tiffeny James 1,*, Naaheed Mukadam 1, Andrew Sommerlad 1, Hossein Rostami Pour 2, Melanie Knowles 3, Ignacia Azocar 1, Gill Livingston 1 Introduction Around 50 million people live with [...]

Background There is need to identify targets for preventing or delaying dementia. Social contact is a potential target for clinical and public health studies, but previous observational studies had short follow-up, making findings susceptible to reverse causation bias. We therefore examined the association of social contact with subsequent incident dementia and cognition with 28 years' follow-up. Methods and findings We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Whitehall II longitudinal prospective cohort study of employees of London civil service departments, aged 35-55 at baseline assessment in 1985-1988 and followed to 2017. Social contact was measured six times through a self-report questionnaire about frequency of contact with non-cohabiting relatives and friends. Dementia status was ascertained from three linked clinical and mortality databases, and cognition was assessed five times using tests of verbal memory, verbal fluency, and reasoning. Cox regression models with inverse probability weighting to account for attrition and missingness examined the association between social contact at age 50, 60, and 70 years and subsequent incident dementia. Mixed linear models examined the association of midlife social contact between 45 and 55 years and cognitive trajectory during the subsequent 14 years. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education, health behaviours, employment status, and marital status. Of 10,308 Whitehall II study participants, 10,228 provided social contact data (mean age 44.9 years [standard deviation (SD) 6.1 years] at baseline; 33.1% female; 89.1% white ethnicity). More frequent social contact at age 60 years was associated with lower dementia risk (hazard ratio [HR] for each SD higher social contact frequency = 0.88 [95% CI 0.79, 0.98], p = 0.02); effect size of the association of social contact at 50 or 70 years with dementia was similar (0.92 [95% CI 0.83, 1.02], p = 0.13 and 0.91 [95% CI 0.78, 1.06], p = 0.23, respectively) but not statistically significant. The association between social contact and incident dementia was driven by contact with friends (HR = 0.90 [95% CI 0.81, 1.00], p = 0.05), but no association was found for contact with relatives. More frequent social contact during midlife was associated with better subsequent cognitive trajectory: global cognitive function was 0.07 (95% CI 0.03, 0.11), p = 0.002 SDs higher for those with the highest versus lowest tertile of social contact frequency, and this difference was maintained over 14 years follow-up. Results were consistent in a series of post hoc analyses, designed to assess potential biases. A limitation of our study is ascertainment of dementia status from electronic health records rather than in-person assessment of diagnostic status, with the possibility that milder dementia cases were more likely to be missed. Conclusions Findings from this study suggest a protective effect of social contact against dementia and that more frequent contact confers higher cognitive reserve, although it is possible that the ability to maintain more social contact may be a marker of cognitive reserve. Future intervention studies should seek to examine whether improving social contact frequency is feasible, acceptable, and efficacious in changing cognitive outcomes., Author(s): Andrew Sommerlad 1,2,*, Séverine Sabia 3,4, Archana Singh-Manoux 3,4, Glyn Lewis 1,2, Gill Livingston 1,2 Introduction The ageing global population will lead to rising numbers of people with dementia [...]