Search

Background: Sporadic cerebral amyloid angiopathy (sCAA) research of the past decade has increasingly focused on developing biomarkers that allow for an earlier and more accurate sCAA-diagnosis. Considering that sCAA does not have treatment options available (yet), more fundamental questions concerning the desirability of using such early-sCAA biomarkers in clinical practice need to be addressed.Objective: In this qualitative interview study, we aim to explore the views of vascular neurologists on the purpose and possible consequences of an earlier and more accurate sCAA-diagnosis, using new biomarkers.Methods: Vascular neurologists from around the world were approached via email and interviewed via video call. Topics included views on current sCAA diagnostic practice, considerations on the use of new biomarkers, and expectations and hopes for the future. All interviews were transcribed ad verbatim using a transcription program (Otter.ai). Transcripts were analyzed using inductive content analysis.Results: We interviewed 14 vascular neurologists. Views regarding the desirability of new sCAA-biomarkers differed substantially between interviewees as to when and in whom these biomarkers could be of benefit in clinical practice. These differences were mainly reported with regards to prognosis, risk stratification, and biological precision, between general stroke neurologists and neurologists with specific sCAA-expertise.Conclusion: Views on the use of sCAA-biomarkers in clinical practice differ substantially between vascular neurologists. There is particularly no consensus regarding when, and in whom sCAA biomarkers could be useful in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older people with subjective memory complaints (SMC) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living impairments (IADL-I) have an increased risk of developing dementia. Previous reports suggest that the predictive value of SMC and IADL-I may differ between sexes, leaving possible consequences for personalized risk prediction and prognosis. However, none of these studies addressed the competing risk of death, which may substantially differ between sexes.Objective: We investigated sex-differences in the association between IADL-I, SMC, and incident dementia and mortality as competing risk.Methods: 3,409 community-dwelling older people without dementia (mean age 74.3±2.5), were followed for 6.7 years (median). Baseline SMC were assessed using the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale memory question, and IADL-I using the Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score. Potential sex-differences in the predictive value of SMC and IADL-I were assessed using Cox regression models with an interaction term for sex.Results: HRs for isolated SMC and SMC + IADL-I and risk of dementia were higher in women (HR: 2.02, 95% CI = 0.91-4.46, p = 0.08; HR:2.85, 95% CI = 1.65-4.91, p < 0.001) than in men (HR:1.52, 95% CI = 0.86-2.69, p = 0.18; HR:1.24, 95% CI = 0.62-2.49, p = 0.54), but these sex-differences were not significant. Conversely, HRs for isolated IADL-I and risk of mortality were higher in men (HR:1.56, 95% CI = 1.18-2.05, p = 0.002) than in women (HR:1.14, 95% CI = 0.80-1.62, p = 0.48), but again, these sex-differences were not significant.Conclusion: The predictive value of SMC and IADL-I for the risk of dementia and mortality was not significantly modified by sex. However, the competing risk of death for these factors differed considerably between men and women, suggesting it is an essential factor to consider when comparing sex-differences in IADL/dementia risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]