Search

We investigated the impact of the colour of football outfits on localising football players and on the results of football matches. Two studies were conducted: an experimental study examining the effects of outfit colour on the assessment of the positions of computer-animated football players in a video set-up (study 1) and a retrospective study on professional football clubs’ performances dependent on their outfit colours (study 2). The studies were conducted with 18 human volunteers aged 15–18 years (study 1) and league results from 10 professional European football teams over 17 years (1995–2013) (study 2). We analysed the number of correct assessments of the positions of virtual football players with different outfit colours (study 1) and analysed the relationship between match results and outfits’ colours (study 2). Study 1 showed that the position of players wearing white outfits was better assessed in 5.2% of the trials compared to players wearing green outfits (P = 0.007). Study 2 showed that Manchester City conceded less goals against in away games in highly visible kits (r = 0.62;P = 0.024), while Newcastle United conceded less goals and won more points while playing in kits associated with low visibility (r = 0.63;P = 0.007;r = 0.50;P = 0.040, respectively). We conclude that the colour of football outfits affects evaluations of football players’ positions on the field, with white tricots resulting in the best location assessment. The outfit colour may indirectly influence football match results, warranting more attention to the home and away shirts by team managers and football scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prevention trials in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), especially lifestyle interventions, can be difficult to carry out, particularly the recruitment and retention of subjects. We experienced these challenges in our multi-site one-year exercise trial in MCI, NeuroExercise. Trial recruitment rates differed significantly across sites; the non-medical sport university site, providing free access to a range of group exercise in a sports environment, proved far more successful than memory clinics linked to hospitals. This suggests that non-medical settings and a non-medical research community facilitating physical activities may be important factors in recruitment of subjects with MCI for large prevention trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: To identify prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) subjects using a data-driven approach to determine cognitive profiles in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: A total of 881 MCI subjects were recruited from 20 memory clinics and followed for up to 5 years. Outcome measures included cognitive variables, conversion to AD, and biomarkers (e.g. CSF, and MRI markers). Two hierarchical cluster analyses (HCA) were performed to identify clusters of subjects with distinct cognitive profiles. The first HCA included all subjects with complete cognitive data, whereas the second one selected subjects with very mild MCI (MMSE ≥28). ANOVAs and ANCOVAs were computed to examine whether the clusters differed with regard to conversion to AD, and to AD-specific biomarkers. Results: The HCAs identified 4-cluster solutions that best reflected the sample structure. One cluster (aMCIsingle) had a significantly higher conversion rate (19%), compared to subjective cognitive impairment (SCI, p < 0.0001), and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI, p = 0.012). This cluster was the only one showing a significantly different biomarker profile (Aβ42, t-tau, APOE ε4, and medial temporal atrophy), compared to SCI or naMCI. Conclusion: In subjects with mild MCI, the single-domain amnestic MCI profile was associated with the highest risk of conversion, even if memory impairment did not necessarily cross specific cut-off points. A cognitive profile characterized by isolated memory deficits may be sufficient to warrant applying prevention strategies in MCI, whether or not memory performance lies below specific z-scores. This is supported by our preliminary biomarker analyses. However, further analyses with bigger samples are needed to corroborate these findings. Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been well documented across the world with an appreciation that older people and in particular those with dementia have been disproportionately and negatively affected by the pandemic. This is both in terms of their health outcomes (mortality and morbidity), care decisions made by health systems and the longer-term effects such as neurological damage. The International Dementia Alliance is a group of dementia specialists from six European countries and this paper is a summary of our experience of the effects of COVID-19 on our populations. Experience from England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland highlight the differential response from health and social care systems and the measures taken to maximise support for older people and those with dementia. The common themes include recognition of the atypical presentation of COVID-19 in older people (and those with dementia) need to pay particular attention to the care of people with dementia in care homes; the recognition of the toll that isolation can bring on older people and the complexity of the response by health and social services to minimise the negative impact of the pandemic. Potential new ways of working identified during the pandemic could serve as a positive legacy from the crisis., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is associated with an increased risk of further cognitive decline, partly depending on demographics and biomarker status. The aim of the present study was to survey the clinical practices of physicians in terms of biomarker counseling, management, and follow-up in European expert centers diagnosing patients with MCI., Methods: An online email survey was distributed to physicians affiliated with European Alzheimer's disease Consortium centers (Northern Europe: 10 centers; Eastern and Central Europe: 9 centers; and Southern Europe: 15 centers) with questions on attitudes toward biomarkers and biomarker counseling in MCI and dementia. This included postbiomarker counseling and the process of diagnostic disclosure of MCI, as well as treatment and follow-up in MCI., Results: The response rate for the survey was 80.9% (34 of 42 centers) across 20 countries. A large majority of physicians had access to biomarkers and found them useful. Pre- and postbiomarker counseling varied across centers, as did practices for referral to support groups and advice on preventive strategies. Less than half reported discussing driving and advance care planning with patients with MCI., Conclusions: The variability in clinical practices across centers calls for better biomarker counseling and better training to improve communication skills. Future initiatives should address the importance of communicating preventive strategies and advance planning., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) compared the clinical outcomes between target systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels between 140 and 120 mmHg or lower. Both,the 2017 ACC/AHA and the 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines in hypertension are derived from the SPRINT trial and advise initiation and/or intensification of treatment at lower blood pressure thresholds. The ACC/AHA guidance supersedes the 2014 Eight Joint National Committee guideline (JNC-8) which advised initiation of treatment when the BP was 140/90 mmHg or higher; in adults 60 years or over, the target was 150/90 mmHg. Compared to JNC-8, the new guidelines lower the SBP target by 10 mmHg in patients under age of 60 years, and by 20 mmHg in the elderly. We performed a qualitative multi-dimensional analysis in order to answer two key questions: will the new guidelines deliver the stated benefits? and, will translation to the clinic be simple, risk-free, and affordable? A major investment by national healthcare administrations will be necessary for the initiation and support of this program but this decision can only be justified by a valid expectation of clinical benefit. At this time, a definitive answer is not available and a "wait and see" attitude appears appropriate and reasonable. In the interim, efforts are best directed to the immediate problem of untreated hypertension worldwide., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Hypertension is common among patients with Alzheimer disease. Because this group has been excluded from hypertension trials, evidence regarding safety of treatment is lacking. This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessed whether antihypertensive treatment increases the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with Alzheimer disease. Methods and Results Four hundred seventy-seven patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease were randomized to the calcium-channel blocker nilvadipine 8 mg/day or placebo for 78 weeks. Presence of OH (blood pressure drop ≥20/≥10 mm Hg after 1 minute of standing) and OH-related adverse events (dizziness, syncope, falls, and fractures) was determined at 7 follow-up visits. Mean age of the study population was 72.2±8.2 years and mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 20.4±3.8. Baseline blood pressure was 137.8±14.0/77.0±8.6 mm Hg. Grade I hypertension was present in 53.4% (n=255). After 13 weeks, blood pressure had fallen by -7.8/-3.9 mm Hg for nilvadipine and by -0.4/-0.8 mm Hg for placebo ( P<0.001). Across the 78-week intervention period, there was no difference between groups in the proportion of patients with OH at a study visit (odds ratio [95% CI]=1.1 [0.8-1.5], P=0.62), nor in the proportion of visits where a patient met criteria for OH, corrected for number of visits (7.7±13.8% versus 7.3±11.6%). OH-related adverse events were not more often reported in the intervention group compared with placebo. Results were similar for those with baseline hypertension. Conclusions This study suggests that initiation of a low dose of antihypertensive treatment does not significantly increase the risk of OH in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02017340.

Background: This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have disease-modifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease., Methods and Findings: NILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged >50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of ≥12 and <27. Participants were randomly assigned to 8 mg sustained-release nilvadipine or matched placebo. The a priori defined primary outcome was progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale-12 (ADAS-Cog 12) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 498), with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) as a gated co-primary outcome, eligible to be promoted to primary end point conditional on a significant effect on the ADAS-Cog 12. The analysis set had a mean age of 73 years and was 62% female. Baseline demographic and Alzheimer disease-specific characteristics were similar between treatment groups, with reported mean of 1.7 years since diagnosis and mean SMMSE of 20.4. The prespecified primary analyses failed to show any treatment benefit for nilvadipine on the co-primary outcome (p = 0.465). Decline from baseline in ADAS-Cog 12 on placebo was 0.79 (95% CI, -0.07-1.64) at 13 weeks, 6.41 (5.33-7.49) at 52 weeks, and 9.63 (8.33-10.93) at 78 weeks and on nilvadipine was 0.88 (0.02-1.74) at 13 weeks, 5.75 (4.66-6.85) at 52 weeks, and 9.41 (8.09-10.73) at 78 weeks. Exploratory analyses of the planned secondary outcomes showed no substantial effects, including on the CDR-sb or the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Nilvadipine appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Mortality was similar between groups (3 on nilvadipine, 4 on placebo); higher counts of adverse events (AEs) on nilvadipine (1,129 versus 1,030), and serious adverse events (SAEs; 146 versus 101), were observed. There were 14 withdrawals because of AEs. Major limitations of this study were that subjects had established dementia and the likelihood that non-Alzheimer subjects were included because of the lack of biomarker confirmation of the presence of brain amyloid., Conclusions: The results do not suggest benefit of nilvadipine as a treatment in a population spanning mild to moderate Alzheimer disease., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02017340, EudraCT number 2012-002764-27., Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: SH is a paid employee of Pentara Corporation, which received payment to verify the primary outcome analysis of this study, and is also a paid consultant for Acumen Pharmaceuticals, Affiris AG, Affirmativ Diagnostics PLLC, Alkahest, Allergan, Alzheon, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals, Apodemus, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Banner Alzheimer's Institute, Biogen, Dr. Richard Isaacson, Gerson Lehrman Group, Grifols Shared Services North America, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, M3 Biotechnology, Neurotrope BioScience, Nutricia Research B.V., PhotoPharmics, Regenera Pharma, Roche (F. Hoffmann-La Roche--Switzerland), Toyama Chemical Co., and vTv Therapeutics; MM and FC are paid employees of Archer Pharmaceuticals, which owns patents for the use of nilvadipine in Alzheimer disease; MM, FC, SK, RS, and BL are named as inventors in a pending patent for the use of nilvadipine based on the results of this clinical trial. No other authors have declared competing interests.

Introduction: This study is a European multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of nilvadipine as a disease course modifying treatment for mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a phase III study that will run for a period of 82 weeks with a treatment period of 78 weeks., Methods and Analysis: Adult patients, males and females over 50 years with mild-to-moderate AD as defined by the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease and Related Disorders Association (NINCDS-ADRDA) criteria, will be included in the study. It aims to recruit a total of 500 patients with AD; 250 in the nilvadipine group and 250 in the placebo group. Participants will be randomised to receive nilvadipine, an 8 mg overencapsulated, sustained release capsule, or a matching overencapsulated placebo (sugar pill) for a period of 78 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy outcome measure in this study is the change in cognitive function as assessed by the Alzheimer's disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog 12) from baseline to the end of treatment duration (78 weeks). There are two key secondary outcome measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD). If a statistically significant effect is seen in the primary outcome, CDR-sb will be considered to be a coprimary end point and only the DAD will contribute to the secondary outcome analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: The study and all subsequent amendments have received ethical approval within each participating country according to national regulations. Each participant will provide written consent to participate in the study. All participants will remain anonymised throughout and the results of the study will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: EUDRACT Reference Number: 2012-002764-27., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

In this article, the authors describe how the European Dementia Consensus Network developed a consensus on research ethics in dementia, taking into account the questions posed by the era of genetic research and its new research methods. The consensus process started with a Delphi procedure to analyze relevant stakeholders' positions by describing their statements on the possibilities and limitations of research into genetic determinants of Alzheimer disease and to describe and analyze the moral desirability of genetic research on Alzheimer disease. The conclusions drawn from the Delphi procedure fuelled the development of the consensus statement, which is presented in this paper. The consensus statement aims to stimulate ethically acceptable research in the field of dementia and the protection of vulnerable elderly patients with dementia from application of inadequate research methods or designs.