Search

Background Medications with anticholinergic properties are associated with a range of adverse effects that tend to be worse in older people. Aims To investigate medication regimens with high anticholinergic burden, prescribed for older adults under the care of mental health services. Method Clinical audit of prescribing practice, using a standardised data collection tool. Results Fifty-seven trusts/healthcare organisations submitted data on medicines prescribed for 7915 patients: two-thirds (66%) were prescribed medication with anticholinergic properties, while just under a quarter (23%) had a medication regimen with high anticholinergic burden (total score ≥3 on the anticholinergic effect on cognition (AEC) scale). Some 16% of patients with a diagnosis of dementia or mild cognitive impairment were prescribed medication regimens with a high anticholinergic burden, compared with 35% of those without such diagnoses. A high anticholinergic burden was mostly because of combinations of commonly prescribed psychotropic medications, principally antidepressant and antipsychotic medications with individual AEC scores of 1 or 2. Conclusions Adults under the care of older people's mental health services are commonly prescribed multiple medications for psychiatric and physical disorders; these medication regimens can have a high anticholinergic burden, often an inadvertent consequence of the co-prescription of medications with modest anticholinergic activity. Prescribers for older adults should assess the anticholinergic burden of medication regimens, assiduously check for adverse anticholinergic effects and consider alternative medications with less anticholinergic effect where indicated. The use of a scale, such as the AEC, which identifies the level of central anticholinergic activity of relevant medications, can be a helpful clinical guide.

Objectives To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a primary care-based intervention for improving post-diagnostic dementia care and support (PriDem), and implementation study procedures.Design A non-randomised, mixed methods, feasibility study.Setting Seven general practices from four primary care networks (PCNs) in the Northeast and Southeast of England.Participants We aimed to recruit 80 people with dementia (PWD) and 66 carersIntervention Clinical Dementia Leads delivered a 12-month intervention in participating PCNs, to develop care systems, build staff capacity and capability, and deliver tailored care and support to PWD and carers.Outcomes Recruitment and retention rates were measured. A mixed methods process evaluation evaluated feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and study procedures. Using electronic care records, researchers extracted service use data and undertook a dementia care plan audit, preintervention and postintervention, assessing feasibility of measuring the primary implementation outcome: adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices. Participants completed quality of life, and service use measures at baseline, 4 and 9 months.Results 60 PWD (75% of recruitment target) and 51 carers (77% of recruitment target) were recruited from seven general practices across four PCNs. Retention rate at 9 months was 70.0% of PWD and 76.5% of carers. The recruitment approach showed potential for including under-represented groups within dementia. Despite implementation challenges, the intervention was feasible and acceptable, and showed early signs of sustainability. Study procedures were feasible and accessible, although researcher capacity was crucial. Participants needed time and support to engage with the study. Care plan audit procedures were feasible and acceptable.Conclusions The PriDem model is an acceptable and feasible intervention. A definitive study is warranted to fully inform dementia care policy and personalised dementia care planning guidance. Successful strategies to support inclusion of PWD and their carers in future research were developed.Trial registration number ISRCTN11677384.

Objectives Provision of personalised care planning is a national priority for people with dementia. Research suggests a lack of quality and consistency of care plans and reviews. The PriDem model of care was developed to deliver feasible and acceptable primary care-based postdiagnostic dementia care. We aimed to increase the adoption of personalised care planning for people with dementia, exploring implementation facilitators and barriers.Design Mixed-method feasibility and implementation study.Setting Seven general practices from four primary care networks (PCNs) in the Northeast and Southeast of England.Participants A medical records audit collected data on 179 community-dwelling people with dementia preintervention, and 215 during the intervention year. The qualitative study recruited 26 health and social care professionals, 14 people with dementia and 16 carers linked to participating practices.Intervention Clinical dementia leads (CDL) delivered a 12-month, systems-level intervention in participating PCNs, to develop care systems, build staff capacity and capability, and deliver tailored care and support to people with dementia and their carers.Primary and secondary outcome measures Adoption of personalised care planning was assessed through a preintervention and postintervention audit of medical records. Implementation barriers and facilitators were explored through semistructured qualitative interviews and non-participant observation, analysed using codebook thematic analysis informed by Normalisation Process Theory.Results The proportion of personalised care plans increased from 37.4% (95% CI 30.3% to 44.5%) preintervention to 64.7% (95% CI 58.3% to 71.0%) in the intervention year. Qualitative findings suggest that the flexible nature of the PriDem intervention enabled staff to overcome contextual barriers through harnessing the skills of the wider multidisciplinary team, delivering increasingly holistic care to patients.Conclusions Meaningful personalised care planning can be achieved through a team-based approach. Although improved guidelines for care planning are required, commissioners should consider the benefits of a CDL-led approach.Trial registration number ISRCTN11677384.

Background Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding Participants allocated 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (−1.74, 95% confidence interval −7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897/NCT03031184. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Plain language summary It is common for people with Alzheimer’s disease to experience agitation, for example feeling restless or unsettled. If left untreated, agitation can lead to poorer quality of life and increased hospitalisation and strain for family carers. Often these symptoms are treated with medications that are usually used to manage psychosis (antipsychotic drugs), but such medication has limited effectiveness and can cause serious adverse effects to patients, including risk of increased death. Two medications that are already commonly prescribed for other health issues, mirtazapine (an antidepressant) and carbamazepine (a drug used to treat epilepsy), had been identified as a possible alternative way of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s disease that might not have the harms associated with antipsychotic medication. In this study, we compared the effects of giving mirtazapine or carbamazepine with a dummy drug (placebo) in people with Alzheimer’s disease who were experiencing agitation. The results of the study showed that neither medication was any more effective than the placebo in reducing agitation over 12 weeks in terms of improving symptoms, or in economic terms. Mirtazapine may lead to additional carer costs as compared to placebo. The study findings are stronger for mirtazapine than carbamazepine because the carbamazepine arm was stopped when it had recruited less than half the numbers needed. That was done because the study was not recruiting quickly enough to support both the mirtazapine and the carbamazepine arms. The findings from this study show that mirtazapine should not be recommended to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s disease. More work is needed to formulate effective ways and to test new drug and non-drug treatments for agitation in dementia. Scientific summary Background Agitation is common in people with dementia and impacts negatively on the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed efficacy and safety of mirtazapine (an antidepressant) and carbamazepine (an anticonvulsant) prescribed for agitation in dementia. Aim To assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in the treatment of agitation in dementia. Primary objectives To determine if mirtazapine is more clinically effective in reducing agitated behaviours in dementia than placebo, measured by Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score 12 weeks post randomisation. To determine if carbamazepine is more clinically effective in reducing agitated behaviours in dementia than placebo measured by CMAI score 12 weeks post randomisation. Methods Design Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine over 12 weeks. Intervention (1) Mirtazapine, (2) carbamazepine and (3) placebo. Target dose: 45 mg of mirtazapine or 300 mg of carbamazepine. Inclusion and exclusion criteria Patients were eligible if the following criteria were met: a clinical diagnosis of probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease a diagnosis of co-existing agitated behaviours evidence that the agitated behaviours have not responded to management an assessment of CMAI (Long Form) score of 45 or greater written informed consent to enter and be randomised into the trial availability of a suitable informant. Exclusion criteria included: current treatment with antidepressants [including Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs)], anticonvulsants or antipsychotics contraindications to the administration of mirtazapine or carbamazepine patients with second-degree atrioventricular block patients with a history of bone marrow depression or history of hepatic porphyrias cases too critical for randomisation (i.e. where there is a suicide risk or where the patient presents a risk of harm to others) female subjects under the age of 55 years of childbearing potential. Setting Participants were drawn from existing patients and new patient referrals to old age psychiatric services, memory clinics, specific Participant Identification Centres, primary care centres and those in care homes in 26 UK sites. Consent Capacity to consent was assessed before proceeding with the consent process and included consideration of the provision of assent by the patient and consent on their behalf by their legal representative. If the patient had capacity to consent, the carer consented to the provision of information on data for measures on the patient (e.g. CMAI) and also on themselves in terms of impact. Randomisation and blinding Participants were allocated in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio (up to the discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm and 1 : 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, together with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and type of residence (care home vs. own household) with random block lengths of three or six up to the discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm and thereafter of two or four. The trial was double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, the trial management team and the research workers who did baseline and follow-up assessments were masked to group allocation. Outcomes Primary outcome CMAI score (Long Form) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes Costs derived from Client Service Receipt Inventory, and quality-adjusted life-years from cost data alongside supplemented information from Dementia-Specific Quality of Life and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version interviews 12 weeks post randomisation. CMAI score and cost at 6 weeks post randomisation. Patient and carer quality of life, and carer outcomes at 6 and 12 weeks post randomisation. Adverse events from week 0 to week 16 and adherence at 6 and 12 weeks post randomisation. CMAI score, adverse events and adherence at 6 and 12 weeks, conditional on evidence of effectiveness of Investigational Medicinal Product over placebo. Longer-term follow-up: CMAI score, institutionalisation, death and clinical management at 26 and 52 weeks post randomisation. Sample size and statistical analysis An initial calculated sample size of 400 (randomised 1 : 1 : 1) provided 90% power using two-sided 5% significance tests to detect a drug versus placebo mean difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks of 6 points. This equated to an effect size of d = 0.4 (assuming a common standard deviation of 15) or a clinically significant 30% decrease in CMAI from placebo to active drug. With a realistic 15% attrition, a sample of 471 (157 per arm) was aimed for. Mid-trial, with the discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, the sample size calculation was revisited with emerging data and it was adjusted so that the aim (excluding those randomised to carbamazepine) was for an overall sample of 222 (randomised 1 : 1) to provide 80% power using two-sided 5% significance tests to detect a mirtazapine versus placebo mean difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks of six points, assuming attrition of no more than 10%. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat (all participants were analysed according to the group to which they were randomised, irrespective of the treatment or dose received). The primary outcome (CMAI at 12 weeks) was analysed using a general linear regression model including baseline CMAI score as a covariate. General linear regression models were created for secondary outcomes. Economic evaluation The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was the incremental cost per six-point difference in CMAI score at 12 weeks, from a health and social care system perspective. Patient and public involvement Ensuring the involvement of people living with dementia and their family carers was integral to the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia (SYMBAD) trial from the application for funding and trial design stage through to its conduct, analysis and communication. SN was a co-applicant and led on public/carer involvement in the trial throughout, and she was supported by a Lived Experience Advisory Panel (LEAP) group hosted by Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (SPFT) co-ordinated by JF and the NIHR DeNDRoN (Dementias and Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Network) group. Protocol change Due to slower than expected recruitment the carbamazepine arm was discontinued in August 2018 when 40 people had been randomised to it. This summary therefore focusses on the mirtazapine versus placebo comparisons. Results Between January 2017 and February 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised to either the mirtazapine (n = 102) or placebo arm (n = 102). Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants allocated to receive mirtazapine and placebo [adjusted mean difference −1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) −7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53, direction of change in favour of mirtazapine but not statistically significant]. The number of controls with adverse events [65/102 (64%)] was similar to that in the mirtazapine group [67/102 (66%)]. There were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1), with post hoc analysis suggesting this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065), but this difference did not persist at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. The cost-effectiveness analyses similarly showed no evidence of benefit of mirtazapine over placebo, and no difference in costs between groups at 12 weeks. The carbamazepine arm closed in August 2018 when there had been 40 randomisations to that group, we therefore do not have statistical power for comparisons with placebo. However, exploratory analyses using the same modelling as for mirtazapine versus placebo showed there was also little evidence of any benefits compared to placebo (adjusted mean difference 2.46, 95% CI −5.01 to 9.93; p = 0.52), with similar levels of adverse events reported [27/40 (68%)]. Conclusions This is a trial with negative findings but important clinical implications. The data suggest that mirtazapine is not clinically effective or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for clinically significant agitation in dementia. Our findings suggest that there is little reason to recommend the use of mirtazapine for people with dementia who experience agitation. Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed, particularly where non-pharmacological approaches have been unsuccessful, and for people with dementia and their carers living in community settings. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN17411897 and ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03031184. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 27, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction Care is often inadequate and poorly integrated after a dementia diagnosis. Research and policy highlight the unaffordability and unsustainability of specialist-led support, and instead suggest a task-shared model, led by primary care. This study is part of the PriDem primary care led postdiagnostic dementia care research programme and will assess delivery of an evidence-informed, primary care based, person-centred intervention. The intervention involves Clinical Dementia Leads (CDLs) working in primary care to develop effective dementia care systems that build workforce capacity and support teams to deliver tailored support to people living with dementia and their carers.Methods and analysis This is a 15-month mixed-methods feasibility and implementation study, situated in four National Health Service (NHS) primary care networks in England. The primary outcome is adoption of personalised care planning by participating general practices, assessed through a patient records audit. Feasibility outcomes include recruitment and retention; appropriateness and acceptability of outcome measures; acceptability, feasibility and fidelity of intervention components. People living with dementia (n=80) and carers (n=66) will be recruited through participating general practices and will complete standardised measures of health and well-being. Participant service use data will be extracted from electronic medical records. A process evaluation will explore implementation barriers and facilitators through methods including semistructured interviews with people living with dementia, carers and professionals; observation of CDL engagement with practice staff; and a practice fidelity log. Process evaluation data will be analysed qualitatively using codebook thematic analysis, and quantitatively using descriptive statistics. Economic analysis will determine intervention cost-effectiveness.Ethics and dissemination The study has received favourable ethical opinion from Wales REC4. NHS Confidentiality Advisory Group support allows researchers preconsent access to patient data. Results will inform intervention adaptations and a future large-scale evaluation. Dissemination through peer-review journals, engagement with policy-makers and conferences will inform recommendations for dementia services commissioning.Trial registration number ISRCTN11677384.

Abstract Background Older people are the fastest-growing demographic group among prisoners in England and Wales and they have complex health and social care needs. Their care is frequently ad hoc and uncoordinated. No previous research has explored how to identify and appropriately address the needs of older adults in prison. We hypothesised that the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) would significantly increase the proportion of met health and social care needs 3 months after prison entry, compared to treatment as usual (TAU). Methods The study was a parallel randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruiting male prisoners aged 50 and over from 10 prisons in northern England. Participants received the OHSCAP or TAU. A clinical trials unit used minimisation with a random element as the allocation procedure. Data analysis was conducted blind to allocation status. The intervention group had their needs assessed using the OHSCAP tool and care plans were devised; processes that lasted approximately 30 min in total per prisoner. TAU included the standard prison health assessment and care. The intention to treat principle was followed. The trial was registered with the UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio (ISRCTN ID: 11841493) and was closed on 30 November 2016. Results Data were collected between 28 January 2014 and 06 April 2016. Two hundred and forty nine older prisoners were assigned TAU of which 32 transferred prison; 12 were released; 2 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Two hundred and fifty three 3 prisoners were assigned the OHSCAP of which 33 transferred prison; 11 were released; 6 withdrew and 1 was deemed unsafe to interview. Consequently, data from 202 participants were analysed in each of the two groups. There were no significant differences in the number of unmet needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Needs – Forensic Short Version (CANFOR-S). The mean number of unmet needs for the OHSCAP group at follow-up was 2.03 (SD = 2.07) and 2.06 (SD = 2.11) for the TAU group (mean difference = 0.088; 95% CI − 0.276 to 0.449, p = 0.621). No adverse events were reported. Conclusion The OHSCAP was fundamentally not implemented as planned, partly due to the national prison staffing crisis that ensued during the study period. Therefore, those receiving the OHSCAP did not experience improved outcomes compared to those who received TAU. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN11841493 , 25/10/2012.

ObjectiveResearch suggests a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of people with dementia (PwD) during the COVID-19 pandemic; however few studies have compared data collected pre-pandemic and during the pandemic. Moreover, none have compared this change with what would be expected due to dementia progression. We explored whether PwD experienced changes in mental health and wellbeing by comparing pre-pandemic and pandemic data, and drew comparisons with another group of PwD questioned on two occasions prior to the pandemic.MethodsCommunity-dwelling PwD enrolled in the IDEAL programme were split into two groups matched for age group, sex, dementia diagnosis, and time since diagnosis. Although each group was assessed twice, one was assessed prior to and during the pandemic (pandemic group; n = 115) whereas the other was assessed prior to the pandemic (pre-pandemic group; n = 230). PwD completed measures of mood, sense of self, wellbeing, optimism, quality of life, and life satisfaction.ResultsCompared to the pre-pandemic group, the pandemic group were less likely to report mood problems, or be pessimistic, but more likely to become dissatisfied with their lives. There were no changes in continuity in sense of self, wellbeing, and quality of life.DiscussionResults suggest the pandemic had little effect on the mental health and wellbeing of PwD, with any changes observed likely to be consistent with expected rates of decline due to dementia. Although personal accounts attest to the challenges experienced, PwD appear to have been resilient to the impact of lockdown and social restrictions during the pandemic.

The causes that trigger the onset of dementia are still unknown. Recently there has been an increasing interest in the possible role of infectious agents in the brain in the pathogenesis of this condition. Amongst the viruses, members of the Herpesviridae family, namely herpes simplex virus-1 (HSV1), cytomegalovirus (CMV), human herpesvirus-6 (HHV6), human herpesvirus-7 (HHV7) and varicella zoster virus (VZV) have been suggested as potential causes of the disease. However, the relative importance of these and other viruses in contributing to dementia remains unclear. We evaluated the association between seropositivity status of all viruses available in a large, population-based dataset (the UK Biobank) and dementia risk in an unbiased way. Of the 15 viruses investigated, our results showed a statistically significant increase of dementia risk associated only with HSV1 seropositivity (OR 2.14, 95% C.I. 1.21–3.81). However, by combining the data we found that seropositivity for 4 viruses (HSV1, HHV6, HHV7 and VZV) also significantly increases the risk of dementia (OR = 2.37, 95% C.I. 1.43–3.92). These four viruses have been described previously as neurotropic viruses. Our results provide support for a role for neurotropic viruses in the pathology of dementia.

Objectives To investigate the association between shingles and dementia, and between Zostavax vaccination and dementia.Design Nested case–control study.Settings Data were drawn from the UK Biobank cohort study with a total of 228 223 participants with Hospital Episodes Statistics and primary care linkage health records.Participants The analyses included 2378 incident dementia cases and 225 845 controls. Inclusion criteria for incident cases were a dementia diagnosis 3 years or more after the first assessment date derived from all sources including International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, ICD-9, self-report and primary care linkage records. Subjects with no dementia code from all sources were coded as controls. Both shingles and Zostavax vaccination were investigated for their association with dementia risk.Results There was a small but non-significant increase in the risk of dementia in subjects with shingles diagnosed 3 years or more prior to dementia diagnosis (OR: 1.088 with 95% CI: 0.978 to 1.211). In those subjects who had had Zostavax vaccination, the risk of dementia significantly decreased (OR: 0.808 with 95% CI: 0.657 to 0.993).Conclusion A history of shingles was not associated with an increased risk of dementia. In subjects who were eligible for the immunisation and vaccinated with Zostavax, we saw reduced risk of developing dementia.

Objectives To identify aspects of the organisation and delivery of acute inpatient services for people with dementia that are associated with shorter length of hospital stay.Design and setting Retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to 200 general hospitals in England and Wales.Participants 10 106 people with dementia who took part in the third round of National Audit of Dementia.Main outcome measure Length of admission to hospital.Results The median length of stay was 12 days (IQR=6–23 days). People with dementia spent less time in hospital when discharge planning was initiated within 24 hours of admission (estimated effect −0.24, 95% CI: −0.29 to −0.18, p

Background: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. Objectives: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated. Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Setting: This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities. Participants: Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package). Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview. Results: Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01; p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12; p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks. Limitations: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events. Conclusions: A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire. Future work: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Objectives To explore the views of commissioners, service development leads, service managers and senior staff in selected dementia services on increasing the role of primary care in postdiagnostic support for people with dementia.Design Qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews and a focus group.Setting Participants were drawn from National Health Service (NHS) Clinical Commissioning Groups, social care commissioning and a range of dementia services across primary care, secondary mental healthcare, social care and the third sector. All participants were based in England or Wales.Participants 61 professionals, comprising 25 commissioners or service development leads; 25 service managers; and 11 team leads or senior staff.Results Participants had varied views on whether a primary care-based approach for postdiagnostic support for people with dementia and their families was appropriate, achievable and/or desirable. Potential benefits of a task-shifted approach were continuity and a more holistic approach to care; familiarity for both patients and staff; and reduction of stigma. Key challenges included the capacity, ability and inclination of primary care to deliver postdiagnostic support for people with dementia and their families. We discovered a number of conceptual challenges to implementing a task-shifted and task-shared approach, including uncertainties around the nature of postdiagnostic support, the definition of primary care and identification of tasks that could be shifted to primary care.Conclusions Our data highlight the concerns of key professional staff around greater involvement of primary care in postdiagnostic support for dementia. Further research is needed to achieve a shared understanding and consensus over what postdiagnostic support means in the context of dementia. We will be undertaking such research in the next phase of our programme.

Abstract Background Core outcome sets (COS) prioritise outcomes based on their importance to key stakeholders, reduce reporting bias and increase comparability across studies. The first phase of a COS study is to form a ‘long-list’ of outcomes. Key stakeholders then decide on their importance. COS reporting is described as suboptimal and this first phase is often under-reported. Our objective was to develop a ‘long-list’ of outcome items for non-pharmacological interventions for people with dementia living at home. Methods Three iterative phases were conducted. First, people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policymakers and researchers (n = 55) took part in interviews or focus groups and were asked which outcomes were important. Second, existing dementia trials were identified from the ALOIS database. 248 of 1009 pharmacological studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from a 50% random sample (n = 124) along with eight key reviews/qualitative papers and 38 policy documents. Third, extracted outcome items were translated onto an existing qualitative framework and mapped into domains. The research team removed areas of duplication and refined the ‘long-list’ in eight workshops. Results One hundred seventy outcome items were extracted from the qualitative data and literature. The 170 outcome items were consolidated to 54 in four domains (Self-Managing Dementia Symptoms, Quality of Life, Friendly Neighbourhood & Home, Independence). Conclusions This paper presents a transparent blueprint for ‘long-list’ development. Though a useful resource in their own right, the 54 outcome items will be distilled further in a modified Delphi survey and consensus meeting to identify core outcomes.

Background: People aged ≥ 50 years constitute the fastest-growing group in the prison population of England and Wales. This population has complex health and social care needs. There is currently no national strategy to guide the development of the many-faceted services required for this vulnerable population; therefore, prisons are responding to the issue with a range of local initiatives that are untested and often susceptible to failure if they are not fully embedded in and securely funded as part of commissioned services. Objectives: The objectives were to establish the prevalence of dementia and mild cognitive impairment in prisoners in England and Wales and their health and social care needs; validate the six-item cognitive impairment test for routine use in prisons to aid early and consistent identification of older prisoners with possible dementia or mild cognitive impairment; identify gaps in current service provision; understand the first-hand experiences of prisoners living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop a care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment; develop dementia and mild cognitive impairment training packages for staff and prisoners; and produce health economic costings for the care pathway and training packages. Design: This was a mixed-methods study. Setting: The study setting was prisons in England and Wales. Participants: Prisoners aged ≥ 50 years and multiagency staff working in prison discipline and health and social care services took part. Results: Quantitative research estimated that the prevalence rate of suspected dementia and mild cognitive impairment in the prison population of England and Wales is 8%. This equates to 1090 individuals. Only two people (3%) in our sample had a relevant diagnosis in their health-care notes, suggesting current under-recognition of these conditions. The prevalence rate in prisons was approximately two times higher among individuals aged 60–69 years and four times higher among those aged ≥ 70 years than among those in the same age groups living in the community. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment screening test was found to be more effective than the six-item cognitive impairment test assessment in the older prisoner population. Qualitative research determined that staff and prisoners lacked training in knowledge and awareness of dementia and mild cognitive impairment, and this leads to problematic behaviour being viewed as a disciplinary issue rather than a health issue. Local initiatives to improve the lives of prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment are often disadvantaged by not being part of commissioned services, making them difficult to sustain. Multidisciplinary working is hampered by agencies continuing to work in silos, with inadequate communication across professional boundaries. A step-by-step care pathway for prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment was developed, and two tiers of training materials were produced for staff and prisoners. Limitations: Our prevalence rate was based on the results of a standardised assessment tool, rather than on clinical diagnosis by a mental health professional, and therefore it may represent an overestimation. Furthermore, we were unable to distinguish subcategories of dementia. We were also unable to distinguish between a likely diagnosis of dementia and other conditions presenting with mild cognitive impairment, including learning disability, severe depression and hearing impairment. Questionnaires regarding current service provision were collected over an extended period of time, so they do not reflect a ‘snapshot’ of service provision at a particular point. Conclusions: We hypothesise that implementing the step-by-step care pathway and the training resources developed in this study will improve the care of older prisoners with dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Future work: The care pathway and training materials should be evaluated in situ. Alternatives to prison for those with dementia or mild cognitive impairment should be developed and evaluated. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Concerns have repeatedly been expressed about the quality of inpatient care that people with dementia receive. Policies and practices have been introduced that aim to improve this, but their impact is unclear. Aims: To identify which aspects of the organisation and delivery of acute inpatient services for people with dementia are associated with higher-quality care and shorter length of stay. Design: Mixed-methods study combining a secondary analysis of data from the third National Audit of Dementia (2016/17) and a nested qualitative exploration of the context, mechanism and outcomes of acute care for people with dementia. Setting: Quantitative data from 200 general hospitals in England and Wales and qualitative data from six general hospitals in England that were purposively selected based on their performance in the audit. Participants: Quantitative data from clinical records of 10,106 people with dementia who had an admission to hospital lasting ≥ 72 hours and 4688 carers who took part in a cross-sectional survey of carer experience. Qualitative data from interviews with 56 hospital staff and seven carers of people with dementia. Main outcome measures: Length of stay, quality of assessment and carer-rated experience. Results: People with dementia spent less time in hospital when discharge planning was initiated within 24 hours of admission. This is a challenging task when patients have complex needs, and requires named staff to take responsibility for co-ordinating the discharge and effective systems for escalating concerns when obstacles arise. When trust boards review delayed discharges, they can identify recurring problems and work with local stakeholders to try to resolve them. Carers of people with dementia play an important role in helping to ensure that hospital staff are aware of patient needs. When carers are present on the ward, they can reassure patients and help make sure that they eat and drink well, and adhere to treatment and care plans. Clear communication between staff and family carers can help ensure that they have realistic expectations about what the hospital staff can and cannot provide. Dementia-specific training can promote the delivery of person-centred care when it is made available to a wide range of staff and accompanied by ‘hands-on’ support from senior staff. Limitations: The quantitative component of this research relied on audit data of variable quality. We relied on carers of people with dementia to explore aspects of service quality, rather than directly interviewing people with dementia. Conclusions: If effective support is provided by senior managers, appropriately trained staff can work with carers of people with dementia to help ensure that patients receive timely and person-centred treatment, and that the amount of time they spend in hospital is minimised. Future work: Future research could examine new ways to work with carers to co-produce aspects of inpatient care, and to explore the relationship between ethnicity and quality of care in patients with dementia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Minocycline is an anti-inflammatory drug and protects against the toxic effects of β-amyloid in vitro and in animal models of Alzheimer’s disease. To the best of our knowledge, no randomised placebo-controlled clinical trials in patients with Alzheimer’s disease looking at the efficacy and tolerability of minocycline have been carried out. Objectives: The trial investigated whether or not minocycline was superior to placebo in slowing down the rate of decline in cognitive and functional ability over 2 years. The safety and tolerability of minocycline were also assessed. Design: A Phase II, three-arm, randomised, double-blind, multicentre trial with a semifactorial design. Participants continued on trial treatment for up to 24 months. Setting: Patients were identified from memory services, both within the 32 participating NHS trusts and within the network of memory services supported by the Dementias and Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Network (also known as DeNDRoN). Participants: Patients with standardised Mini Mental State Examination scores of > 23 points and with Alzheimer’s disease assessed by the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association’s criteria were identified from memory services. Intervention: Patients with mild Alzheimer’s disease were randomly allocated 1 : 1 : 1 to receive one of three treatments: arm 1 – 400 mg per day of minocycline; arm 2 – 200 mg per day of minocycline; or arm 3 – placebo. Patients continued treatment for 24 months. Participants, investigators and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measures were decline in standardised Mini Mental State Examination and Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale scores of combined minocycline treatment arms versus placebo, as analysed by intention-to-treat repeated measures regression. Results: Between 23 May 2014 and 14 April 2016, 554 participants were randomised. Of the 544 eligible participants, the mean age was 74.3 years and the average standardised Mini Mental State Examination score was 26.4 points. A total of 252 serious adverse events were reported, with the most common categories being neuropsychiatric and cardiocirculatory. Significantly fewer participants completed treatment with 400 mg of minocycline [29% (53/184)] than 200 mg [62% (112/181)] or placebo [64% (114/179)] (p

Abstract Background The key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia. Methods/design Drawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design:1Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes.2Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS.3A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance.4A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS. Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions. Trial registration The study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org.

Abstract Context This commentary discusses the implications of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s disease which seem likely to appear in the next few years and results from a meeting of British experts in neurodegenerative diseases in Edinburgh. The availability of such treatments would help change public and professional attitudes and accelerate engagement with the prodromal and preclinical populations who might benefit from them. However, this would require an updated understanding of Alzheimer’s disease, namely the important distinction between Alzheimer’s disease and Alzheimer’s dementia. Consensus Since treatments are likely to be most effective in the early stages, identification of clinically relevant brain changes (for example, amyloid burden using imaging or cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers) will be crucial. While current biomarkers could be useful in identifying eligibility for new therapies, trial data are not available to aid decisions about stopping or continuing treatment in clinical practice. Therefore, effective monitoring of safety and effectiveness when these treatments are introduced into clinical practice will be necessary to inform wide-scale use. Equity of access is key but there is a tension between universal access for everyone with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and specifying an eligible population most likely to respond. We propose the resources necessary for an optimal care pathway as well as the necessary education and training for primary and secondary care. Conclusion The majority of current services in the UK and elsewhere would not be able to accommodate the specialist investigations required to select patients and prescribe these therapies. Therefore, a stepped approach would be necessary: from innovating sentinel clinical-academic centres that already have capacity to deliver the necessary phase IV trials, through early adoption in a hub and spoke model, to nationwide adoption for true equity of access. The optimism generated by recent and anticipated developments in the understanding and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease presents a great opportunity to innovate and adapt our services to incorporate the next exciting development in the field of dementia.

Introduction Around 70% of acute hospital beds in the UK are occupied by older people, approximately 40% of whom have dementia. Improving the quality of care in hospitals is a key priority within national dementia strategies. Limited research has been conducted to evaluate dementia training packages for staff, and evaluation of training often focuses on immediate, on-the-day training feedback and effects.Objectives Our study aims to answer two research questions: (1) How do variations in content, implementation and intensity of staff dementia training in acute hospitals in England relate to health service outcome/process measures and staff outcomes? and (2) What components of staff dementia training are most strongly related to improved patient and staff outcomes?Methods and analysis Using the principles of programme theory, a mixed-method study will be used to identify mechanisms and the interactions between them, as well as facilitators and barriers to dementia training in hospitals. We will use existing data, such as Hospital Episode Statistics, alongside two surveys (at hospital and staff level).We will recruit up to 193 acute hospitals in England to participate in the hospital level survey. We aim to recruit up to 30 staff members per hospital, from a random sample of 24 hospitals. In addition, we will explore the cost-effectiveness of dementia training packages and carry out an in-depth case study of up to six hospitals.Ethics and dissemination The study has been reviewed and approved by the Faculty of Health and Medicine Research Ethics Committee (FHMREC 17056) and Health Research Authority (Integrated Research Approval System (IRAS) ID 242166: REC reference 18/HRA/1198). We plan to develop both standard (eg, academic publications, presentations at conferences) and innovative (eg, citizen scientist web portals, online fora, links with hospitals and third sector organisations) means of ensuring the study findings are accessible and disseminated regionally, nationally and internationally.

Background: Cognitive rehabilitation (CR) is an individualised, person-centred intervention for people with mild to moderate dementia that addresses the impact of cognitive impairment on everyday functioning. Objectives: To determine whether or not CR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, and their carers. Design: This multicentre randomised controlled trial compared CR with treatment as usual (TAU). Following a baseline assessment and goal-setting to identify areas of everyday functioning that could be improved or better managed, participants were randomised (1 : 1) via secure web access to an independent randomisation centre to receive either TAU or CR and followed up at 3 and 9 months post randomisation. Setting: Community. Participants: Participants had an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition, diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or vascular or mixed dementia, had mild to moderate cognitive impairment (Mini Mental State Examination score of ≥ 18 points), were stable on medication if prescribed, and had a family carer who was willing to contribute. The exclusion criteria were people with a history of brain injury or other neurological disorder and an inability to speak English. To achieve adequate power, we needed 350 people to complete the trial, with 175 people in each trial arm. Intervention: Cognitive rehabilitation consisted of 10 therapy sessions over 3 months, followed by four maintenance sessions over 6 months, delivered in participants’ homes. The therapists were nine occupational therapists and one nurse. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-reported goal attainment at 3 months. Goal attainment was also assessed at 9 months. Carers provided independent ratings of goal attainment at both time points. The secondary outcomes were participant quality of life, mood, self-efficacy and cognition, and carer stress, health status and quality of life. The assessments at 3 and 9 months were conducted by researchers who were blind to the participants’ group allocation. Results: A total of 475 participants were randomised (CR arm, n = 239; TAU arm, n = 236), 427 participants (90%) completed the trial and 426 participants were analysed (CR arm, n = 208, TAU arm, n = 218). At 3 months, there were statistically significant large positive effects for participant-rated goal attainment [mean change in the CR arm: 2.57; mean change in the TAU arm: 0.86; Cohen’s d = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.19], corroborated by carer ratings (Cohen’s d = 1.11, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.34). These effects were maintained at 9 months for both the participant ratings (Cohen’s d = 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.17) and the carer ratings (Cohen’s d = 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.20). There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. In the cost–utility analyses, there was no evidence of cost-effectiveness in terms of gains in the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the person with dementia (measured using the DEMentia Quality Of Life questionnaire utility score) or the QALYs of the carer (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version) from either cost perspective. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, by reference to the primary outcome of participant-rated goal attainment, CR was cost-effective from both the health and social care perspective and the societal perspective at willingness-to-pay values of £2500 and above for improvement in the goal attainment measure. There was no evidence on the cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy measure (the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale) from either cost perspective. Limitations: Possible limitations arose from the non-feasibility of using observational outcome measures, the lack of a general measure of functional ability and the exclusion of people without a carer or with rarer forms of dementia. Conclusions: Cognitive rehabilitation is clinically effective in enabling people with early-stage dementia to improve their everyday functioning in relation to individual goals targeted in the therapy sessions. Future work: Next steps will focus on the implementation of CR into NHS and social care services and on extending the approach to people with rarer forms of dementia. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21027481. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Older people are the fastest-growing group in prisons in England and Wales and have complex health and social care needs that often remain unmet. Objectives: (1) Evaluate the efficacy of the Older prisoner Health and Social Care Assessment and Plan (OHSCAP) in improving (i) the ability to meet older male prisoners’ health and social care needs, (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL), (iii) depressive symptoms and (iv) functional health and well-being and activities of daily living; (2) assess the quality of care plans produced; (3) explore the experiences of older prisoners receiving, and staff conducting, the OHSCAP; and (4) evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the OHSCAP compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Design: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with follow-up at 3 months, with a nested qualitative study and quality audit of care plans (n = 150, 68%). Setting: Ten English prisons. Participants: Four hundred and ninety-seven newly arrived male prisoners aged ≥ 50 years with a discharge date at least 3 months from recruitment. A total of 14 prisoners and 11 staff participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention: Randomisation to OHSCAP or TAU. The OHSCAP group had health and social needs assessed by a trained health-care worker or prison officer. Care plans were devised and subsequent actions included professional support and appropriate referrals. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome measure – mean number of unmet health and social care needs as measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need – Short Forensic Version. Secondary outcome measures – measures of functional health and well-being, depressive symptoms and HRQoL. A health economic evaluation was undertaken using service contact between baseline and follow-up and appropriate unit cost information. Results: A total of 497 prisoners were recruited (248 to OHSCAP and 249 to TAU). The 404 completed follow-ups were split evenly between the trial arms. No significant differences were observed between the intervention and TAU groups in relation to the primary outcome measure. The OHSCAP did not demonstrate convincing benefits in HRQoL over TAU, and there were no significant differences in relation to costs. Audit and qualitative data suggest that the intervention was not implemented as planned. Limitations: As a result of the limited follow-up period, potential long-term gains of the intervention were not measured. Some of the standardised tools had limited applicability in prison settings. Cost-effectiveness data were limited by unavailability of relevant unit cost data. Conclusions: The OHSCAP failed in its primary objective but, fundamentally, was not implemented as planned. This appears to have been attributable, in some part, to wider difficulties currently affecting the prison landscape, including reduced levels of staffing, the loss of specialist support roles for such initiatives and increased prevalence of regime disruption. Future work: Partnership working and information sharing across disciplines within prison settings require improvement. Research should explore the potential involvement of other prisoners and third-sector organisations in identifying and addressing older prisoners’ health and social care needs to better match community provision. Further examination should be undertaken of how the prison regime and system affects the well-being of older prisoners. Future prison-based RCTs should carefully balance the fidelity of initiatives being evaluated and testing in a ‘real-life’ setting. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11841493. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 5, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: There is currently no disease-modifying treatment available to halt or delay the progression of the disease pathology in dementia. An agreed core set of the best-available and most appropriate outcomes for disease modification would facilitate the design of trials and ensure consistency across disease modification trials, as well as making results comparable and meta-analysable in future trials. Objectives: To agree a set of core outcomes for disease modification trials for mild to moderate dementia with the UK dementia research community and patient and public involvement (PPI). Data sources: We included disease modification trials with quantitative outcomes of efficacy from (1) references from related systematic reviews in workstream 1; (2) searches of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group study register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and PsycINFO on 11 December 2015, and clinical trial registries [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) and clinicaltrials.gov] on 22 and 29 January 2016; and (3) hand-searches of reference lists of relevant systematic reviews from database searches. Review methods: The project consisted of four workstreams. (1) We obtained related core outcome sets and work from co-applicants. (2) We systematically reviewed published and ongoing disease modification trials to identify the outcomes used in different domains. We extracted outcomes used in each trial, recording how many used each outcome and with how many participants. We divided outcomes into the domains measured and searched for validation data. (3) We consulted with PPI participants about recommended outcomes. (4) We presented all the synthesised information at a conference attended by the wider body of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) dementia researchers to reach consensus on a core set of outcomes. Results: We included 149 papers from the 22,918 papers screened, referring to 125 individual trials. Eighty-one outcomes were used across trials, including 72 scales [31 cognitive, 12 activities of daily living (ADLs), 10 global, 16 neuropsychiatric and three quality of life] and nine biological techniques. We consulted with 18 people for PPI. The conference decided that only cognition and biological markers are core measures of disease modification. Cognition should be measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale – Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and brain changes through structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a subset of participants. All other domains are important but not core. We recommend using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for neuropsychiatric symptoms: the Disability Assessment for Dementia for ADLs, the Dementia Quality of Life Measure for quality of life and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale to measure dementia globally. Limitations: Most of the trials included participants with Alzheimer’s disease, so recommendations may not apply to other types of dementia. We did not conduct economic analyses. The PPI consultation was limited to members of the Alzheimer’s Society Research Network. Conclusions: Cognitive outcomes and biological markers form the core outcome set for future disease modification trials, measured by the MMSE or ADAS-Cog, and structural MRI in a subset of participants. Future work: We envisage that the core set may be superseded in the future, particularly for other types of dementia. There is a need to develop an algorithm to compare scores on the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. Study registration: The project was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials [www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/819?result=true (accessed 7 April 2016)]. The systematic review protocol is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027346. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Since the publication of this article [1], it has come to the attention of the authors that information for one of the authors was not included in the competing interests section. Craig Richie has declared potential competing interests with the following companies; Janssen, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Roche Diagnostics, Boeringher Ingleheim, Novartis, AC Immune, Ixico, Aridhia, Amgen, Berry Consultants, Lundbeck, Sanofi, Quintiles (IQVIA) and Takeda. The full competing interests section for this article can be found below.

Over the past 35 years, the proliferation of technology and the advent of the internet have resulted in many reliable and easy to administer batteries for assessing cognitive function. These approaches have great potential for affecting how the health care system monitors and screens for cognitive changes in the aging population. Here, we review these new technologies with a specific emphasis on what they offer over and above traditional ‘paper-and-pencil’ approaches to assessing cognitive function. Key advantages include fully automated administration and scoring, the interpretation of individual scores within the context of thousands of normative data points, the inclusion of ‘meaningful change’ and ‘validity’ indices based on these large norms, more efficient testing, increased sensitivity, and the possibility of characterising cognition in samples drawn from the general population that may contain hundreds of thousands of test scores. The relationship between these new computerized platforms and existing (and commonly used) paper-and-pencil tests is explored, with a particular emphasis on why computerized tests are particularly advantageous for assessing the cognitive changes associated with aging.

BackgroundCognitive stimulation therapy (CST) is a well-established group psychosocial intervention for people with dementia. There is evidence that home-based programmes of cognitive stimulation delivered by family caregivers may benefit both the person and the caregiver. However, no previous studies have evaluated caregiver-delivered CST. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a home-based, caregiver-led individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) program in (i) improving cognition and quality of life (QoL) for the person with dementia and (ii) mental and physical health (well-being) for the caregiver.Methods and findingsA single-blind, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) was conducted at eight study sites across the United Kingdom. The intervention and blinded assessment of outcomes were conducted in participants' homes. Three hundred fifty-six people with mild to moderate dementia and their caregivers were recruited from memory services and community mental health teams (CMHTs). Participants were randomly assigned to iCST (75, 30-min sessions) or treatment as usual (TAU) control over 25 wk. iCST sessions consisted of themed activities designed to be mentally stimulating and enjoyable. Caregivers delivering iCST received training and support from an unblind researcher. Primary outcomes were cognition (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive [ADAS-Cog]) and self-reported QoL (Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease [QoL-AD]) for the person with dementia and general health status (Short Form-12 health survey [SF-12]) for the caregiver. Secondary outcomes included quality of the caregiving relationship from the perspectives of the person and of the caregiver (Quality of the Carer Patient Relationship Scale) and health-related QoL (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]) for the caregiver. Intention to treat (ITT) analyses were conducted. At the post-test (26 wk), there were no differences between the iCST and TAU groups in the outcomes of cognition (mean difference [MD] = -0.55, 95% CI -2.00-0.90; p = 0.45) and self-reported QoL (MD = -0.02, 95% CI -1.22-0.82; p = 0.97) for people with dementia, or caregivers' general health status (MD = 0.13, 95% CI -1.65-1.91; p = 0.89). However, people with dementia receiving iCST rated the relationship with their caregiver more positively (MD = 1.77, 95% CI 0.26-3.28; p = 0.02), and iCST improved QoL for caregivers (EQ-5D, MD = 0.06, 95% CI 0.02-0.10; p = 0.01). Forty percent (72/180) of dyads allocated to iCST completed at least two sessions per week, with 22% (39/180) completing no sessions at all. Study limitations include low adherence to the intervention.ConclusionsThere was no evidence that iCST has an effect on cognition or QoL for people with dementia. However, participating in iCST appeared to enhance the quality of the caregiving relationship and caregivers' QoL.Trial registrationThe iCST trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (identified ISRCTN 65945963, URL: DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN65945963).

Background: The objectives of this study were to describe changes in the proportion of people diagnosed with dementia and the pharmacological treatments prescribed to them over a 10 year period from 2005 to 2015 at a time of UK policy strategies and prioritisation of dementia. We aimed to explore the potential impact of policy on dementia care. Methods: In this longitudinal retrospective cohort study, we included all patients registered at a Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) practice between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2015, with a diagnosis of dementia defined using Read codes. The main outcomes were the number and proportion of acceptable patients, who met the CPRD threshold for data quality, in a GP practice defined by the CPRD as contributing up-to-standard data with a diagnosis of dementia and the number and proportion of these with a prescription for an antidementia or antipsychotic medication. We examined the prevalence of dementia diagnosis and prescribing by calendar quarter, and stratified by age, sex, and UK country (England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland). We investigated the use of antidementia drugs, alone and in combination, antipsychotics, antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics. The trend in the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of dementia, before and after the introduction of the UK National Dementia Strategy, was estimated using an interrupted time-series analysis. Findings: 8 966 224 patients were identified in the CPRD whose most recent registration period overlapped the study period. Of these, 128 249 (1·4%) had a diagnosis of dementia before the end of the study period. The proportion of people diagnosed with dementia in the UK doubled from 0·42% (19 635 of 4 640 290 participants) in 2005 to 0·82% (25 925 of 3 159 754 participants) in 2015 (χ2 test for trend, p

BackgroundThere are no disease-modifying treatments for dementia. There is also no consensus on disease modifying outcomes. We aimed to produce the first evidence-based consensus on core outcome measures for trials of disease modification in mild-to-moderate dementia.Methods and findingsWe defined disease-modification interventions as those aiming to change the underlying pathology. We systematically searched electronic databases and previous systematic reviews for published and ongoing trials of disease-modifying treatments in mild-to-moderate dementia. We included 149/22,918 of the references found; with 81 outcome measures from 125 trials. Trials involved participants with Alzheimer's disease (AD) alone (n = 111), or AD and mild cognitive impairment (n = 8) and three vascular dementia. We divided outcomes by the domain measured (cognition, activities of daily living, biological markers, neuropsychiatric symptoms, quality of life, global). We calculated the number of trials and of participants using each outcome. We detailed psychometric properties of each outcome. We sought the views of people living with dementia and family carers in three cities through Alzheimer's society focus groups. Attendees at a consensus conference (experts in dementia research, disease-modification and harmonisation measures) decided on the core set of outcomes using these results. Recommended core outcomes were cognition as the fundamental deficit in dementia and to indicate disease modification, serial structural MRIs. Cognition should be measured by Mini Mental State Examination or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale. MRIs would be optional for patients. We also made recommendations for measuring important, but non-core domains which may not change despite disease modification.LimitationsMost trials were about AD. Specific instruments may be superseded. We searched one database for psychometric properties.InterpretationThis is the first review to identify the 81 outcome measures the research community uses for disease-modifying trials in mild-to-moderate dementia. Our recommendations will facilitate designing, comparing and meta-analysing disease modification trials in mild-to-moderate dementia, increasing their value.Trial registrationPROSPERO no. CRD42015027346.

BACKGROUND:Stroke is associated with the development of cognitive impairment and dementia. We assessed the effect of intensive blood pressure (BP) and/or lipid lowering on cognitive outcomes in patients with recent stroke in a pilot trial. METHODS:In a multicentre, partial-factorial trial, patients with recent stroke, absence of dementia, and systolic BP (SBP) 125-170 mmHg were assigned randomly to at least 6 months of intensive (target SBP

Despite a vast literature examining semantic impairment in Alzheimer's disease (AD), consensus regarding the nature of the deficit remains elusive. We re-considered this issue in the context of a framework that assumes semantic cognition can break down in two ways: (1) core semantic representations can degrade or (2) cognitive control mechanisms can become impaired [1]. We hypothesised and confirmed that the nature of semantic impairment in AD changes with disease severity. Patients at mild or severe stages of the disorder exhibited impairment across various semantic tasks but the nature of those deficits differed qualitatively for the two groups. Commensurate with early dysfunction of the cognitive control, temporoparietal-frontal-cingulate network, characteristics of deregulated semantic cognition were exhibited by the mild AD cases. In contrast, the severe AD group reproduced features of additional degradation of core semantic representations. These results suggest that spread of pathology into lateral anterior temporal lobes in later stage AD produces degradation of semantic representations, exacerbating the already deregulated system. Moreover, the dual nature of severe patients’ impairment was highlighted by disproportionately poor performance on tasks placing high demand on both conceptual knowledge and control processes–e.g., category fluency.

Background: Group cognitive stimulation therapy programmes can benefit cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Evidence for home-based, carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions is limited. Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of carer-delivered individual cognitive stimulation therapy (iCST) for people with dementia and their family carers, compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Design: A multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial assessing clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Assessments were at baseline, 13 weeks and 26 weeks (primary end point). Setting: Participants were recruited through Memory Clinics and Community Mental Health Teams for older people. Participants: A total of 356 caregiving dyads were recruited and 273 completed the trial. Intervention: iCST consisted of structured cognitive stimulation sessions for people with dementia, completed up to three times weekly over 25 weeks. Family carers were supported to deliver the sessions at home. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes for the person with dementia were cognition and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included behavioural and psychological symptoms, activities of daily living, depressive symptoms and relationship quality. The primary outcome for the family carers was mental/physical health (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Health-related quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions), mood symptoms, resilience and relationship quality comprised the secondary outcomes. Costs were estimated from health and social care and societal perspectives. Results: There were no differences in any of the primary outcomes for people with dementia between intervention and TAU [cognition: mean difference –0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.00 to 0.90; p-value = 0.45; self-reported quality of life: mean difference –0.02, 95% CI –1.22 to 0.82; p-value = 0.97 at the 6-month follow-up]. iCST did not improve mental/physical health for carers. People with dementia in the iCST group experienced better relationship quality with their carer, but there was no evidence that iCST improved their activities of daily living, depression or behavioural and psychological symptoms. iCST seemed to improve health-related quality of life for carers but did not benefit carers’ resilience or their relationship quality with their relative. Carers conducting more sessions had fewer depressive symptoms. Qualitative data suggested that people with dementia and their carers experienced better communication owing to iCST. Adjusted mean costs were not significantly different between the groups. From the societal perspective, both health gains and cost savings were observed. Conclusions: iCST did not improve cognition or quality of life for people with dementia, or carers’ physical and mental health. Costs of the intervention were offset by some reductions in social care and other services. Although there was some evidence of improvement in terms of the caregiving relationship and carers’ health-related quality of life, iCST does not appear to deliver clinical benefits for cognition and quality of life for people with dementia. Most people received fewer than the recommended number of iCST sessions. Further research is needed to ascertain the clinical effectiveness of carer-led cognitive stimulation interventions for people with dementia. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65945963. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information.