Craig Ritchie

Incident dementia and blood pressure lowering in the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial cognitive function assessment (HYVET-COG): a double-blind, placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUNDnObservational epidemiological studies have shown a positive association between hypertension and risk of incident dementia; however, the effects of antihypertensive therapy on cognitive function in controlled trials have been conflicting, and meta-analyses of the trials have not provided clear evidence of whether antihypertensive treatment reduces dementia incidence. The Hypertension in the Very Elderly trial (HYVET) was designed to assess the risks and benefits of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients and included an assessment of cognitive function.nnnMETHODSnPatients with hypertension (systolic pressure 160-200 mm Hg; diastolic pressure <110 mm Hg) who were aged 80 years or older were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1.5 mg slow release indapamide, with the option of 2-4 mg perindopril, or placebo. The target systolic blood pressure was 150 mm Hg; the target diastolic blood pressure was 80 mm Hg. Participants had no clinical diagnosis of dementia at baseline, and cognitive function was assessed at baseline and annually with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE). Possible cases of incident dementia (a fall in the MMSE score to <24 points or a drop of three points in 1 year) were assessed by standard diagnostic criteria and expert review. The trial was stopped in 2007 at the second interim analysis after treatment resulted in a reduction in stroke and total mortality. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122811.nnnFINDINGSn3336 HYVET participants had at least one follow-up assessment (mean 2.2 years) and were included: 1687 participants were randomly assigned to the treatment group and 1649 to the placebo group. Only five reports of adverse effects were attributed to the medication: three in the placebo group and two in the treatment group. The mean decrease in systolic blood pressure between the treatment and placebo groups at 2 years was systolic -15 mm Hg, p<0.0001; and diastolic -5.9 mm Hg, p<0.0001. There were 263 incident cases of dementia. The rates of incident dementia were 38 per 1000 patient-years in the placebo group and 33 per 1000 patient-years in the treatment group. There was no significant difference between treatment and placebo groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.86, 95% CI 0.67-1.09); however, when these data were combined in a meta-analysis with other placebo-controlled trials of antihypertensive treatment, the combined risk ratio favoured treatment (HR 0.87, 0.76-1.00, p=0.045).nnnINTERPRETATIONnAntihypertensive treatment in elderly patients does not statistically reduce incidence of dementia. This negative finding might have been due to the short follow-up, owing to the early termination of the trial, or the modest effect of treatment. Nevertheless, the HYVET findings, when included in a meta-analysis, might support antihypertensive treatment to reduce incident dementia.

Safety, efficacy, and biomarker findings of PBT2 in targeting Aβ as a modifying therapy for Alzheimer's disease: a phase IIa, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUNDnPBT2 is a metal-protein attenuating compound (MPAC) that affects the Cu2(+)-mediated and Zn2(+)-mediated toxic oligomerisation of Abeta seen in Alzheimers disease (AD). Strong preclinical efficacy data and the completion of early, clinical safety studies have preceded this phase IIa study, the aim of which was to assess the effects of PBT2 on safety, efficacy, and biomarkers of AD.nnnMETHODSnBetween December 6, 2006, and September 21, 2007, community-dwelling patients over age 55 years were recruited to this 12-week, double-blind, randomised trial of PBT2. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 50 mg PBT2, 250 mg PBT2, or placebo. Inclusion criteria were early AD (mini-mental state examination [MMSE] score between 20 and 26 points or Alzheimers disease assessment scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score between 10 and 25 points), taking a stable dose of acetylcholinesterase inhibitor (donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine) for at least 4 months, a modified Hachinski score of 4 points or less, and CT or MRI results that were consistent with AD. The principal outcomes were safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes were plasma and CSF biomarkers and cognition. Analysis was intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471211.nnnFINDINGSn78 patients were randomly assigned (29 to placebo, 20 to PBT2 50 mg, and 29 to PBT2 250 mg) and 74 (95%) completed the study. 42 (54%) patients had at least one treatment emergent adverse event (10 [50%] on PBT2 50 mg, 18 [62%] on PBT2 250 mg, and 14 [48%] on placebo). No serious adverse events were reported by patients on PBT2. Patients treated with PBT2 250 mg had a dose-dependent (p=0.023) and significant reduction in CSF Abeta(42) concentration compared with those treated with placebo (difference in least squares mean change from baseline was -56.0 pg/mL, 95% CI -101.5 to -11.0; p=0.006). PBT2 had no effect on plasma biomarkers of AD or serum Zn(2+) and Cu(2+) concentrations. Cognition testing included ADAS-cog, MMSE, and a neuropsychological test battery (NTB). Of these tests, two executive function component tests of the NTB showed significant improvement over placebo in the PBT2 250 mg group: category fluency test (2.8 words, 0.1 to 5.4; p=0.041) and trail making part B (-48.0 s, -83.0 to -13.0; p=0.009).nnnINTERPRETATIONnThe safety profile is favourable for the ongoing development of PBT2. The effect on putative biomarkers for AD in CSF but not in plasma is suggestive of a central effect of the drug on Abeta metabolism. Cognitive efficacy was restricted to two measures of executive function. Future trials that are larger and longer will establish if the effects of PBT2 on biomarkers and cognition that are reported here translate into clinical effectiveness.

Donepezil and Memantine for Moderate-to-Severe Alzheimer's Disease

BACKGROUNDnClinical trials have shown the benefits of cholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of mild-to-moderate Alzheimers disease. It is not known whether treatment benefits continue after the progression to moderate-to-severe disease.nnnMETHODSnWe assigned 295 community-dwelling patients who had been treated with donepezil for at least 3 months and who had moderate or severe Alzheimers disease (a score of 5 to 13 on the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination [SMMSE, on which scores range from 0 to 30, with higher scores indicating better cognitive function]) to continue donepezil, discontinue donepezil, discontinue donepezil and start memantine, or continue donepezil and start memantine. Patients received the study treatment for 52 weeks. The coprimary outcomes were scores on the SMMSE and on the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS, on which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores indicating greater impairment). The minimum clinically important differences were 1.4 points on the SMMSE and 3.5 points on the BADLS.nnnRESULTSnPatients assigned to continue donepezil, as compared with those assigned to discontinue donepezil, had a score on the SMMSE that was higher by an average of 1.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 2.5) and a score on the BADLS that was lower (indicating less impairment) by 3.0 points (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.3) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients assigned to receive memantine, as compared with those assigned to receive memantine placebo, had a score on the SMMSE that was an average of 1.2 points higher (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.8; P<0.001) and a score on the BADLS that was 1.5 points lower (95% CI, 0.3 to 2.8; P=0.02). The efficacy of donepezil and of memantine did not differ significantly in the presence or absence of the other. There were no significant benefits of the combination of donepezil and memantine over donepezil alone.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn patients with moderate or severe Alzheimers disease, continued treatment with donepezil was associated with cognitive benefits that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference and with significant functional benefits over the course of 12 months. (Funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council and the U.K. Alzheimers Society; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN49545035.).

PBT2 rapidly improves cognition in Alzheimer's Disease: additional phase II analyses.

PBT2 is a copper/zinc ionophore that rapidly restores cognition in mouse models of Alzheimers disease (AD). A recent Phase IIa double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial found that the 250 mg dose of PBT2 was well-tolerated, significantly lowered cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels of amyloid-beta42, and significantly improved executive function on a Neuro-psychological Test Battery (NTB) within 12 weeks of treatment in patients with AD. In the post-hoc analysis reported here, the cognitive, blood marker, and CSF neurochemistry outcomes from the trial were subjected to further analysis. Ranking the responses to treatment after 12 weeks with placebo, PBT2 50 mg, and PBT2 250 mg revealed that the proportions of patients showing improvement on NTB Composite or Executive Factor z-scores were significantly greater in the PBT2 250 mg group than in the placebo group. Receiver-operator characteristic analyses revealed that the probability of an improver at any level coming from the PBT2 250 mg group was significantly greater, compared to placebo, for Composite z-scores (Area Under the Curve [AUC] =0.76, p=0.0007), Executive Factor z-scores (AUC =0.93, p=1.3 x 10(-9)), and near-significant for the ADAS-cog (AUC =0.72, p=0.056). There were no correlations between changes in CSF amyloid-beta or tau species and cognitive changes. These findings further encourage larger-scale testing of PBT2 for AD.

The impact of general and regional anesthesia on the incidence of post-operative cognitive dysfunction and post-operative delirium: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Post-operative cognitive complications such as delirium have been consistently associated with poor short and long term outcomes, and the role of anesthesia, particularly the role of general versus regional anesthesia, remains unclear. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the influence of general, regional, or a combination of anesthesia on the development of Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction (POCD) and Post-Operative Delirium (POD). Standard bibliographic databases were searched and complimented by hand searching of original and review article references. Included studies were randomized controlled trials comparing general to regional (spinal, epidural, or intravenous block) or a combination of these in a cohort who were pre-operatively cognitively normal and had an average age exceeding fifty. Where POD was the principle outcome, studies must have employed the DSM or ICD criteria. Where POCD was the principal outcome, this was defined as any objective cognitive impairment. Twenty one studies were considered suitable for inclusion. There was no effect of anesthesia type on the odds ratio of developing POD (0.88, 0.51-1.51 with 95% confidence) however general anesthesia was marginally non-significantly associated with POCD (odds ratio of 1.34, 0.93-1.95 with 95% confidence). There was no evidence of publication bias. In conclusion, it appears that general anesthesia, compared to others, may increase the risk of developing POCD; however this has not been shown for POD. Possible reasons for this finding have been explored. This data would advocate for the use of regional anesthesia wherever possible especially in people otherwise vulnerable to developing cognitive symptoms.

Designing prevention programmes to reduce incidence of dementia: prospective cohort study of modifiable risk factors.

Objective To estimate the percentage reduction in incidence of dementia that would be obtained if specific risk factors were eliminated. Design Prospective seven year cohort study. Setting General population, Montpellier, France. Participants 1433 people aged over 65 with a mean baseline age of 72.5 (SD 5.1) years. Main outcome measures Diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or dementia established by a standardised neurological examination. Results Cox models were constructed to derive hazard ratios and determine confounding and interaction effects for potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia. Mean percentage population attributable fractions were calculated with 95% confidence intervals derived from bootstrapping for seven year incidence of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. The final model retained crystallised intelligence (population attributable fraction 18.11%, 95% confidence interval 10.91% to 25.42%), depression (10.31%, 3.66% to 17.17%), fruit and vegetable consumption (6.46%, 0.15% to 13.06%), diabetes (4.88%, 1.87% to 7.98%), and apolipoprotein E ε4 allele (7.11%, 2.44% to 11.98%). Conclusions Increasing crystallised intelligence and fruit and vegetable consumption and eliminating depression and diabetes are likely to have the biggest impact on reducing the incidence of dementia, outweighing even the effect of removing the principal known genetic risk factor. Although causal relations cannot be concluded with certainty, the study suggests priorities that may inform public health programmes.

Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative

Objective: To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders. Methods: An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research. Results: More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability. Conclusion: STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid amyloid beta for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease dementia and other dementias in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

BACKGROUNDnAccording to the latest revised National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke and the Alzheimers Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimers Association) (NINCDS-ADRDA) diagnostic criteria for Alzheimers disease dementia of the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer Association, the confidence in diagnosing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimers disease dementia is raised with the application of biomarkers based on measures in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or imaging. These tests, added to core clinical criteria, might increase the sensitivity or specificity of a testing strategy. However, the accuracy of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimers disease dementia and other dementias has not yet been systematically evaluated. A formal systematic evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and other properties of plasma and CSF amyloid beta (Aß) biomarkers was performed.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo determine the accuracy of plasma and CSF Aß levels for detecting those patients with MCI who would convert to Alzheimers disease dementia or other forms of dementia over time.nnnSEARCH METHODSnThe most recent search for this review was performed on 3 December 2012. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), BIOSIS Previews (ISI Web of Knowledge), Web of Science and Conference Proceedings (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO (OvidSP), and LILACS (BIREME). We also requested a search of the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (managed by the Cochrane Renal Group).No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used so as to maximise sensitivity.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe selected those studies that had prospectively well defined cohorts with any accepted definition of cognitive decline, but no dementia, with baseline CSF or plasma Aß levels, or both, documented at or around the time the above diagnoses were made. We also included studies which looked at data from those cohorts retrospectively, and which contained sufficient data to construct two by two tables expressing plasma and CSF Aß biomarker results by disease status. Moreover, studies were only selected if they applied a reference standard for Alzheimers dementia diagnosis, for example the NINCDS-ADRDA or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create standard two by two tables. Two independent assessors performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Where data allowed, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.nnnMAIN RESULTSnAlzheimers disease dementia was evaluated in 14 studies using CSF Aß42. Of the 1349 participants included in the meta-analysis, 436 developed Alzheimers dementia. Individual study estimates of sensitivity were between 36% and 100% while the specificities were between 29% and 91%. Because of the variation in assay thresholds, we did not estimate summary sensitivity and specificity. However, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary ROC curve. At the median specificity of 64%, the sensitivity was 81% (95% CI 72 to 87). This equated to a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 2.22 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.47) and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.31 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.48).The accuracy of CSF Aß42 for all forms of dementia was evaluated in four studies. Of the 464 participants examined, 188 developed a form of dementia (Alzheimers disease and other forms of dementia).The thresholds used were between 209 mg/ml and 512 ng/ml. The sensitivities were between 56% and 75% while the specificities were between 47% and 76%. At the median specificity of 75%, the sensitivity was estimated to be 63% (95% CI 22 to 91) from the meta-analytic model. This equated to a LR+ of 2.51 (95% CI 1.30 to 4.86) and a LR- of 0.50 (95% CI 0.16 to 1.51).The accuracy of CSF Aß42 for non-Alzheimers disease dementia was evaluated in three studies. Of the 385 participants examined, 61 developed non-Alzheimers disease dementia. Since there were very few studies and considerable variation between studies, the results were not meta-analysed. The sensitivities were between 8% and 63% while the specificities were between 35% and 67%.Only one study examined the accuracy of plasma Aß42 and the plasma Aß42/Aß40 ratio for Alzheimers disease dementia. The sensitivity of 86% (95% CI 81 to 90) was the same for both tests while the specificities were 50% (95% CI 44 to 55) and 70% (95% CI 64 to 75) for plasma Aß42 and the plasma Aß42/Aß40 ratio respectively. Of the 565 participants examined, 245 developed Alzheimers dementia and 87 non-Alzheimers disease dementia.There was substantial heterogeneity between studies. The accuracy of Aß42 for the diagnosis of Alzheimers disease dementia did not differ significantly (P = 0.8) between studies that pre-specified the threshold for determining test positivity (n = 6) and those that only determined the threshold at follow-up (n = 8). One study excluded a sample of MCI non-Alzheimers disease dementia converters from their analysis. In sensitivity analyses, the exclusion of this study had no impact on our findings. The exclusion of eight studies (950 patients) that were considered at high (n = 3) or unclear (n = 5) risk of bias for the patient selection domain also made no difference to our findings.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThe proposed diagnostic criteria for prodromal dementia and MCI due to Alzheimers disease, although still being debated, would be fulfilled where there is both core clinical and cognitive criteria and a single biomarker abnormality. From our review, the measure of abnormally low CSF Aß levels has very little diagnostic benefit with likelihood ratios suggesting only marginal clinical utility. The quality of reports was also poor, and thresholds and length of follow-up were inconsistent. We conclude that when applied to a population of patients with MCI, CSF Aß levels cannot be recommended as an accurate test for Alzheimers disease.

Determining the minimum clinically important differences for outcomes in the DOMINO trial

Although less likely to be reported in clinical trials than expressions of the statistical significance of differences in outcomes, whether or not a treatment has delivered a specified minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is also relevant to patients and their caregivers and doctors. Many dementia treatment randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not reported MCIDs and, where they have been done, observed differences have not reached these.

Systematic review of the body of evidence for the use of biomarkers in the diagnosis of dementia.

Although recent diagnostic criteria for Alzheimers disease propose the use of biomarkers, validation of these biomarkers by diagnostic test accuracy studies is a necessary first step, followed by the synthesis of the evidence from these studies in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The quality of the resulting evidence depends on the number and size of the primary studies, their quality, and the adequacy of their reporting. This systematic review assesses the weight and quality of the evidence available from primary diagnostic test accuracy studies.