Suchergebnisse

Abstract Dementia is a substantial and increasing public health concern. Despite decades of research, a cure or effective preventative treatment for dementia remains elusive. We offer critical review of contemporary dementia research and discuss potential reasons why progress in the field has not been as rapid as in other disciplines. We adopt a broad approach in keeping with the broad nature of the topic. We cover the difficulties inherent in studying dementia from 'bench' to 'bedside' to 'population'. We make particular reference to issues of operationalisation of the dementia syndrome and our evolving understanding of dementia as a research 'outcome'. We discuss contemporary 'hot topics' in dementia research methodology focussing on dementia models, pre-dementia states and biomarkers. Recognising the importance of prospective epidemiological cohorts and large-scale clinical trials we pay particular attention to these approaches and the challenges of generating results that have 'real world' external validity. Based on our thoughts we end with suggestions for future dementia research. Our review is designed to be critical but not unnecessarily negative. There is reason for cautious optimism in dementia research. The recent G8 summit on dementia and subsequent establishment of the World Dementia Council are examples of initiatives that reflect societal and political will to increase research efforts in dementia.

Dementia is a substantial and increasing public health concern. Despite decades of research, a cure or effective preventative treatment for dementia remains elusive. We offer critical review of contemporary dementia research and discuss potential reasons why progress in the field has not been as rapid as in other disciplines. We adopt a broad approach in keeping with the broad nature of the topic. We cover the difficulties inherent in studying dementia from 'bench' to 'bedside' to 'population'. We make particular reference to issues of operationalisation of the dementia syndrome and our evolving understanding of dementia as a research 'outcome'. We discuss contemporary 'hot topics' in dementia research methodology focussing on dementia models, pre-dementia states and biomarkers. Recognising the importance of prospective epidemiological cohorts and large-scale clinical trials we pay particular attention to these approaches and the challenges of generating results that have 'real world' external validity. Based on our thoughts we end with suggestions for future dementia research. Our review is designed to be critical but not unnecessarily negative. There is reason for cautious optimism in dementia research. The recent G8 summit on dementia and subsequent establishment of the World Dementia Council are examples of initiatives that reflect societal and political will to increase research efforts in dementia.

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant 088134/Z/09/A), the Scottish Funding Council and the Chief Scientist Office, Scotland, through the Scottish Imaging Network: A Platform for Scientific Excellence ('SINAPSE') and the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme SVDs@Target under grant agreement 666881. FD and TQ are funded by the Stroke Association/Garfield Weston Foundation and Stroke Association/Chief Scientist Office Senior Lectureships respectively. PMB is Stroke Association Professor of Stroke Medicine and is a NIHR Senior Investigator. The work was supported by the Fondation Leducq Transatlantic Network of Excellence in Small Vessel Disease ref no. 16 CVD 05, and the Horizon 2020 Programme PHC-03-15, project No 666881, 'SVDs @Target.' The work was conducted independently of the funders. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Background: Understanding Atrial Fibrillation (AF) management in Scotland was identified as a key priority at the Cross Party Group (CPG) for Heart Disease and Stroke which meets regularly at the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, a national inquiry was launched to provide clear recommendations to government to improve health for people living with AF. Methods: An advisory panel was convened comprising major third sector representatives, academics, clinicians, Members of Scottish Parliament (MSPs), and people living with AF. Two questionnaires, one for clinicians; one for people living with AF were circulated through multiple channels and four roundtable events were held. Results: In total there were 262 responses to the questionnaires (n=203 clinician; n=59 people living with AF) and roundtables were attended by 35 people, including members of the advisory panel, MSPs, clinicians, academics and people living with AF. Ten key recommendations emerged relating to Detection and diagnosis of atrial fibrillation; Initial treatment and subsequent management of atrial fibrillation; The use of data to improve detection, diagnosis and treatment of atrial fibrillation in Scotland; and patient information and public awareness. Conclusions: It is hoped that the results of this inquiry will provide the blueprint for change that will improve AF management across Scotland

This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource. The authors are grateful to UK Biobank participants. UK Biobank was established by the Wellcome Trust medical charity, Medical Research Council, Department of Health, Scottish Government, and the Northwest Regional Development Agency. It has also had funding from the Welsh Assembly Government and the British Heart Foundation. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Background The use of levothyroxine to treat subclinical hypothyroidism is controversial. We aimed to determine whether levothyroxine provided clinical benefits in older persons with this condition. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial involving 737 adults who were at least 65 years of age and who had persisting subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level, 4.60 to 19.99 mIU per liter; free thyroxine level within the reference range). A total of 368 patients were assigned to receive levothyroxine (at a starting dose of 50 μg daily, or 25 μg if the body weight was <50 kg or the patient had coronary heart disease), with dose adjustment according to the thyrotropin level; 369 patients were assigned to receive placebo with mock dose adjustment. The two primary outcomes were the change in the Hypothyroid Symptoms score and Tiredness score on a thyroid-related quality-of-life questionnaire at 1 year (range of each scale is 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more symptoms or tiredness, respectively; minimum clinically important difference, 9 points). Results The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years, and 396 patients (53.7%) were women. The mean (±SD) thyrotropin level was 6.40±2.01 mIU per liter at baseline; at 1 year, this level had decreased to 5.48 mIU per liter in the placebo group, as compared with 3.63 mIU per liter in the levothyroxine group (P<0.001), at a median dose of 50 μg. We found no differences in the mean change at 1 year in the Hypothyroid Symptoms score (0.2±15.3 in the placebo group and 0.2±14.4 in the levothyroxine group; between-group difference, 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0 to 2.1) or the Tiredness score (3.2±17.7 and 3.8±18.4, respectively; between-group difference, 0.4; 95% CI, -2.1 to 2.9). No beneficial effects of levothyroxine were seen on secondary-outcome measures. There was no significant excess of serious adverse events prespecified as being of special interest. Conclusions Levothyroxine provided no apparent benefits in older persons with subclinical hypothyroidism. (Funded by European Union FP7 and others; TRUST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01660126 .).

BACKGROUND: The use of levothyroxine to treat subclinical hypothyroidism is controversial. We aimed to determine whether levothyroxine provided clinical benefits in older personswith this condition. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial involving 737 adults who were at least 65 years of age and who had persisting subclinical hypothyroidism (thyrotropin level, 4.60 to 19.99 mIU per liter; free thyroxine level within the reference range). A total of 368 patients were assigned to receive levothyroxine (at a starting dose of 50 μg daily, or 25 μg if the body weight was <50 kg or the patient had coronary heart disease), with dose adjustment according to thethyrotropin level; 369 patients were assigned to receive placebo with mock dose adjustment. The two primary outcomes were the change in the Hypothyroid Symptomsscore and Tiredness score on a thyroid-related quality-of-life questionnaire at 1 year (range of each scale is 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more symptoms or tiredness, respectively; minimum clinically important difference, 9 points). RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 74.4 years, and 396 patients (53.7%) were women.The mean (±SD) thyrotropin level was 6.40±2.01 mIU per liter at baseline; at 1 year,this level had decreased to 5.48 mIU per liter in the placebo group, as compared with3.63 mIU per liter in the levothyroxine group (P<0.001), at a median dose of 50 μg. We found no differences in the mean change at 1 year in the Hypothyroid Symptomsscore (0.2±15.3 in the placebo group and 0.2±14.4 in the levothyroxine group; between-group difference, 0.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.0 to 2.1) or the Tirednessscore (3.2±17.7 and 3.8±18.4, respectively; between-group difference, 0.4; 95% CI,−2.1 to 2.9). No beneficial effects of levothyroxine were seen on secondary-outcome measures. There was no significant excess of serious adverse events prespecified as being of special interest. CONCLUSIONS: Levothyroxine provided no apparent benefits in older persons with subclinical hypothyroidism. (Funded by European Union FP7 and others; TRUST ClinicalTrials.govnumber, NCT01660126.)

Objectives: Depression symptom questionnaires are not for diagnostic classification. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores >= 10 are nonetheless often used to estimate depression prevalence. We compared PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence to Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (SCID) major depression prevalence and assessed whether an alternative PHQ-9 cutoff could more accurately estimate prevalence. Study Design and Setting: Individual participant data meta-analysis of datasets comparing PHQ-9 scores to SCID major depression status. Results: A total of 9,242 participants (1,389 SCID major depression cases) from 44 primary studies were included. Pooled PHQ-9 >= 10 prevalence was 24.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.8%, 28.9%); pooled SCID major depression prevalence was 12.1% (95% CI: 9.6%, 15.2%); and pooled difference was 11.9% (95% CI: 9.3%, 14.6%). The mean study-level PHQ-9 >= 10 to SCID-based prevalence ratio was 2.5 times. PHQ-9 >= 14 and the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm provided prevalence closest to SCID major depression prevalence, but study-level prevalence differed from SCID-based prevalence by an average absolute difference of 4.8% for PHQ-9 >= 14 (95% prediction interval: -13.6%, 14.5%) and 5.6% for the PHQ-9 diagnostic algorithm (95% prediction interval: -16.4%, 15.0%). Conclusion: PHQ-9 >= 10 substantially overestimates depression prevalence. There is too much heterogeneity to correct statistically in individual studies. ; Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) KRS-134297 PCG155468 PJT-162206 Fonds de recherche du Quebec -Sante (FRQS) Postdoctoral Training Fellowships FRQS Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre G.R. Caverhill Fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary Alberta Health Services through the Calgary Health Trust Hotchkiss Brain Institute Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Canada Research Chair in Neurological Health Services Research AIHS Population Health Investigator Award Department of Education (NIDRR) H133B080025 National Multiple Sclerosis Society MB 0008 Lundbeck International Tehran University of Medical Sciences M-288 Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) THC-135234 Crohn's and Colitis Canada Bingham Chair in Gastroenterology Waugh Family Chair in Multiple Sclerosis UK Department for International Development 201446 Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems: University of Washington H133N060033 Baylor College of Medicine H133N060003 University of Michigan System H133N060032 Grand Challenges Canada 0087-04 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) R24MH071604 R34 MH072925 K02 MH65919 P30 DK50456 R24 MH56858 RO1-MH069666 R24 MH071604 MH014592-38 MH103210 United States Department of Health & Human Services Centers for Disease Control & Prevention - USA R49 CE002093 Spanish Ministry of Health's Health Research Fund (Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias) 97/1184 US National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research RO1 HD39415 Federal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF) 01GY1150 University of Technology Sydney Duke Global Health Institute 453-0751 Macao (SAR) Government, through the University of Macau RSKTO grants MYRG-2014-111 United States Agency for International Development (USAID) AID-DFD A-00-08-00308 UK National Institute for Health Research under its Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme RP-PG0606-1142 Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACyT) CB-2009133923-H National Health Research Institutes - Taiwan NHRI-EX97-9706PI Reitoria de Pesquisa da Universidade de Sao Paulo 09.1.01689.17.7 Banco Santander 10.1.01232.17.9 Pfizer medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany 121/2000 Research Manitoba Chair in Multiple Sclerosis Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Niigata Seiryo University Productivity Grants (PQ-CNPq-2) 301321/2016-7 Ministry of Health, Italy United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) U10CA21661 U10CA180868 U10CA180822 U10CA37422 Pennsylvania Department of Health United Kingdom National Health Service Lothian Neuro-Oncology Endowment Fund United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI) K07 CA 093512 Lance Armstrong Foundation United States Department of Health & Human Services United States Health Resources & Service Administration (HRSA) R40MC07840 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA T32 GM07356 United States Department of Health & Human Services Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality R36 HS018246 United States Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) TL1 RR024135 medical faculty, University of Leipzig Hunter Medical Research Institute Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) Mental Health Program 100.003.005 100.002.021 Academic Medical Center/University of Amsterdam Fund for Innovation and Competitiveness of the Chilean Ministry of Economy, Development and Tourism, through the Millennium Scientific Initiative IS130005 Research Manitoba Chair