Dementia care in high-income countries

Impact of discontinuing non-pharmacological interventions on cognitive impairment in dementia patients by COVID-19 lockdown. A pilot observational, longitudinal, retrospective study carried out in an adult day center in Spain during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The lockdown imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to social isolation and prevented patients with dementia from receiving a suite of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) that prevent cognitive decline. This discontinuation of NPIs could substantially affect the mental health status of people with dementia in social care settings, such as adult day care centers (ADCs).

Propose

The study aimed to evaluate the effects of the COVID-19 lockdown on mental health and cognitive impairment in patients with dementia who could not attend their usual ADCs and did not receive our NPIs, based on World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines.

Methods

Observational, longitudinal, retrospective study carried out in an adult day center in Spain and reported it in accordance with the Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. Cognitive status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in 80 patients attending the ADC of the "Leonese Association of Dementia Patients" (León, Spain), who had been evaluated with this instrument before the COVID-19 lockdown.

Results

We observed a 0.4-point decrease in MMSE score/month (IQR = 1.4) during lockdown versus a 0.1-point decrease/month (IQR = 0.3) before this period (p = 0.038). Notably, this translated to >10-point decreases in MMSE score/year in 33.8% of participants during lockdown versus 5.5% earlier (p < 0.001). No statistically significant associations (p < 0.05) were found between the individual characteristics of the caregivers and the occurrence of the event.

Conclusion

The reported declines in MMSE scores reveal a significant acceleration of cognitive decline during the period of inactivity. This could suggest that our NPIs, focused on slowing cognitive decline, are beneficial and, therefore, necessary in patients with dementia.

Frailty, Cognitive Impairment, and Incident Major Neurocognitive Disorders: Results of the NuAge Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with an increased risk of major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the Fried physical model and the CARE deficit accumulation model for their association with incident major neurocognitive disorders (MNCD), and to examine how the addition of cognitive impairment to these frailty models impacts the incidence in community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

A subset of community dwellers (n = 1,259) who participated in the "Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging" (NuAge) were selected in this Elderly population-based observational cohort study with 3 years of follow-up. Fried and CARE frailty stratifications into robust, pre-frail and frail groups were performed using the NuAge baseline assessment. Incident MNCD (i.e., Modified Mini Mental State (3MS) score <  79/100 and Instrumental Activity Daily Living (IADL) score <  6/8) were collected each year over a 3-year follow-up period.

RESULTS

A greater association with incident MNCD of the CARE frail state was observed with an increased predictive value when combined with cognitive impairment in comparison to Fried's one, the highest incidences being observed using the robust state as the reference. Results with the Fried frail state were more heterogenous, with no association with the frail state alone, whereas cognitive impairment alone showed the highest significant incidence.

CONCLUSION

The association of the CARE frail state with cognitive impairment increased the predictive value of MNCD, suggesting that the CARE frailty model may be of clinical interest when screening MCND in the elderly population.

A Qualitative Study on Formal and Informal Carers' Perceptions of Dementia Care Provision and Management in Malaysia

Background: The number of people living with dementia worldwide is increasing, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where little is known about existing post-diagnostic care and support. This study aimed to better understand healthcare provision for people living with dementia in Malaysia, and to identify priorities for providing timely, quality, and accessible care and support to all.

Methods: This is a qualitative interview study on care providers and facilitators (health and community care professionals, paid carers, traditional medicine practitioners, faith healers, community leaders, non-governmental organisations). A topic guide, piloted in Malaysia and peer reviewed by all LMIC partners, elicited the understanding of dementia and dementia care and barriers and facilitators to care for people living with dementia and carers, and perceptions of key priorities for developing efficient, feasible, and sustainable dementia care pathways. Verbatim transcription of audio-recorded interviews was followed by iterative, thematic data analysis.

Results: Twenty interviews were conducted (11 healthcare professionals, 4 traditional medicine practitioners, and 5 social support providers). The findings indicate that dementia care and support services exist in Malaysia, but that they are not fully utilised because of variations in infrastructure and facilities across the country. Despite a locally recognised pathway of care being available in an urban area, people with dementia still present to the healthcare system with advanced disease. The interviewees linked this to a public perception that symptoms of dementia, in particular, are normal sequelae of ageing. Earlier detection of dementia is commonly opportunistic when patients present to GPs, government clinic staff, and general physicians with other ailments. Dementia may only be identified by practitioners who have some specialist interest or expertise in it. Workforce factors that hindered early identification and management of dementia included lack of specialists, overburdened clinics, and limited knowledge of dementia and training in guideline use. Post-diagnostic social care was reported to be largely the domain of families, but additional community-based support was reported to be available in some areas. Raising awareness for both the public and medical professionals, prevention, and more support from the government are seen as key priorities to improve dementia management.

Conclusions: This qualitative study provides novel insight into the availability, delivery, and use of post-diagnostic care and support in Malaysia from the perspective of care providers. The respondents in this study perceived that while there was a provision for dementia care in the hospital and community settings, the different care sectors are largely unaware of the services each provides. Future work should explore how care provision across different service sectors and providers can be supported to better facilitate patient access and referral between primary, secondary, and social care. The importance of supporting families to understand dementia and its progression, and strategies to help them care for relatives was emphasised. There is also a need for broad workforce training and development, at both the postgraduate and undergraduate levels, as well as improved general awareness in the community to encourage earlier help-seeking for symptoms of dementia. This will enable the use of preventive strategies and access to specialist services to optimise care and quality of life for people living with dementia in Malaysia.

How Many People Live with Dementia in Portugal? A Discussion Paper of National Estimates

Dementia poses major public health challenges, and high-quality epidemiological data are needed for service planning. Published estimates of numbers of people with dementia in Portugal have been based, in most cases, on prevalence rates derived from international studies or expert consensus. As in many other countries, Portuguese community prevalence studies’ results are nongeneralizable to a country level. Moreover, their prevalence estimates differ (not surprisingly, owing to different methodologies, e.g., design, sampling, and diagnostic criteria). Regardless, the Portuguese 10/66 Dementia Research Group (10/66 DRG) population-based survey fulfilled 10 out of 11 Alzheimer’s Disease International quality criteria for prevalence studies. It relied on cross-culturally validated methods, fostering a wide comparability of results. Therefore, we can provide rough estimates of 217,549 community dwellers with dementia in Portugal according to the 10/66 DRG criteria (that would be only 85,162 according to DSM-IV criteria). This refers to people aged 65 years or older who are not institutionalized. Although broadly consistent with international projections, these estimates must be cautiously interpreted. Particularly in the context of scarce funding, which will probably last for years, we need more efficient, evidence-based dementia policies. Concerning further epidemiological studies, high-quality methods are needed but also their comparability potential should be improved at national and international levels. Most of all, fund allocation in Portugal should now privilege routine dementia information systems in both health and social services.