Gender Disparities in Anti-dementia Medication Use among Older Adults: Health Equity Considerations and Management of Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias

Trends of use and characterisation of anti-dementia drugs users: a large multinational-network population-based study

BACKGROUND

An updated time-trend analysis of anti-dementia drugs (ADDs) is lacking. The aim of this study is to assess the incident rate (IR) of ADD in individuals with dementia using real-world data.

SETTING

Primary care data (country/database) from the UK/CPRD-GOLD (2007-20), Spain/SIDIAP (2010-20) and the Netherlands/IPCI (2008-20), standardised to a common data model.

METHODS

Cohort study. Participants: dementia patients ≥40 years old with ≥1 year of previous data. Follow-up: until the end of the study period, transfer out of the catchment area, death or incident prescription of rivastigmine, galantamine, donepezil or memantine. Other variables: age/sex, type of dementia, comorbidities. Statistics: overall and yearly age/sex IR, with 95% confidence interval, per 100,000 person-years (IR per 105 PY (95%CI)).

RESULTS

We identified a total of (incident anti-dementia users/dementia patients) 41,024/110,642 in UK/CPRD-GOLD, 51,667/134,927 in Spain/SIDIAP and 2,088/17,559 in the Netherlands/IPCI.In the UK, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased from 2007 (30,829 (28,891-32,862)) to 2010 (17,793 (17,083-18,524)), then increased up to 2019 (31,601 (30,483 to 32,749)) and decrease in 2020 (24,067 (23,021-25,148)). In Spain, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased by 72% from 2010 (51,003 (49,199-52,855)) to 2020 (14,571 (14,109-15,043)). In the Netherlands, IR (per 105 PY (95%CI)) of ADD decreased by 77% from 2009 (21,151 (14,967-29,031)) to 2020 (4763 (4176-5409)). Subjects aged ≥65-79 years and men (in the UK and the Netherlands) initiated more frequently an ADD.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of dementia remains highly heterogeneous. Further consensus in the pharmacological management of patients living with dementia is urgently needed.

Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias

Objectives

1.1Biases inherent in electronic health records (EHRs), and therefore in medical artificial intelligence (AI) models may significantly exacerbate health inequities and challenge the adoption of ethical and responsible AI in healthcare. Biases arise from multiple sources, some of which are not as documented in the literature. Biases are encoded in how the data has been collected and labeled, by implicit and unconscious biases of clinicians, or by the tools used for data processing. These biases and their encoding in healthcare records undermine the reliability of such data and bias clinical judgments and medical outcomes. Moreover, when healthcare records are used to build data-driven solutions, the biases are further exacerbated, resulting in systems that perpetuate biases and induce healthcare disparities. This literature scoping review aims to categorize the main sources of biases inherent in EHRs.

Methods

1.2We queried PubMed and Web of Science on January 19th, 2023, for peer-reviewed sources in English, published between 2016 and 2023, using the PRISMA approach to stepwise scoping of the literature. To select the papers that empirically analyze bias in EHR, from the initial yield of 430 papers, 27 duplicates were removed, and 403 studies were screened for eligibility. 196 articles were removed after the title and abstract screening, and 96 articles were excluded after the full-text review resulting in a final selection of 116 articles.

Results

1.3Systematic categorizations of diverse sources of bias are scarce in the literature, while the effects of separate studies are often convoluted and methodologically contestable. Our categorization of published empirical evidence identified the six main sources of bias: a) bias arising from past clinical trials; b) data-related biases arising from missing, incomplete information or poor labeling of data; human-related bias induced by c) implicit clinician bias, d) referral and admission bias; e) diagnosis or risk disparities bias and finally, (f) biases in machinery and algorithms.

Conclusions

1.4Machine learning and data-driven solutions can potentially transform healthcare delivery, but not without limitations. The core inputs in the systems (data and human factors) currently contain several sources of bias that are poorly documented and analyzed for remedies. The current evidence heavily focuses on data-related biases, while other sources are less often analyzed or anecdotal. However, these different sources of biases add to one another exponentially. Therefore, to understand the issues holistically we need to explore these diverse sources of bias. While racial biases in EHR have been often documented, other sources of biases have been less frequently investigated and documented (e.g. gender-related biases, sexual orientation discrimination, socially induced biases, and implicit, often unconscious, human-related cognitive biases). Moreover, some existing studies lack causal evidence, illustrating the different prevalences of disease across groups, which does not per se prove the causality. Our review shows that data-, human- and machine biases are prevalent in healthcare and they significantly impact healthcare outcomes and judgments and exacerbate disparities and differential treatment. Understanding how diverse biases affect AI systems and recommendations is critical. We suggest that researchers and medical personnel should develop safeguards and adopt data-driven solutions with a "bias-in-mind" approach. More empirical evidence is needed to tease out the effects of different sources of bias on health outcomes.

Social and spatial inequalities in healthcare use among people living with dementia in England (2002-2016)

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare services for people living with dementia (PLWD) are stretched, and government promises of increased funding remain undelivered. With the UK dementia population to surpass 1 million by 2024, and dementia care costs predicted to almost treble by 2040, it is essential we understand differences in healthcare use among PLWD. This study aimed to explore social and spatial variations in healthcare use among people diagnosed with dementia (2002-2016).

METHODS

Data were derived from Electronic Health Records of Clinical Practice Research Datalink GP patients in England (n = 142,302). To standardise healthcare contacts, rates of healthcare contacts per year were calculated for three primary (GP observations and medications) and three secondary healthcare types [Accident & Emergency (A&E) attendances and, emergency and elective hospital admissions]. Fully-adjusted generalised linear regression models were used to identify healthcare use variation by social and spatial groups. Twelve models were generated, one for each healthcare type in early- and late-onset populations separately.

RESULTS

This study highlights numerous social and spatial variations in healthcare use among PLWD. Among PLWD, several groups tended to have healthcare service use more closely associated with negative outcomes, including a greater likelihood of A&E attendances and emergency and elective hospital admissions. These groups include: men, people from White ethnicity groups and people from more deprived and rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic and social measures are needed to reduce variations in healthcare use inequalities in PWLD. These include greater healthcare continuity, health checks and medicines reviews, culturally appropriate services, better and more accessible treatment and improved infrastructure.