Background: Timely diagnosis of dementia has a wide range of benefits including reduced hospital emergency department presentations, admissions and inpatient length of stay, and improved quality of life for patients and their carers by facilitating access to treatments that reduce symptoms, and allow time to plan for the future. Memory clinics can provide such services, however there is no 'gold standard' model of care. This study involved the co-creation of a model of care for a new multidisciplinary memory clinic with local community members, General Practitioners (GPs), policy-makers, community aged care workers, and service providers. Methods: Data collection comprised semi-structured interviews (N = 98) with 20 GPs, and three 2-h community forums involving 53 seniors and community/local government representatives, and 25 community healthcare workers. Interviews and community forums were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by thematic analysis using Quirkos.Results: GPs' attitudes towards their role in assessing people with dementia varied. Many GPs reported that they found it useful for patients to have a diagnosis of dementia, but required support from secondary care to make the diagnosis and assist with subsequent management. Community forum participants felt they had a good knowledge of available dementia resources and services, but noted that these were highly fragmented and needed to be easier to navigate for the patient/carer via a 'one-stop-shop' and the provision of a dementia key worker. Expectations for the services and features of a new memory clinic included diagnostic services, rapid referrals, case management, education, legal services, culturally sensitive and appropriate services, allied health, research participation opportunities, and clear communication with GPs. Participants described several barriers to memory clinic utilisation including transportation access, funding, awareness, and costs.

BackgroundMild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a syndrome characterised by a decline in cognition but relatively intact activities of daily living. People with MCI have an increased risk of developing dementia, and MCI is often referred to as a transitional stage between healthy ageing and dementia. Currently, there are no pharmaceutical therapies approved by the US Federal Drug Administration for MCI. Randomised controlled trials on the two major classes of anti-dementia pharmaceuticals, cholinesterase inhibitors and glutamate receptor antagonists, have produced poor results in MCI cohorts. There is a need to test and evaluate new and promising treatments for MCI that target multiple aspects of the syndrome’s multi-faceted pathophysiology. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with a standardised herbal formula, Sailuotong (SLT), compared to placebo, on cognition in older adults with MCI. Secondary aims are to assess SLT’s mechanisms of action via electroencephalography (EEG), autonomic function, brain blood flow, and inflammation, as well as its safety in this cohort.Methods/designThe target cohort for this trial is community-dwelling older adults over the age of 60 years who meet the National Institute of Aging-Alzheimer’s Association working group core clinical criteria for MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease. Eighty participants will be recruited and randomly allocated via a permuted block strategy at a 1:1 ratio to either the treatment or placebo group. The co-primary cognitive outcome measures are Logical Memory Story A delayed recall (episodic memory), Letter Number Sequencing (perceptual processing speed), and both the Trail Making Test and Rey Complex Figure Test (executive function). Secondary outcome measures are EEG activity, autonomic function (via electrocardiogram, skin conductance, and peripheral pulse pressure), brain blood flow (via common carotid artery ultrasound), and serum concentrations of inflammatory cytokines. Analyses will be performed blind to group allocation.DiscussionThis study is a 12-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Primary and secondary outcome measures will be compared between treatment and placebo groups at baseline and endpoint. Data from this pilot study will inform a larger, more highly powered clinical trial if the findings are positive.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12617000371392 Registered on 10 March 2017.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2912-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Neuroimaging facilitates the assessment of complementary medicines (CMs) by providing a noninvasive insight into their mechanisms of action in the human brain. This is important for identifying the potential treatment options for target disease cohorts with complex pathophysiologies. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate study characteristics, intervention efficacy, and the structural and functional neuroimaging methods used in research assessing nutritional and herbal medicines for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Six databases were searched for articles reporting on CMs, dementia, and neuroimaging methods. Data were extracted from 21/2,742 eligible full text articles and risk of bias was assessed. Nine studies examined people with Alzheimer's disease, 7 MCI, 4 vascular dementia, and 1 all-cause dementia. Ten studies tested herbal medicines, 8 vitamins and supplements, and 3 nootropics. Ten studies used electroencephalography (EEG), 5 structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 2 functional MRI (fMRI), 3 cerebral blood flow (CBF), 1 single photon emission tomography (SPECT), and 1 positron emission tomography (PET). Four studies had a low risk of bias, with the majority consistently demonstrating inadequate reporting on randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, and power calculations. A narrative synthesis approach was assumed due to heterogeneity in study methods, interventions, target cohorts, and quality. Eleven key recommendations are suggested to advance future work in this area.

ImportanceThere are limited efficacious treatments for Alzheimer disease.ObjectiveTo assess efficacy and adverse events of donanemab, an antibody designed to clear brain amyloid plaque.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter (277 medical research centers/hospitals in 8 countries), randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 18-month phase 3 trial that enrolled 1736 participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease (mild cognitive impairment/mild dementia) with amyloid and low/medium or high tau pathology based on positron emission tomography imaging from June 2020 to November 2021 (last patient visit for primary outcome in April 2023).InterventionsParticipants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive donanemab (n = 860) or placebo (n = 876) intravenously every 4 weeks for 72 weeks. Participants in the donanemab group were switched to receive placebo in a blinded manner if dose completion criteria were met.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was change in integrated Alzheimer Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) score from baseline to 76 weeks (range, 0-144; lower scores indicate greater impairment). There were 24 gated outcomes (primary, secondary, and exploratory), including the secondary outcome of change in the sum of boxes of the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB) score (range, 0-18; higher scores indicate greater impairment). Statistical testing allocated α of .04 to testing low/medium tau population outcomes, with the remainder (.01) for combined population outcomes.ResultsAmong 1736 randomized participants (mean age, 73.0 years; 996 [57.4%] women; 1182 [68.1%] with low/medium tau pathology and 552 [31.8%] with high tau pathology), 1320 (76%) completed the trial. Of the 24 gated outcomes, 23 were statistically significant. The least-squares mean (LSM) change in iADRS score at 76 weeks was −6.02 (95% CI, −7.01 to −5.03) in the donanemab group and −9.27 (95% CI, −10.23 to −8.31) in the placebo group (difference, 3.25 [95% CI, 1.88-4.62]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and −10.2 (95% CI, −11.22 to −9.16) with donanemab and −13.1 (95% CI, −14.10 to −12.13) with placebo (difference, 2.92 [95% CI, 1.51-4.33]; P < .001) in the combined population. LSM change in CDR-SB score at 76 weeks was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.00-1.41) with donanemab and 1.88 (95% CI, 1.68-2.08) with placebo (difference, −0.67 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.40]; P < .001) in the low/medium tau population and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.53-1.91) with donanemab and 2.42 (95% CI, 2.24-2.60) with placebo (difference, −0.7 [95% CI, −0.95 to −0.45]; P < .001) in the combined population. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities of edema or effusion occurred in 205 participants (24.0%; 52 symptomatic) in the donanemab group and 18 (2.1%; 0 symptomatic during study) in the placebo group and infusion-related reactions occurred in 74 participants (8.7%) with donanemab and 4 (0.5%) with placebo. Three deaths in the donanemab group and 1 in the placebo group were considered treatment related.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong participants with early symptomatic Alzheimer disease and amyloid and tau pathology, donanemab significantly slowed clinical progression at 76 weeks in those with low/medium tau and in the combined low/medium and high tau pathology population.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04437511

This study examined Australian primary healthcare providers’ knowledge about dementia risk factors and risk reduction and their perspectives on barriers and enablers to risk reduction in practice. Primary healthcare providers were recruited through Primary Health Networks across Australia (n=51). Participants completed an online survey that consisted of fixed-responses and free-text components to assess their knowledge, attitudes and current practices relating to dementia risk factors and risk reduction techniques. The results showed that Australian primary healthcare providers have good knowledge about the modifiable risk factors for dementia; however, face several barriers to working with patients to reduce dementia risk. Commonly reported barriers included low patient motivation and healthcare system level limitations. The most commonly reported recommendations to helping primary healthcare providers to work with patients to reduce dementia risk included increasing resources and improving dementia awareness and messaging. While the results need to be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this study, we conclude that collaborative efforts between researchers, clinicians, policy makers and the media are needed to support the uptake of risk reduction activities in primary care settings.

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and identify factors predictive of home discharge in a cohort of patients admitted to the residential Transitional Aged Care Program (r‐TACP) after a stay in an acute hospital. Methods A retrospective observational cohort study of patients admitted to a single r‐TACP unit between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017 was carried out. Baseline patient characteristics and discharge outcomes were analyzed. Results Three hundred sixty‐nine patients were admitted during the study period. The discharge outcomes were as follows: 68% returned home, 17% went onto residential care, 14% were readmitted to hospital, and 1% died. Factors associated with not returning home were increased age, increased comorbidities, and lower Barthel Index on admission to the r‐TACP. Conclusion Our r‐TACP is an effective program that successfully returns the majority (67.8%) of older patients home after an acute hospital admission. Older patients with greater comorbidities and poorer baseline functional status in our program were less likely to return home.

No abstract

Background Lack of effective treatments for chronic conditions is associated with high rates of complementary medicine (CM) use. However, little is known about CM use for dementia. Aims and Objectives The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, motivations, and attitudes towards CM use by people living with dementia in an Australian setting. Design This study had a qualitative research design; quantitative demographic information was also collected. Methods In‐depth interviews were conducted with people living with dementia and their caregivers (N = 18). A thematic (inductive) analysis approach was taken to interpret data. Results Three in four participants used CM for dementia, spending ~AUD$100/month (USD$70/month). Within three overarching themes, a range of sub‐themes was identified: (1) CM knowledge and use: people living with dementia and caregivers understanding of CM, types of CM used, and CM usage patterns; (2) Self‐determined reasons for use/non‐use: maintain or improve quality of life, hope, management of dementia symptoms, level of awareness, willingness and evidence, perceptions on efficacy and safety of CM, experiences of conventional medicine, and holistic approach to wellness; (3) External determinants of use: information on CM, relationship influences on CM use, and experiences with General Practitioners (GPs) and CM. Conclusion Findings highlight that CM use is widespread and positively viewed by people living with dementia and their caregivers. Decisions regarding CM use were based on personal opinions. Findings have important implications for conversations with health professionals regarding CM use by people living with dementia to improve communication, health literacy, and reduce the risk of adverse effects through polypharmacy. Implications for Practice This study showed that CM is a valued approach for dementia management by people living with dementia, their families, and healthcare providers. Future international research is required to evaluate the efficacy and safety of these approaches and promote accurate advice in nursing care.