Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are a risk factor for cognitive impairment and are associated with cortical β-amyloid (Aβ) deposition. We conducted a cross-sectional study derived from the ongoing population-based Mayo Clinic Study of Aging to examine the frequency of NPS among cognitively unimpaired (CU) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants who either have normal (A−) or abnormal (A+) Aβ deposition. We also investigated whether combined presence of MCI and amyloid positivity (MCI/A+) is associated with greater odds of having NPS as compared to CU/A− (defined as reference group). Participants were 1627 CU and MCI individuals aged ≥ 50 years (54% males; median age 73 years). All participants underwent NPS assessment (Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q); Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II); Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI)) and 11 C-PiB-PET. Participants with an SUVR > 1.42 were classified as A+. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, and APOE ε4 genotype status. The sample included 997 CU/A−, 446 CU/A+, 78 MCI/A−, and 106 MCI/A+ persons. For most NPS, the highest frequency of NPS was found in MCI/A+ and the lowest in CU/A−. The odds ratios of having NPS, depression (BDI ≥ 13), or anxiety (BAI ≥ 8, ≥ 10) were consistently highest for MCI/A+ participants. In conclusion, MCI with Aβ burden of the brain is associated with an increased risk of having NPS as compared to MCI without Aβ burden. This implies that the underlying Alzheimer’s disease biology (i.e., cerebral Aβ amyloidosis) may drive both cognitive and psychiatric symptoms.
Background Patient stratification is the division of a patient population into distinct subgroups based on the presence or absence of particular disease characteristics. As patient stratification can be used to account for the underlying pathology of a disease, it can help physicians to tailor therapeutic interventions to individuals and optimize their care management and treatment regime. Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, is a heterogeneous disease and its management benefits from patient stratification in clinical trials, and the development of personalized care and treatment strategies for people living with the disease. Main body In this review, we discuss the importance of the stratification of people living with Alzheimer’s disease, the challenges associated with early diagnosis and patient stratification, and the evolution of patient stratification once disease-modifying therapies become widely available. Conclusion Patient stratification plays an important role in drug development in clinical trials and may play an even larger role in clinical practice. A timely diagnosis and stratification of people living with Alzheimer’s disease is paramount in determining people who are at risk of progressing from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer’s dementia. There are key issues associated with stratifying patients which include the heterogeneity and complex neurobiology behind Alzheimer’s disease, our inadequately prepared healthcare systems, and the cultural perceptions of Alzheimer’s disease. Stratifying people living with Alzheimer’s disease may be the key in establishing precision and personalized medicine in the field, optimizing disease prevention and pharmaceutical treatment to slow or stop cognitive decline, while minimizing adverse effects.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias are a global challenge. Early diagnosis is important to manage the disease. However, there are barriers to diagnosis that differ by region. Researchers from Brazil, China, Nigeria, Spain, and Sweden have identified key barriers to AD diagnosis in their countries. In Brazil, socioeconomic inequalities and poor recognition of dementia by physicians can prevent diagnosis. In China, a very large population and lack of physician training in dementia make diagnosis problematic. In Nigeria, socioeconomic inequalities and cultural stigma can stand in the way of diagnosis. In Spain, patient hesitancy and an overloaded health‐care system are barriers to diagnosis. In Sweden, inconsistent use of biomarkers is a prominent barrier to diagnosis of AD. To support diagnosis, more focus is needed on education of patients and physicians, increased use of support services, and improved access to biomarkers to accurately diagnose AD.
Further randomized dose-finding studies are needed to learn more about the appropriate dosage in treating depression and comorbid pain with venlafaxine.
Background: There is a scarcity of reports comparing efficacy and tolerability of the multiple sclerosis (MS) disease-modifying therapies [DMTs; intramuscular interferon-β1a (IM IFNβ-1a), subcutaneous (SC) IFNβ-1a, SC IFNβ-1b, SC glatiramer acetate (GA)] in a real-world setting. Methods: This multicenter, non-interventional, retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 546 patients with clinically isolated or relapsing-remitting MS constantly treated with one DMT for 2 years. Annualized relapse rate (ARR), Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) scores, and DMT tolerability were assessed. Results: Demographic data were comparable across DMTs. There were no significant differences between DMT groups in ARR during study year 1 (p = 0.277) or study year 2 (p = 0.670), or in EDSS change between years 1 and 2 (p = 0.624). Adverse events were frequent (39-56%) in all groups. Flu-like symptoms were less frequent with GA treatment (2.3% vs. IM IFNβ-1a, 46.7%; SC IFNβ-1a, 39.8%; SC IFNβ-1b, 25.8%; p < 0.05). Injection site reactions were less often reported with IM IFNβ-1a (10.5% vs. SC IFNβ-1a, 33.9%; SC IFNβ-1b, 38.3%; GA, 26.1%; p < 0.05). Conclusions: All DMTs showed comparable effects on MS relapse rate and EDSS change, with IM IFNβ-1a and GA being more tolerable with respect to injection site reactions and flu-like symptoms, respectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.