SummaryBackgroundThe number of individuals living with dementia is increasing, negatively affecting families, communities, and health-care systems around the world. A successful response to these challenges requires an accurate understanding of the dementia disease burden. We aimed to present the first detailed analysis of the global prevalence, mortality, and overall burden of dementia as captured by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016, and highlight the most important messages for clinicians and neurologists.MethodsGBD 2016 obtained data on dementia from vital registration systems, published scientific literature and surveys, and data from health-service encounters on deaths, excess mortality, prevalence, and incidence from 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2016, through systematic review and additional data-seeking efforts. To correct for differences in cause of death coding across time and locations, we modelled mortality due to dementia using prevalence data and estimates of excess mortality derived from countries that were most likely to code deaths to dementia relative to prevalence. Data were analysed by standardised methods to estimate deaths, prevalence, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs; computed as the sum of YLLs and YLDs), and the fractions of these metrics that were attributable to four risk factors that met GBD criteria for assessment (high body-mass index [BMI], high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a diet high in sugar-sweetened beverages).FindingsIn 2016, the global number of individuals who lived with dementia was 43·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 37·8–51·0), increased from 20.2 million (17·4–23·5) in 1990. This increase of 117% (95% UI 114–121) contrasted with a minor increase in age-standardised prevalence of 1·7% (1·0–2·4), from 701 cases (95% UI 602–815) per 100 000 population in 1990 to 712 cases (614–828) per 100 000 population in 2016. More women than men had dementia in 2016 (27·0 million, 95% UI 23·3–31·4, vs 16.8 million, 14.4–19.6), and dementia was the fifth leading cause of death globally, accounting for 2·4 million (95% UI 2·1–2·8) deaths. Overall, 28·8 million (95% UI 24·5–34·0) DALYs were attributed to dementia; 6·4 million (95% UI 3·4–10·5) of these could be attributed to the modifiable GBD risk factors of high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, smoking, and a high intake of sugar-sweetened beverages.InterpretationThe global number of people living with dementia more than doubled from 1990 to 2016, mainly due to increases in population ageing and growth. Although differences in coding for causes of death and the heterogeneity in case-ascertainment methods constitute major challenges to the estimation of the burden of dementia, future analyses should improve on the methods for the correction of these biases. Until breakthroughs are made in prevention or curative treatment, dementia will constitute an increasing challenge to health-care syste...

No abstract

Objective To quantify the link between lower, subclinically symptomatic, levels of psychological distress and cause-specific mortality in a large scale, population based study.Design Individual participant meta-analysis of 10 large prospective cohort studies from the Health Survey for England. Baseline psychological distress measured by the 12 item General Health Questionnaire score, and mortality from death certification.Participants 68 222 people from general population samples of adults aged 35 years and over, free of cardiovascular disease and cancer, and living in private households in England at study baseline.

OBJECTIVEType 2 diabetes confers a greater excess risk of cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Diabetes is also a risk factor for dementia, but whether the association is similar in women and men remains unknown. We performed a meta-analysis of unpublished data to estimate the sex-specific relationship between women and men with diabetes with incident dementia.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA systematic search identified studies published prior to November 2014 that had reported on the prospective association between diabetes and dementia. Study authors contributed unpublished sex-specific relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs on the association between diabetes and all dementia and its subtypes. Sex-specific RRs and the women-to-men ratio of RRs (RRRs) were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses.RESULTSStudy-level data from 14 studies, 2,310,330 individuals, and 102,174 dementia case patients were included. In multiple-adjusted analyses, diabetes was associated with a 60% increased risk of any dementia in both sexes (women: pooled RR 1.62 [95% CI 1.45–1.80]; men: pooled RR 1.58 [95% CI 1.38–1.81]). The diabetes-associated RRs for vascular dementia were 2.34 (95% CI 1.86–2.94) in women and 1.73 (95% CI 1.61–1.85) in men, and for nonvascular dementia, the RRs were 1.53 (95% CI 1.35–1.73) in women and 1.49 (95% CI 1.31–1.69) in men. Overall, women with diabetes had a 19% greater risk for the development of vascular dementia than men (multiple-adjusted RRR 1.19 [95% CI 1.08–1.30]; P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSIndividuals with type 2 diabetes are at ∼60% greater risk for the development of dementia compared with those without diabetes. For vascular dementia, but not for nonvascular dementia, the additional risk is greater in women.

Prospective, population-based studies that recruit participants in mid-life are valuable resources for dementia research. Follow-up in these studies is often through linkage to routinely-collected healthcare datasets. We investigated the accuracy of these datasets for dementia case ascertainment in a validation study using data from UK Biobank—an open access, population-based study of > 500,000 adults aged 40–69 years at recruitment in 2006–2010. From 17,198 UK Biobank participants recruited in Edinburgh, we identified those with ≥ 1 dementia code in their linked primary care, hospital admissions or mortality data and compared their coded diagnoses to clinical expert adjudication of their full-text medical record. We calculated the positive predictive value (PPV, the proportion of cases identified that were true positives) for all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia for each dataset alone and in combination, and explored algorithmic code combinations to improve PPV. Among 120 participants, PPVs for all-cause dementia were 86.8%, 87.3% and 80.0% for primary care, hospital admissions and mortality data respectively and 82.5% across all datasets. We identified three algorithms that balanced a high PPV with reasonable case ascertainment. For Alzheimer’s disease, PPVs were 74.1% for primary care, 68.2% for hospital admissions, 50.0% for mortality data and 71.4% in combination. PPV for vascular dementia was 43.8% across all sources. UK routinely-collected healthcare data can be used to identify all-cause dementia in prospective studies. PPVs for Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia are lower. Further research is required to explore the geographic generalisability of these findings. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10654-019-00499-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To examine the role of psychological distress (anxiety and depression) as a potential predictor of site specific cancer mortality. Design Pooling of individual participant data from 16 prospective cohort studies initiated 1994-2008.Setting Nationally representative samples drawn from the health survey for England (13 studies) and the Scottish health survey (three studies).Participants 163 363 men and women aged 16 or older at study induction, who were initially free of a cancer diagnosis, provided self reported psychological distress scores (based on the general health questionnaire, GHQ-12) and consented to health record linkage.Main outcome measure Vital status records used to ascertain death from 16 site specific malignancies; the three Scottish studies also had information on cancer registration (incidence).Results The studies collectively contributed an average of 9.5 years of mortality surveillance during which there were 16 267 deaths (4353 from cancer). After adjustment for age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, body mass index (BMI), and smoking and alcohol intake, and with reverse causality (by left censoring) and missing data (by imputation) taken into account, relative to people in the least distressed group (GHQ-12 score 0-6), death rates in the most distressed group (score 7-12) were consistently raised for cancer of all sites combined (multivariable adjusted hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48) and cancers not related to smoking (1.45, 1.23 to 1.71), as well as carcinoma of the colorectum (1.84, 1.21 to 2.78), prostate (2.42, 1.29 to 4.54), pancreas (2.76, 1.47 to 5.19), oesophagus (2.59, 1.34 to 5.00), and for leukaemia (3.86, 1.42 to 10.5). Stepwise associations across the full range of distress scores were observed for colorectal and prostate cancer.Conclusion This study contributes to the growing evidence that psychological distress might have some predictive capacity for selected cancer presentations, in addition to other somatic diseases.

No abstract

BackgroundDementia risk reduction is a major and growing public health priority. While certain modifiable risk factors for dementia have been identified, there remains a substantial proportion of unexplained risk. There is evidence that environmental risk factors may explain some of this risk. Thus, we present the first comprehensive systematic review of environmental risk factors for dementia.MethodsWe searched the PubMed and Web of Science databases from their inception to January 2016, bibliographies of review articles, and articles related to publically available environmental data. Articles were included if they examined the association between an environmental risk factor and dementia. Studies with another outcome (for example, cognition), a physiological measure of the exposure, case studies, animal studies, and studies of nutrition were excluded. Data were extracted from individual studies which were, in turn, appraised for methodological quality. The strength and consistency of the overall evidence for each risk factor identified was assessed.ResultsWe screened 4784 studies and included 60 in the review. Risk factors were considered in six categories: air quality, toxic heavy metals, other metals, other trace elements, occupational-related exposures, and miscellaneous environmental factors. Few studies took a life course approach. There is at least moderate evidence implicating the following risk factors: air pollution; aluminium; silicon; selenium; pesticides; vitamin D deficiency; and electric and magnetic fields.ConclusionsStudies varied widely in size and quality and therefore we must be circumspect in our conclusions. Nevertheless, this extensive review suggests that future research could focus on a short list of environmental risk factors for dementia. Furthermore, further robust, longitudinal studies with repeated measures of environmental exposures are required to confirm these associations.