Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Karger Publishers, Neuroepidemiology, 1(57), p. 14-24, 2022

DOI: 10.1159/000528120

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Effects of Eligibility Criteria on Patient Selection and Treatment Implications from 10 Multidomain Dementia Prevention Trials: A Population-Based Study

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Introduction: Dementia prevention trials have so far shown little benefit of multidomain interventions against cognitive decline. Recruitment strategies in these trials often centre around dementia risk or cardiovascular risk profile, but it is uncertain whether this leads to inclusion of individuals who may benefit most from the intervention. We determined the effects of eligibility criteria on the recruitment of potential trial participants in the general population. Methods: In a systematic search until January 1, 2022, we identified all published and ongoing large (≥500 participants), phase-3 multidomain trials for the prevention of cognitive decline or dementia. We applied trial eligibility criteria to 5,381 participants of the population-based Rotterdam Study (mean age: 72 years, 58% women), to compare participant characteristics, predicted risk of cardiovascular disease, and dementia risk, between trial eligible and ineligible persons. Results: We identified 10 trials, of which 5 had been published (DR’s EXTRA, FINGER, preDIVA, MAPT, and HATICE) and 5 are ongoing (US-POINTER, MIND-CHINA, MYB, AgeWell.de, and J-Mint). Among all Rotterdam Study participants, eligibility across published trials ranged from 48% for MAPT to 87% for preDIVA, in line with original trial reports. Variability in eligibility was wider for ongoing trials, from 1% for US-POINTER to over 94% for MYB trial. Over 70% of trial eligible individuals are recommended preventive intervention in routine care based on their cardiovascular risk, similar for lipid-lowering (71%) and blood pressure-lowering treatment (73%). Ten-year risks of dementia were similar for eligible compared to ineligible individuals (12 vs. 11%). Conclusion: Multidomain dementia prevention trials fail to preferentially include those at the highest risk of dementia and mostly include individuals who qualify for interventions already on the basis of cardiovascular prevention guidelines. These findings call for better targeted enrolment of individuals for whom trial results can improve clinical decision-making.