Timeline to symptomatic Alzheimer's disease in people with Down syndrome as assessed by amyloid-PET and tau-PET: a longitudinal cohort study.

Adults with Down syndrome are at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Natural history cohort studies have characterised the progression of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in people with Down syndrome, with a focus on amyloid β-PET and tau-PET. In this study, we aimed to leverage these well characterised imaging biomarkers in a large cohort of individuals with Down syndrome, to examine the timeline to symptomatic Alzheimer's disease based on estimated years since the detection on PET of amyloid β-positivity, referred to here as amyloid age, and in relation to tau burden as assessed by PET. In this prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study, data were collected at four university research sites in the UK and USA as part of the Alzheimer's Biomarker Consortium-Down Syndrome (ABC-DS) study. Eligible participants were aged 25 years or older with Down syndrome, had a mental age of at least 3 years (based on a standardised intelligence quotient test), and had trisomy 21 (full, mosaic, or translocation) confirmed through karyotyping. Participants were assessed twice between 2017 and 2022, with approximately 32 months between visits. Participants had amyloid-PET and tau-PET scans, and underwent cognitive assessment with the modified Cued Recall Test (mCRT) and the Down Syndrome Mental Status Examination (DSMSE) to assess cognitive functioning. Study partners completed the National Task Group-Early Detection Screen for Dementia (NTG-EDSD). Generalised linear models were used to assess the association between amyloid age (whereby 0 years equated to 18 centiloids) and mCRT, DSMSE, NTG-EDSD, and tau PET at baseline and the 32-month follow-up. Broken stick regression was used to identify the amyloid age that corresponded to decreases in cognitive performance and increases in tau PET after the onset of amyloid β positivity. 167 adults with Down syndrome, of whom 92 had longitudinal data, were included in our analyses. Generalised linear regressions showed significant quadratic associations between amyloid age and cognitive performance and cubic associations between amyloid age and tau, both at baseline and at the 32-month follow-up. Using broken stick regression models, differences in mCRT total scores were detected beginning 2·7 years (95% credible interval [CrI] 0·2 to 5·4; equating to 29·8 centiloids) after the onset of amyloid β positivity in cross-sectional models. Based on cross-sectional data, increases in tau deposition started a mean of 2·7-6·1 years (equating to 29·8-47·9 centiloids) after the onset of amyloid β positivity. Mild cognitive impairment was observed at a mean amyloid age of 7·4 years (SD 6·6; equating to 56·8 centiloids) and dementia was observed at a mean amyloid age of 12·7 years (5·6; equating to 97·4 centiloids). There is a short timeline to initial cognitive decline and dementia from onset of amyloid β positivity and tau deposition in people with Down syndrome. This newly established timeline based on amyloid age (or equivalent centiloid values) is important for clinical practice and informing the design of Alzheimer's disease clinical trials, and it avoids the limitations of timelines based on chronological age. National Institute on Aging and the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development.

Schworer EK ，Zammit MD ，Wang J ，Handen BL ，Betthauser T ，Laymon CM ，Tudorascu DL ，Cohen AD ，Zaman SH ，Ances BM ，Mapstone M ，Head E ，Christian BT ，Hartley SL ，Alzheimer's Biomarker Consortium–Down Syndrome (ABC–DS) ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment.

Dementia leads to progressive cognitive decline, and represents a significant health and societal burden. Its prevalence is growing, with Alzheimer's disease as the leading cause. There is no cure for Alzheimer's disease, but there are regulatory-approved pharmacological interventions, such as galantamine, for symptomatic relief. This review updates the 2006 version. To assess the clinical effects, including adverse effects, of galantamine in people with probable or possible Alzheimer's disease or mild cognitive impairment, and to investigate potential moderators of effect. We systematically searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register on 14 December 2022 using the term 'galantamine'. The Register contains records of clinical trials identified from major electronic databases (including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase), trial registries, grey literature sources, and conference proceedings. We manually searched reference lists and collected information from US Food and Drug Administration documents and unpublished trial reports. We imposed no language restrictions. We included double-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trials comparing oral galantamine with placebo for a treatment duration exceeding four weeks in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease or with mild cognitive impairment. Working independently, two review authors selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality, and extracted data. Outcomes of interest included cognitive function, change in global function, activities of daily living, functional disability, behavioural function, and adverse events. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analytic synthesis, and presented results as Peto odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. We used Cochrane's original risk of bias tool (RoB 1) to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. We included 21 studies with a total of 10,990 participants. The average age of participants was 74 years, and 37% were male. The studies' durations ranged from eight weeks to two years, with 24 weeks being the most common duration. One newly included study assessed the effects of galantamine at two years, and another newly included study involved participants with severe Alzheimer's disease. Nineteen studies with 10,497 participants contributed data to the meta-analysis. All studies had low to unclear risk of bias for randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding. We judged four studies to be at high risk of bias due to attrition and two due to selective outcome reporting. Galantamine for dementia due to Alzheimer's disease We summarise only the results for galantamine given at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day), assessed at six months. See the full review for results of other dosing regimens and assessment time points. There is high-certainty evidence that, compared to placebo, galantamine improves: cognitive function, as assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-cog) (MD-2.86, 95% CI -3.29 to -2.43; 6 studies, 3049 participants; minimum clinically important effect (MCID) = 2.6- to 4-point change); functional disability, as assessed with the Disability Assessment for Dementia (DAD) scale (MD 2.12, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.49; 3 studies, 1275 participants); and behavioural function, as assessed with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.63, 95% CI -3.07 to -0.20; 2 studies, 1043 participants) at six months. Galantamine may improve global function at six months, as assessed with the Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change plus Caregiver Input (CIBIC-plus) (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.84; 6 studies, 3002 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were more likely than placebo-treated participants to discontinue prematurely (22.7% versus 17.2%) (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.68; 6 studies, 3336 participants; high-certainty evidence), and experience nausea (20.9% versus 8.4%) (OR 2.89, 95% CI 2.40 to 3.49; 7 studies, 3616 participants; high-certainty evidence) during the studies. Galantamine reduced death rates at six months: 1.3% of participants in the galantamine groups had died compared to 2.3% in the placebo groups (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.96; 6 studies, 3493 participants; high-certainty evidence). Galantamine for mild cognitive impairment We summarise results, assessed at two years, from two studies that gave participants galantamine at 8 to 12 mg twice daily (total galantamine 16 mg to 24 mg/day). Compared to placebo, galantamine may not improve cognitive function, as assessed with the expanded ADAS-cog for mild cognitive impairment (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.37; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence) or activities of daily living, assessed with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study - Activities of Daily Living scale for mild cognitive impairment (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.86; 2 studies, 1901 participants; low-certainty evidence). Participants who received galantamine were probably more likely to discontinue prematurely than placebo-treated participants (40.7% versus 28.6%) (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.05; 2 studies, 2057 participants) and to experience nausea (29.4% versus 10.7%) (OR 3.49, 95% CI 2.75 to 4.44; 2 studies, 2057 participants), both with moderate-certainty evidence. Galantamine may not reduce death rates at 24 months compared to placebo (0.5% versus 0.1%) (OR 5.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 29.10; 2 studies, 2057 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results from subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggest that an imbalance in discontinuation rates between galantamine and placebo groups, together with the use of the 'last observation carried forward' approach to outcome assessment, may potentially bias cognitive outcomes in favour of galantamine. Compared to placebo, galantamine (when given at a total dose of 16 mg to 24 mg/day) slows the decline in cognitive function, functional ability, and behaviour at six months in people with dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Galantamine probably also slows declines in global function at six months. The changes observed in cognition, assessed with the ADAS-cog scale, were clinically meaningful. Gastrointestinal-related adverse events are the primary concerns associated with galantamine use in people with dementia, which may limit its tolerability. Although death rates were generally low, participants in the galantamine groups had a reduced risk of death compared to those in the placebo groups. There is no evidence to support the use of galantamine in people with mild cognitive impairment.

Lim AWY ，Schneider L ，Loy C 《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》