Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mortality rate in memory clinic patients.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated whether mortality in memory clinic patients changed due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We included patients from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort: (1) n = 923 pandemic patients (baseline visit: 2017-2018, follow-up: until 2021), and (2) n = 830 historical control patients (baseline visit: 2015-2016, follow-up: until 2019). Groups were well-balanced. We compared mortality during pandemic with historical control patients using Cox regression. Differences in cause of death between groups were explored using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Pandemic patients had a higher risk of mortality than historical control patients (hazard ratio [HR] [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 1.34 [1.05-1.70]). Stratified for syndrome diagnosis, the effect remained significant in dementia patients (HR [95% CI] = 1.35 [1.03-1.78]). Excluding patients who died of COVID-19-infection, the higher mortality risk in pandemic patients attenuated (HR [95% CI] = 1.24 [0.97-1.58]). Only the difference in cause of death between pandemic patients and historical control patients for death to COVID-19-infection (p = 0.001) was observed. CONCLUSION: Memory clinic patients had increased mortality risk during COVID-19 compared to historical control patients, attributable to dementia patients. Highlights: We investigated if mortality rates in memory clinic patients changed due to COVID-19 pandemic.We included patients along the cognitive continuum, including SCD, MCI, and dementia.We used a well-balanced historical control group.Memory clinic patients had higher risk for mortality during COVID-19 lockdown.Our results indicate that excess mortality is mainly caused by death to COVID-19 infection.

Steeper memory decline after COVID-19 lockdown measures.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 lockdown measures, memory clinic patients reported worries for faster cognitive decline, due to loss of structure and feelings of loneliness and depression. We aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on rate of cognitive decline in a mixed memory clinic population, compared to matched historical controls. METHODS: We included patients who visited Alzheimer Center Amsterdam 6 months to 1 week before the first Dutch COVID-19 lockdown, and had a second visit 1 year later, after this lockdown period (n = 113; 66 ± 7 years old; 30% female; n = 55 dementia, n = 31 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n = 18 subjective cognitive decline (SCD), n = 9 postponed diagnosis). Historical controls (visit in 2016/2017 and second visit 1 year later (n = 640)) were matched 1:1 to lockdown patients by optimal Mahalanobis distance matching (both groups n = 113). Groups were well matched. Differences between lockdown patients and historical controls over time in Mini-Mental State Examination, Trail Making Test part A and B, Rey-Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) immediate and delayed recall, and category fluency scores were analyzed using linear mixed effect models with random intercepts. We examined differences in rate of cognitive decline between whole groups, and after stratification in SCD, MCI, and dementia separately. RESULTS: Lockdown patients had a faster rate of memory decline compared to controls on both RAVLT immediate [B(SE) = - 2.62 (1.07), p = 0.015] and delayed recall [B(SE) = - 1.07 (0.34), p = 0.002]. Stratification by syndrome diagnosis showed that this effect was largely attributable to non-demented participants, as we observed faster memory decline during lockdown in SCD and MCI (RAVLT immediate [SCD: B(SE) = - 6.85 (2.97), p = 0.027; MCI: B(SE) = - 6.14 (1.78), p = 0.001] and delayed recall [SCD: B(SE) = - 2.45 (1.11), p = 0.035; MCI: B(SE) = - 1.50 (0.51), p = 0.005]), but not in dementia. CONCLUSION: Memory clinic patients, specifically in pre-dementia stages, showed faster memory decline during COVID-19 lockdown, providing evidence that lockdown regulations had a deleterious effect on brain health. In individuals that may have been able to deal with accumulating, subclinical neuropathology under normal and structured circumstances, the additional stress of lockdown regulations may have acted as a "second hit," resulting in less beneficial disease trajectory.

A more precise diagnosis by means of amyloid PET contributes to delayed institutionalization, lower mortality, and reduced care costs in a tertiary memory clinic setting.

INTRODUCTION: We aim to study the effect of a more precise diagnosis, by means of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), on institutionalization, mortality, and health-care costs. METHODS: Between October 27, 2014 and December 31, 2016, we offered amyloid PET to all patients as part of their diagnostic work-up. Patients who accepted to undergo amyloid PET (n = 449) were propensity score matched with patients without amyloid PET (n = 571, i.e., no PET). Matched groups (both n = 444) were compared on rate of institutionalization, mortality, and health-care costs in the years after diagnosis. RESULTS: Amyloid PET patients had a lower risk of institutionalization (10% [n = 45] vs. 21% [n = 92]; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48 [0.33-0.70]) and mortality rate (11% [n = 49] vs. 18% [n = 81]; HR = 0.51 [0.36-0.73]) and lower health-care costs in the years after diagnosis compared to matched no-PET patients (ß = -4573.49 [-6524.76 to -2523.74], P-value < 0.001). DISCUSSION: A more precise diagnosis in tertiary memory clinic patients positively influenced the endpoints of institutionalization, death, and health-care costs.

A longitudinal study on quality of life along the spectrum of Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome from the perspective of patients and their caregivers, in both dementia and pre-dementia stages. Yet, little is known about the long-term changes in QoL over time. We aimed to compare the trajectories of QoL between amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative SCD or MCI patients and to evaluate QoL trajectories along the Alzheimer's disease (AD) continuum of cognitively normal to dementia. METHODS: We included longitudinal data of 447 subjective cognitive decline (SCD), 276 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 417 AD dementia patients from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. We compared QoL trajectories (EQ-5D and visual analog scale (VAS)) between (1) amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative SCD or MCI patients and (2) amyloid-positive SCD, MCI, and dementia patients with linear mixed-effect models. The models were adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), education, and EQ-5D scale (3 or 5 level). RESULTS: In SCD, amyloid-positive participants had a higher VAS at baseline but showed a steeper decline over time in EQ-5D and VAS than amyloid-negative participants. Also, in MCI, amyloid-positive patients had higher QoL at baseline but subsequently showed a steeper decline in QoL over time compared to amyloid-negative patients. When we compared amyloid-positive patients along the Alzheimer continuum, we found no difference between SCD, MCI, or dementia in baseline QoL, but QoL decreased at a faster rate in the dementia stage compared with the of SCD and MCI stages. CONCLUSIONS: QoL decreased at a faster rate over time in amyloid-positive SCD or MCI patients than amyloid-negative patients. QoL decreases over time along the entire AD continuum of SCD, MCI and dementia, with the strongest decrease in dementia patients. Knowledge of QoL trajectories is essential for the future evaluation of treatments in AD.

Development of multivariable prediction models for institutionalization and mortality in the full spectrum of Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients and caregivers express a desire for accurate prognostic information about time to institutionalization and mortality. Previous studies predicting institutionalization and mortality focused on the dementia stage. However, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by a long pre-dementia stage. Therefore, we developed prediction models to predict institutionalization and mortality along the AD continuum of cognitively normal to dementia. METHODS: This study included SCD/MCI patients (subjective cognitive decline (SCD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI)) and patients with AD dementia from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. We developed internally and externally validated prediction models with biomarkers and without biomarkers, stratified by dementia status. Determinants were selected using backward selection (p<0.10). All models included age and sex. Discriminative performance of the models was assessed with Harrell's C statistics. RESULTS: We included n=1418 SCD/MCI patients (n=123 died, n=74 were institutionalized) and n=1179 patients with AD dementia (n=413 died, n=453 were institutionalized). For both SCD/MCI and dementia stages, the models for institutionalization and mortality included after backward selection clinical characteristics, imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers. In SCD/MCI, the Harrell's C-statistics of the models were 0.81 (model without biomarkers: 0.76) for institutionalization and 0.79 (model without biomarker: 0.76) for mortality. In AD-dementia, the Harrell's C-statistics of the models were 0.68 (model without biomarkers: 0.67) for institutionalization and 0.65 (model without biomarker: 0.65) for mortality. Models based on data from amyloid-positive patients only had similar discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: We constructed prediction models to predict institutionalization and mortality with good accuracy for SCD/MCI patients and moderate accuracy for patients with AD dementia. The developed prediction models can be used to provide patients and their caregivers with prognostic information on time to institutionalization and mortality along the cognitive continuum of AD.

Changes in Brain-Health Related Modifiable Risk Factors in Older Adults After One Year of COVID-19-Restrictions.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has major influence on lifestyle and mental health, which might affect brain-health and increase the risk of cognitive decline, particularly in older adults. We aimed to describe changes in modifiable risk factors related to brain-health in older adults after one year of COVID-19 restrictions. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between February and March 2021 to 17,773 registrants of the Dutch Brain Research Registry, aged ≥50, without a self-reported diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment or dementia. Participants were asked to report potential changes in behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to pre-pandemic, in eight domains related to brain health: physical activity, sleep, feeling of memory decline, perceived stress, feeling of loneliness, diet, alcohol consumption, and smoking. We used negative binomial regression analyses to relate (socio)demographics, subjective memory complaints and COVID-19 related aspects (fear of, or current/past COVID-19 infection) to the number of reported detrimental and beneficial changes as dependent variable. Results: 3,943 participants (66 ± 8 years old; 76% female; 71% highly educated) completed the survey. After one year of COVID-19-restrictions, 74% reported at least one detrimental lifestyle change unfavorable for their brain health, most frequently reported were feelings of loneliness, sleep problems, and less physical activity. 60% of participants reported at least one beneficial change, which were most often more physical activity, healthier dietary habits, and less alcohol consumption. Individuals who are younger [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.98-0.99], female (1.20, 1.11-1.30), living alone (1.20, 1.11-1.28) and in urban environments (1.18, 1.08-1.29), who are less satisfied with their income (1.38, 1.17-1.62), experiencing subjective memory complaints (1.40, 1.28-1.52) and those with a past or current (1.19, 1.06-1.34) or fear of a COVID-19 infection (1.33, 1.25-1.42) reported higher numbers of detrimental changes. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced lifestyle in both positive and negative ways. We identified (socio)demographic factors associated with more detrimental changes in modifiable risk factors related to brain health, suggesting that some individuals are more vulnerable for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings provide an opportunity for targeted prevention and education to promote a healthy lifestyle during and after the pandemic.

Psychosocial Effects of COVID-19 Measures on (Pre-)Dementia Patients During Second Lockdown.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic poses enormous social challenges, especially during lockdown. People with cognitive decline and their caregivers are particularly at risk of lockdown consequences. OBJECTIVE: To investigate psychosocial effects in (pre-)dementia patients and caregivers during second lockdown and compare effects between first and second lockdown. METHODS: We included n = 511 (pre-)dementia patients and n = 826 caregivers from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort and via Alzheimer Nederland. All respondents completed a self-designed survey on psychosocial effects of COVID-19. We examined relations between experienced support and psychosocial and behavioral symptoms using logistic regression. In a subset of patients and caregivers we compared responses between first and second lockdown using generalized estimating equation (GEE). RESULTS: The majority of patients (≥58%) and caregivers (≥60%) reported that family and friends, hobbies, and music helped them cope. Support from family and friends was strongly related to less negative feelings in patients (loneliness: OR = 0.3[0.1-0.6]) and caregivers (loneliness: OR = 0.2[0.1-0.3]; depression: OR = 0.4[0.2-0.5]; anxiety: OR = 0.4[0.3-0.6]; uncertainty: OR = 0.3[0.2-0.5]; fatigue: OR = 0.3[0.2-0.4]; stress: OR = 0.3[0.2-0.5]). In second lockdown, less psychosocial and behavioral symptoms were reported compared to first lockdown (patients; e.g., anxiety: 22% versus 13%, p = 0.007; apathy: 27% versus 8%, p < 0.001, caregivers; e.g., anxiety: 23% versus 16%, p = 0.033; patient's behavioral problems: 50% versus 35%, p < 0.001). Patients experienced more support (e.g., family and friends: 52% versus 93%, p < 0.001; neighbors: 28% versus 66%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: During second lockdown, patients and caregivers adapted to challenges posed by lockdown, as psychosocial and behavioral effects decreased, while patients experienced more social support compared to first lockdown. Support from family and friends is a major protective factor for negative outcomes in patients and caregivers.

Identifying relevant outcomes in the progression of Alzheimer's disease; what do patients and care partners want to know about prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Prognostic studies in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD) mainly predicted time to dementia. However, it is questionable whether onset of dementia is the most relevant outcome along the AD disease trajectory from the perspective of patients and their care partners. Therefore, we aimed to identify the most relevant outcomes from the viewpoint of patients and care partners. METHODS: We used a two-step, mixed-methods approach. As a first step we conducted four focus groups in the Netherlands to elicit a comprehensive list of outcomes considered important by patients (n = 12) and care partners (n = 14) in the prognosis of AD. The focus groups resulted in a list of 59 items, divided into five categories. Next, in an online European survey, we asked participants (n = 232; 99 patients, 133 care partners) to rate the importance of all 59 items (5-point Likert scale). As participants were likely to rate a large number of outcomes as "important" (4) or "very important" (5), we subsequently asked them to select the three items they considered most important. RESULTS: The top-10 lists of items most frequently mentioned as "most important" by patients and care partners were merged into one core outcome list, comprising 13 items. Both patients and care partners selected outcomes from the category "cognition" most often, followed by items in the categories "functioning and dependency" and "physical health." No items from the category "behavior and neuropsychiatry" and "social environment" ended up in our core list of relevant outcomes. CONCLUSION: We identified a core list of outcomes relevant to patients and care partner, and found that prognostic information related to cognitive decline, dependency, and physical health are considered most relevant by both patients and their care partners.

Psychosocial Effects of Corona Measures on Patients With Dementia, Mild Cognitive Impairment and Subjective Cognitive Decline.

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic is not only a major healthcare problem in itself, but also poses enormous social challenges. Though nursing homes increasingly receive attention, the majority of people with cognitive decline and dementia live at home. We aimed to explore the psychosocial effects of corona measures in memory clinic (pre-)dementia patients and their caregivers. Methods: Between April 28th and July 13th 2020, n = 389 patients of Alzheimer center Amsterdam [n = 121 symptomatic (age = 69 ± 6, 33%F, MMSE = 23 ± 5), n = 268 cognitively normal (age = 66 ± 8, 40% F, MMSE = 29 ± 1)] completed a survey on psychosocial effects of the corona measures. Questions related to social isolation, worries for faster cognitive decline, behavioral problems and discontinuation of care. In addition, n = 147 caregivers of symptomatic patients completed a similar survey with additional questions on caregiver burden. Results: Social isolation was experienced by n = 42 (35%) symptomatic and n = 67 (25%) cognitively normal patients and two third of patients [n = 129 (66%); n = 58 (75%) symptomatic, n = 71 (61%) cognitively normal] reported that care was discontinued. Worries for faster cognitive decline were existed in symptomatic patients [n = 44 (44%)] and caregivers [n = 73 (53%)], but were also reported by a subgroup of cognitively normal patients [n = 27 (14%)]. Both patients [n = 56 (46%) symptomatic, n = 102 (38%) cognitively normal] and caregivers [n = 72 (48%)] reported an increase in psychological symptoms. More than three quarter of caregivers [n = 111(76%)] reported an increase in patients' behavioral problems. A higher caregiver burden was experienced by n = 69 (56%) of caregivers and n = 43 (29%) of them reported that a need for more support. Discontinuation of care (OR = 3.3 [1.3-7.9]), psychological (OR = 4.0 [1.6-9.9]) and behavioral problems (OR = 3.0 [1.0-9.0]) strongly related to experiencing a higher caregiver burden. Lastly, social isolation (OR = 3.2 [1.2-8.1]) and psychological symptoms (OR = 8.1 [2.8-23.7]) were red flags for worries for faster cognitive decline. Conclusion: Not only symptomatic patients, but also cognitively normal patients express worries for faster cognitive decline and psychological symptoms. Moreover, we identified patients who are at risk of adverse outcomes of the corona measures, i.e., discontinued care, social isolation, psychological and behavioral problems. This underlines the need for health care professionals to provide ways to warrant the continuation of care and support (informal) networks surrounding patients and caregivers to mitigate the higher risk of negative psychosocial effects.