European stroke organisation (ESO) guideline on cerebral small vessel disease, part 2, lacunar ischaemic stroke.

A quarter of ischaemic strokes are lacunar subtype, typically neurologically mild, usually resulting from intrinsic cerebral small vessel pathology, with risk factor profiles and outcome rates differing from other stroke subtypes. This European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations to assist with clinical decisions about management of lacunar ischaemic stroke to prevent adverse clinical outcomes. The guideline was developed according to ESO standard operating procedures and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We addressed acute treatment (including progressive lacunar stroke) and secondary prevention in lacunar ischaemic stroke, and prioritised the interventions of thrombolysis, antiplatelet drugs, blood pressure lowering, lipid lowering, lifestyle, and other interventions and their potential effects on the clinical outcomes recurrent stroke, dependency, major adverse cardiovascular events, death, cognitive decline, mobility, gait, or mood disorders. We systematically reviewed the literature, assessed the evidence and where feasible formulated evidence-based recommendations, and expert concensus statements. We found little direct evidence, mostly of low quality. We recommend that patients with suspected acute lacunar ischaemic stroke receive intravenous alteplase, antiplatelet drugs and avoid blood pressure lowering according to current acute ischaemic stroke guidelines. For secondary prevention, we recommend single antiplatelet treatment long-term, blood pressure control, and lipid lowering according to current guidelines. We recommend smoking cessation, regular exercise, other healthy lifestyle modifications, and avoid obesity for general health benefits. We cannot make any recommendation concerning progressive stroke or other drugs. Large randomised controlled trials with clinically important endpoints, including cognitive endpoints, are a priority for lacunar ischaemic stroke.

Anticholinergic deprescribing interventions for reducing risk of cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with and without prior cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergics are medications that block the action of acetylcholine in the central or peripheral nervous system. Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden. A high anticholinergic burden may cause cognitive impairment in people who are otherwise cognitively healthy, or cause further cognitive decline in people with pre-existing cognitive problems. Reducing anticholinergic burden through deprescribing interventions may help to prevent onset of cognitive impairment or slow the rate of cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To assess the efficacy and safety of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in cognitively healthy older adults and older adults with pre-existing cognitive issues. Secondary Objectives • To compare the effectiveness of different types of reduction interventions (e.g. pharmacist-led versus general practitioner-led, educational versus audit and feedback) for reducing overall anticholinergic burden. • To establish optimal duration of anticholinergic reduction interventions, sustainability, and lessons learnt for upscaling • To compare results according to differing anticholinergic scales used in medication reduction intervention trials • To assess the efficacy of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving other clinical outcomes, including mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, and neurobehavioral outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL on 22 December 2022, and we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases from inception to 1 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people and that investigated cognitive outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we summarised them narratively. We used GRADE methods to rate our confidence in the review results. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with a total of 299 participants. All three trials were conducted in a cognitively mixed population (some cognitively healthy participants, some participants with dementia). Outcomes were assessed after one to three months. One trial reported significantly improved performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) in the intervention group (treatment difference 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.30), although there was no difference between the groups in the proportion of participants with reduced anticholinergic burden. Two trials successfully reduced anticholinergic burden in the intervention group. Of these, one reported no significant difference between the intervention versus control in terms of their effect on cognitive performance measured by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) immediate recall (mean between-group difference 0.54, 95% CI -0.91 to 2.05), CERAD delayed recall (mean between-group difference -0.23, 95% CI-0.85 to 0.38), CERAD recognition (mean between-group difference 0.77, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.94), and Mini-Mental State Examination (mean between-group difference 0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 1.75). The other trial reported a significant correlation between anticholinergic burden and a test of working memory after the intervention (which suggested reducing the burden improved performance), but reported no effect on multiple other cognitive measures. In GRADE terms, the results were of very low certainty. There were no reported between-group differences for any other clinical outcome we investigated. It was not possible to investigate differences according to type of reduction intervention or type of anticholinergic scale, to measure the sustainability of interventions, or to establish lessons learnt for upscaling. No trials investigated safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions on the effects of anticholinergic burden reduction interventions on cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without prior cognitive impairment. The evidence from RCTs was of very low certainty so cannot support or refute the hypothesis that actively reducing or stopping prescription of medications with anticholinergic properties can improve cognitive outcomes in older people. There is no evidence from RCTs that anticholinergic burden reduction interventions improve other clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, or neurobehavioral outcomes. Larger RCTs investigating long-term outcomes are needed. Future RCTs should also investigate potential benefits of anticholinergic reduction interventions in cognitively healthy populations and cognitively impaired populations separately.

New horizons in evidence synthesis for older adults.

Evidence synthesis, embedded within a systematic review of the literature, is a well-established approach for collating and combining all the relevant information on a particular research question. A robust synthesis can establish the evidence base, which underpins best practice guidance. Such endeavours are frequently used by policymakers and practitioners to inform their decision making. Traditionally, an evidence synthesis of interventions consisted of a meta-analysis of quantitative data comparing two treatment alternatives addressing a specific and focussed clinical question. However, as the methods in the field have evolved, especially in response to the increasingly complex healthcare questions, more advanced evidence synthesis techniques have been developed. These can deal with extended data structures considering more than two treatment alternatives (network meta-analysis) and complex multicomponent interventions. The array of questions capable of being answered has also increased with specific approaches being developed for different evidence types including diagnostic, prognostic and qualitative data. Furthermore, driven by a desire for increasingly up-to-date evidence summaries, living systematic reviews have emerged. All of these methods can potentially have a role in informing older adult healthcare decisions. The aim of this review is to increase awareness and uptake of the increasingly comprehensive array of newer synthesis methods available and highlight their utility for answering clinically relevant questions in the context of older adult research, giving examples of where such techniques have already been effectively applied within the field. Their strengths and limitations are discussed, and we suggest user-friendly software options to implement the methods described.

Comparing Research Priority-Setting Partnerships for Older Adults Across International Health Care Systems: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Priority setting partnerships (PSPs) attempt to shape the research agenda to address the needs of local populations of interest. We reviewed the PSPs for older adults, with a focus on exemplar health care systems: United Kingdom (UK; publicly funded), United States (private health insurance-based), South Korea (national health insurance-based), and Africa (out-of-pocket). DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We searched databases and sources (January 2011-October 202l; updated in February 2023) for PSPs of older adults' health care. METHODS: Based on the British geriatric medicine curriculum, we extracted and categorized the PSP topics by areas and the research priorities by themes, and generated evidence maps depicting and comparing the research gaps across the systems. We evaluated PSP quality using the Nine Common Themes of Good Clinical Practice. RESULTS: We included 32 PSPs (United Kingdom: n = 25; United States: n = 7; South Korea and Africa: n = 0) and identified priorities regarding 27 conditions or service arrangements in the United Kingdom and 9 in the United States (predominantly in neurology/psychiatry). The UK priorities focused on treatments and interventions whereas the US on prognostic/predictive factors. There were notable research gaps within the existing PSPs, including common geriatric conditions like continence and frailty. The PSP quality evaluation revealed issues around lacking inclusion of ethnic minorities. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Research priorities for older adult health care vary internationally, but certain health care systems/countries have no available PSPs. Where PSPs are available, fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine have not been included. Future researchers should conduct prioritizations in different countries, focus on core geriatric syndromes, and ensure the inclusion of all relevant stakeholder groups.

Physical and brain frailty in ischaemic stroke or TIA: Shared occurrence and outcomes. A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the concept of frailty in stroke, including both physical frailty and imaging-evidence of brain frailty. We aimed to establish the prevalence of brain frailty in stroke survivors as well as the concurrent and predictive validity of various frailty measures against long-term cognitive outcomes. METHODS: We included consecutively admitted stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) survivors from participating stroke centres. Baseline CT scans were used to generate an overall brain frailty score for each participant. We measured frailty via the Rockwood frailty index, and a Fried frailty screening tool. Presence of major or minor neurocognitive disorder at 18-months following stroke or TIA was established via a multicomponent assessment. Prevalence of brain frailty was established based upon observed percentages within groups defined by frailty status (robust, pre-frail, frail). We assessed the concurrent validity of brain frailty and frailty scales via Spearman's rank correlation. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses, controlling for age, sex, baseline education and stroke severity, to evaluate association between each frailty measure and 18-month cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Three-hundred-forty-one stroke survivors participated. Three-quarters of people who were frail had moderate-severe brain frailty and prevalence increased according to frailty status. Brain frailty was weakly correlated with Rockwood frailty (Rho: 0.336; p < 0.001) and with Fried frailty (Rho: 0.230; p < 0.001). Brain frailty (OR: 1.64, 95% CI = 1.17-2.32), Rockwood frailty (OR: 1.05, 95% CI = 1.02-1.08) and Fried frailty (OR: 1.93, 95% CI = 1.39-2.67) were each independently associated with cognitive impairment at 18 months following stroke. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be value in the assessment of both physical and brain frailty in patients with ischaemic stroke and TIA. Both are associated with adverse cognitive outcomes and physical frailty remains important when assessing cognitive outcomes.

Pharmacological Interventions for Sialorrhoea in People with Parkinson's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background/objectives: Sialorrhoea is a common non motor complication experienced by people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Despite its prevalence there is conflicting evidence on how to effectively treat it. Our aim was to establish the efficacy and safety outcomes of pharmacological interventions used to treat sialorrhoea in people with idiopathic PD. Methods: We registered and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42016042470). We searched seven electronic databases from inception until July 2022. Quantitative synthesis was performed where data allowed using random effects models. Results: From 1374 records we included 13 studies (n = 405 participants). Studies were conducted in Europe, North America and China. There was marked heterogeneity in the interventions used, follow up times and outcome measures investigated. The main source of risk of bias identified was reporting bias. Five studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Summary estimates showed administration of botulinum toxin significantly reduced saliva production, improved patient reported functional outcomes and was associated with an increase in adverse events. Conclusion: Sialorrhoea in PD is an important condition, but current data does not allow for strong recommendations on optimal pharmacological treatments. There is significant heterogeneity in outcomes measures used to evaluate the burden of sialorrhoea with lack of consensus on what constitutes clinically meaningful change. More research is required to better understand the underlying mechanism and potential treatments of sialorrhoea in idiopathic PD.

Informant-based screening tools for dementia: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Informant-based questionnaires may have utility for cognitive impairment or dementia screening. Reviews describing the accuracy of respective questionnaires are available, but their focus on individual questionnaires precludes comparisons across tools. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to assess the comparative accuracy of informant questionnaires and identify areas where evidence is lacking. METHODS: We searched six databases to identify systematic reviews describing diagnostic test accuracy of informant questionnaires for cognitive impairment or dementia. We pooled sensitivity and specificity data for each questionnaire and used network approaches to compare accuracy estimates across the differing tests. We used grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence. Finally, we created an evidence 'heat-map', describing the availability of accurate data for individual tests in different populations and settings. RESULTS: We identified 25 reviews, consisting of 93 studies and 13 informant questionnaires. Pooled analysis (37 studies; 11 052 participants) ranked the eight-item interview to ascertain dementia (AD8) highest for sensitivity [90%; 95% credible intervals (CrI) = 82-95; 'best-test' probability = 36]; while the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) was most specific (81%; 95% CrI = 66-90; 'best-test' probability = 29%). GRADE-based evaluation of evidence suggested certainty was 'low' overall. Our heat-map indicated that only AD8 and IQCODE have been extensively evaluated and most studies have been in the secondary care settings. CONCLUSIONS: AD8 and IQCODE appear to be valid questionnaires for cognitive impairment or dementia assessment. Other available informant-based cognitive screening questionnaires lack evidence to justify their use at present. Evidence on the accuracy of available tools in primary care settings and with specific populations is required.

Protocol for the development and validation of a patient reported measure (PRM) of treatment burden in stroke.

Background: Treatment burden is the workload of healthcare for people with long-term conditions and the impact on wellbeing. A validated measure of treatment burden after stroke is needed. We aim to adapt a patient-reported measure (PRM) of treatment burden in multimorbidity, PETS (Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-Management version 2.0), to create a stroke-specific measure, PETS-stroke. We aim to examine content validity, construct validity, reliability and feasibility in a stroke survivor population. Methods: 1) Adaptation of 60-item PETS to PETS-stroke using a taxonomy of treatment burden. 2) Content validity testing through cognitive interviews that will explore the importance, relevance and clarity of each item. 3) Evaluation of scale psychometric properties through analysis of data from stroke survivors recruited via postal survey (n=340). Factor structure will be tested with confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha will be used to index internal consistency. Construct validity will be tested against: The Stroke Southampton Self-Management Questionnaire; The Satisfaction with Stroke Care Measure; and The Shortened Stroke Impact Scale. We will explore known-groups validity by exploring the association between treatment burden, socioeconomic deprivation and multimorbidity. Test-retest reliability will be examined via re-administration after 2 weeks. Acceptability and feasibility of use will be explored via missing data rates and telephone interviews with 30 participants. Conclusions: We aim to create a validated PRM of treatment burden after stroke. PETS-stroke is designed for use as an outcome measure in clinical trials of stroke treatments and complex interventions to ascertain if treatments are workable for patients in the context of their everyday lives.

Research protocol - Assessing Post-Stroke Psychology Longitudinal Evaluation (APPLE) study: A prospective cohort study in stroke.

Background: Cognitive and mood problems have been highlighted as priorities in stroke research and guidelines recommend early screening. However, there is limited detail on the preferred approach.We aimed to (1) determine the optimal methods for evaluating psychological problems that pre-date stroke; (2) assess the test accuracy, feasibility and acceptability of brief cognitive and mood tests used at various time-points following stroke; (3) describe temporal changes in cognition and mood following stroke and explore predictors of change. Methods: We established a multi-centre, prospective, observational cohort with acute stroke as the inception point - Assessing Post-stroke Psychology Longitudinal Evaluation (APPLE). We approached patients admitted with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) from 11 different hospital sites across the United Kingdom. Baseline demographics, clinical, functional, cognitive, and mood data were collected. Consenting stroke survivors were followed up with more extensive evaluations of cognition and mood at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months. Results: Continuous recruitment was from February 2017 to February 2019. With 357 consented to full follow-up. Eighteen-month assessments were completed in September 2020 with permissions in-place for longer term in-person or electronic follow-up. A qualitative study has been completed, and a participant sample biobank and individual participant database are both available. Discussion: The APPLE study will provide guidance on optimal tool selection for cognitive and mood assessment both before and after stroke, as well as information on prognosis and natural history of neuropsychological problems in stroke. The study data, neuroimaging and tissue biobank are all available as a resource for future research.

European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline on pharmacological interventions for long-term secondary prevention after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack.

Recurrent stroke affects 9% to 15% of people within 1 year. This European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on pharmacological management of blood pressure (BP), diabetes mellitus, lipid levels and antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent stroke and other important outcomes in people with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). It does not cover interventions for specific causes of stroke, including anticoagulation for cardioembolic stroke, which are addressed in other guidelines. This guideline was developed through ESO standard operating procedures and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group identified clinical questions, selected outcomes, performed systematic reviews, with meta-analyses where appropriate, and made evidence-based recommendations, with expert consensus statements where evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation. To reduce the long-term risk of recurrent stroke or other important outcomes after ischaemic stroke or TIA, we recommend: BP lowering treatment to a target of <130/80 mmHg, except in subgroups at increased risk of harm; HMGCoA-reductase inhibitors (statins) and targeting a low density lipoprotein level of <1.8 mmol/l (70 mg/dl); avoidance of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel after the first 90 days; to not give direct oral anticoagulant drugs (DOACs) for embolic stroke of undetermined source and to consider pioglitazone in people with diabetes or insulin resistance, after careful consideration of potential risks. In addition to the evidence-based recommendations, all or the majority of working group members supported: out-of-office BP monitoring; use of combination treatment for BP control; consideration of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors when lipid targets are not achieved; consideration of use of low-dose DOACs in addition to an antiplatelet in selected groups of people with coronary or peripheral artery disease and aiming for an HbA1c level of <53 mmol/mol (7%) in people with diabetes mellitus. These guidelines aim to standardise long-term pharmacological treatment to reduce the burden of recurrent stroke in Europe.

Anticholinergic burden for prediction of cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric symptoms in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults with a pre-existing diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that a high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in people with dementia. Neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most frequent complication of dementia that require hospitalisation, accounting for almost half of admissions; hence, identification of modifiable prognostic factors for these outcomes is crucial. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, was a prognostic factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether anticholinergic burden was a prognostic factor for other adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, impaired physical function, and institutionalisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched these databases from inception to 29 November 2021: MEDLINE OvidSP, Embase OvidSP, PsycINFO OvidSP, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection on ISI Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies, with a minimum of one-month follow-up, which examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and the above stated adverse clinical outcomes, in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment. We summarised risk associations between anticholinergic burden and all clinical outcomes in a narrative fashion. We also evaluated the risk association between anticholinergic burden and mortality using a random-effects meta-analysis.  We established adjusted pooled rates for the anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria (102,684 older adults). Anticholinergic burden was measured using five distinct measurement scales: 12 studies used the ACB scale; 3 studies used the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) Scale; and 2 studies used a list developed by Tune and Egeli.  Risk associations between anticholinergic burden and adverse clinical outcomes were highly heterogenous. Four out of 10 (40%) studies reported a significantly increased risk of greater long-term cognitive decline for participants with an anticholinergic burden compared to participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No studies investigated neuropsychiatric disturbance outcomes. One out of four studies (25%) reported a significant association with reduced physical function for participants with an anticholinergic burden versus participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No study (out of one investigating study) reported a significant association between anticholinergic burden and risk of institutionalisation. Six out of 10 studies (60%) found a significantly increased risk of mortality for those with an anticholinergic burden compared to those with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. Pooled analysis of adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) measured anticholinergic burden with the ACB scale, and suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high ACB score relative to those with no or minimal ACB scores (HR 1.153, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030 to 1.292; 4 studies, 48,663 participants). An exploratory pooled analysis of adjusted mortality HRs across anticholinergic burden scales also suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high anticholinergic burden (HR 1.102, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.163; 6 studies, 68,381 participants).   Overall GRADE evaluation of results found low- or very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have a significant anticholinergic burden may be at increased risk of death. No firm conclusions can be drawn for risk of accelerated cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric disturbances, decline in physical function, or institutionalisation.

Comparative validity of informant tools for assessing pre-stroke cognitive impairment.

OBJECTIVES: Various informant-based questionnaires are used in clinical practice to screen for pre-stroke cognitive problems. However, there is no guidance on which tool should be preferred. We compared the validity of the two most commonly used informant-based tools. METHODS: We recruited consecutively admitted stroke patients. Patients' informants completed the Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline in the Elderly Short Form (IQCODE-SF, 16-item) and Ascertain Dementia 8 (AD8). We assessed construct validity (accuracy) against a semi-structured clinical interview for dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), describing test accuracy metrics and comparing area under ROC curves (AUROC). We described criterion validity by evaluating associations between test scores and neuroimaging markers of dementia and overall 'brain frailty'. Finally, we described prognostic validity comparing ROC curves for 18-month clinical outcomes of dementia, death, stroke, and disability. RESULTS: One-hundred-thirty-seven patient-informant dyads were recruited. At usual clinical cut-points, the IQCODE-SF had comparable sensitivity to the AD8 (both = 92%) for pre-stroke dementia, but superior specificity (IQCODE-SF: 82% vs. AD8: 58%). Youden index suggested that the optimal AD8 threshold for diagnosis of dementia is ≥4. The IQCODE-SF demonstrated stronger associations with markers of generalised and medial-temporal lobe atrophy, neurovascular disease, and overall brain frailty. IQCODE-SF also demonstrated greater accuracy for predicting future dementia (IQCODE-SF AUROC = 0.903, 95% CI = 0.798-1.00; AD8 AUROC = 0.821, 95% CI = 0.664-0.977). CONCLUSIONS: Both IQCODE-SF and AD8 are valid measures of pre-stroke dementia. Higher cut points for AD8 may improve performance in the acute stroke setting. Based on consistent superiority across a range of validity analyses, IQCODE-SF may be preferable to AD8 for pre-stroke dementia screening.

Prevalence and implications of frailty in acute stroke: systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: frailty is common in older adults and associated with poor outcomes following illness. Although stroke is predominantly a disease of older people, our knowledge of frailty in stroke is limited. We aimed to collate the literature on acute stroke and frailty to estimate the prevalence of pre-stroke frailty and its associations with outcomes. METHODS: paired researchers searched multidisciplinary electronic databases for papers describing frailty and acute stroke. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa tools appropriate to study design. We created summary estimates of pre-stroke frailty using random effects models. We collated whether studies reported significant positive associations between frailty and clinical outcomes in adjusted models. RESULTS: we included 14 studies (n = 27,210 participants). Seven studies (n = 8,840) used a frailty index approach, four studies (n = 14,924) used Hospital Frailty Risk Scores. Pooled prevalence of pre-stroke frailty was 24.6% (95% confidence interval, CI: 16.2-33.1%; low quality evidence, downgraded due to heterogeneity, bias). Combining frailty and pre-frailty (nine studies, n = 23,827), prevalence of any frailty syndrome was 66.8% (95%CI: 49.9-83.7%). Seven studies were at risk of bias, from participant selection or method of frailty assessment. Pre-stroke frailty was associated with all adverse outcomes assessed, including longer-term mortality (positive association in 6 of 6 studies reporting this outcome; odds ratio: 3.75 [95%CI: 2.41-5.70]), length of admission (3 of 4 studies) and disability (4 of 6 studies). CONCLUSIONS: despite substantial heterogeneity, whichever way it is measured, frailty is common in patients presenting with acute stroke and associated with poor outcomes. This has implications for the design of stroke services and pathways.

Frailty and stroke thrombectomy outcomes-an observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) can improve outcomes following ischaemic stroke. Patient selection for MT is predominantly based on physiological and imaging parameters. We assessed whether people living with pre-stroke frailty had differing outcomes following MT. METHODS: We included consecutive patients undergoing MT at a UK comprehensive stroke centre. We calculated a cumulative deficits frailty index to identify pre-stroke frailty in those patients presenting directly to the centre. Frailty was defined as an index score ≥ 0.24. We assessed univariable and multivariable association between pre-stroke frailty and stroke outcomes. Our primary outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 90 days. RESULTS: Of 175 patients who underwent MT (2014-2018), we identified frailty in 49 (28%). Frail and non-frail patients had similar rates of thrombolysis administration, successful recanalization and onset to recanalization times. Those with pre-stroke frailty had higher 24 hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (12(IQR: 8-17) versus 3(IQR: 2-13); P = 0.001); were less likely to be independent (mRS 0-2: 18% versus 61%; P < 0.001) and more likely to die (47% versus 14%; P < 0.001) within 90 days. Adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and thrombolysis, frailty remained a strong, independent predictor of poor clinical outcome at 90 days (Death OR: 3.12 (95% CI: 1.32-7.4); dependency OR: 3.04 (95%CI: 1.10-8.44). Age was no longer a predictor of outcome when adjusted for frailty. CONCLUSION: Pre-stroke frailty is prevalent in real-world patients eligible for MT and is an important predictor of poor outcomes. Routine assessment of pre-stroke frailty could help decision-making around patient selection for MT.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

ESO Guideline on covert cerebral small vessel disease.

'Covert' cerebral small vessel disease (ccSVD) is common on neuroimaging in persons without overt neurological manifestations, and increases the risk of future stroke, cognitive impairment, dependency, and death. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist with clinical decisions about management of ccSVD, specifically white matter hyperintensities and lacunes, to prevent adverse clinical outcomes. The guidelines were developed according to ESO standard operating procedures and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We prioritised the clinical outcomes of stroke, cognitive decline or dementia, dependency, death, mobility and mood disorders, and interventions of blood pressure lowering, antiplatelet drugs, lipid lowering, lifestyle modifications, glucose lowering and conventional treatments for dementia. We systematically reviewed the literature, assessed the evidence, formulated evidence-based recommendations where feasible, and expert consensus statements. We found little direct evidence, mostly of low quality. We recommend patients with ccSVD and hypertension to have their blood pressure well controlled; lower blood pressure targets may reduce ccSVD progression. We do not recommend antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin in ccSVD. We found little evidence on lipid lowering in ccSVD. Smoking cessation is a health priority. We recommend regular exercise which may benefit cognition, and a healthy diet, good sleep habits, avoiding obesity and stress for general health reasons. In ccSVD, we found no evidence for glucose control in the absence of diabetes or for conventional Alzheimer dementia treatments. Randomised controlled trials with clinical endpoints are a priority for ccSVD.

European Stroke Organisation guideline on endarterectomy and stenting for carotid artery stenosis.

Atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery is an important cause of stroke. The aim of this guideline is to analyse the evidence pertaining to medical, surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with carotid stenosis. These guidelines were developed based on the ESO standard operating procedure and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The working group identified relevant questions, performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature, assessed the quality of the available evidence, and wrote recommendations. Based on moderate quality evidence, we recommend carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with ≥60-99% asymptomatic carotid stenosis considered to be at increased risk of stroke on best medical treatment (BMT) alone. We also recommend CEA for patients with ≥70-99% symptomatic stenosis, and we suggest CEA for patients with 50-69% symptomatic stenosis. Based on high quality evidence, we recommend CEA should be performed early, ideally within two weeks of the last retinal or cerebral ischaemic event in patients with ≥50-99% symptomatic stenosis. Based on low quality evidence, carotid artery stenting (CAS) may be considered in patients < 70 years old with symptomatic ≥50-99% carotid stenosis. Several randomised trials supporting these recommendations were started decades ago, and BMT, CEA and CAS have evolved since. The results of another large trial comparing outcomes after CAS versus CEA in patients with asymptomatic stenosis are anticipated in the near future. Further trials are needed to reassess the benefits of carotid revascularisation in combination with modern BMT in subgroups of patients with carotid stenosis.

ESO Guideline on covert cerebral small vessel disease.

'Covert' cerebral small vessel disease (ccSVD) is common on neuroimaging in persons without overt neurological manifestations, and increases the risk of future stroke, cognitive impairment, dependency, and death. These European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations to assist with clinical decisions about management of ccSVD, specifically white matter hyperintensities and lacunes, to prevent adverse clinical outcomes. The guidelines were developed according to ESO standard operating procedures and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We prioritised the clinical outcomes of stroke, cognitive decline or dementia, dependency, death, mobility and mood disorders, and interventions of blood pressure lowering, antiplatelet drugs, lipid lowering, lifestyle modifications, glucose lowering and conventional treatments for dementia. We systematically reviewed the literature, assessed the evidence, formulated evidence-based recommendations where feasible, and expert consensus statements. We found little direct evidence, mostly of low quality. We recommend patients with ccSVD and hypertension to have their blood pressure well controlled; lower blood pressure targets may reduce ccSVD progression. We do not recommend antiplatelet drugs such as aspirin in ccSVD. We found little evidence on lipid lowering in ccSVD. Smoking cessation is a health priority. We recommend regular exercise which may benefit cognition, and a healthy diet, good sleep habits, avoiding obesity and stress for general health reasons. In ccSVD, we found no evidence for glucose control in the absence of diabetes or for conventional Alzheimer dementia treatments. Randomised controlled trials with clinical endpoints are a priority for ccSVD.

Anticholinergic burden (prognostic factor) for prediction of dementia or cognitive decline in older adults with no known cognitive syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the 'anticholinergic burden' because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for development of cognitive decline or dementia. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 24 March 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies with a minimum of one year' follow-up that examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and GRADE assessment. We extracted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and linear data on the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive decline or dementia. We intended to pool each metric separately; however, only OR-based data were suitable for pooling via a random-effects meta-analysis. We initially established adjusted and unadjusted pooled rates for each available anticholinergic scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales. We examined variability based on severity of anticholinergic burden. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria (968,428 older adults). Twenty studies were conducted in the community care setting, two in primary care clinics, and three in secondary care settings. Eight studies (320,906 participants) provided suitable data for meta-analysis. The Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale (ACB scale) was the only scale with sufficient data for 'scale-based' meta-analysis. Unadjusted ORs suggested an increased risk for cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with an anticholinergic burden (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96) and adjusted ORs similarly suggested an increased risk for anticholinergic burden, defined according to the ACB scale (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.29). Exploratory analysis combining adjusted ORs across available scales supported these results (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.38), and there was evidence of variability in risk based on severity of anticholinergic burden (ACB scale 1: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29; ACB scale 2: OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.56; ACB scale 3: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.61); however, overall GRADE evaluation of certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults without cognitive impairment who take medications with anticholinergic effects may be at increased risk of cognitive decline or dementia.

ANTECEDENTES: A los adultos mayores se les prescriben con frecuencia fármacos con propiedades anticolinérgicas. El efecto anticolinérgico acumulado de todos los fármacos que toma una persona se denomina "carga anticolinérgica" por su potencial para causar efectos adversos. Es posible que una alta carga anticolinérgica sea un factor de riesgo para la aparición de un deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. Existen varias escalas para medir la carga anticolinérgica, pero la concordancia entre ellas suele ser mala. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar si la carga anticolinérgica, definida a nivel de cada escala individual, es un factor pronóstico de un futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos desde su creación hasta el 24 de marzo de 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) e ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios observacionales de cohortes y de casos y controles longitudinales prospectivos y retrospectivos con un seguimiento mínimo de un año, que examinaron la asociación entre una escala de medición de la carga anticolinérgica y el futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron los estudios para su inclusión y realizaron la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo y la evaluación GRADE. Se extrajeron los odds ratios (OR) y los cociente de riesgos instantáneos, con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%, y los datos lineales sobre la asociación entre la carga anticolinérgica y el deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. La intención fue agrupar cada métrica por separado; sin embargo, sólo los datos basados en el OR fueron aptos para agruparlos mediante un metanálisis de efectos aleatorios. Inicialmente se establecieron las tasas agrupadas ajustadas y no ajustadas para cada escala anticolinérgica disponible; luego, como un análisis exploratorio, se establecieron las tasas agrupadas sobre la asociación predeterminada entre las escalas. Se examinó la variabilidad según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 25 estudios que cumplían los criterios de inclusión (968 428 adultos mayores). Veinte estudios se realizaron en ámbitos de atención comunitaria, dos en centros de atención primaria y tres en ámbitos de atención secundaria. Ocho estudios (320 906 participantes) proporcionaron datos adecuados para el metanálisis. La escala Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (escala ACB) fue la única escala con datos suficientes para un metanálisis "basado en la escala". Los OR no ajustados indicaron un aumento en el riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia en los adultos mayores con sobrecarga anticolinérgica (OR 1,47; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 1,96) y los OR ajustados indicaron igualmente un aumento en el riesgo de sobrecarga anticolinérgica, definida según la escala ACB (OR 2,63; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 6,29). El análisis exploratorio que combina los OR ajustados entre las escalas disponibles apoyó estos resultados (OR 2,16; IC del 95%: 1,38 a 3,38) y hubo evidencia de variabilidad en el riesgo según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica (1 en escala ACB): OR 2,18; IC del 95%: 1,11 a 4,29; 2 en escala ACB: OR 2,71; IC del 95%: 2,01 a 3,56; 3 en escala ACB: OR 3,27; IC del 95%: 1,41 a 7,61); sin embargo, la evaluación global de la certeza de la evidencia con el método GRADE fue baja. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza baja de que los adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo que toman fármacos con efectos anticolinérgicos podrían tener un mayor riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia.