To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Agitation is a common complication of Alzheimer’s dementia (Agit-AD) associated with substantial morbidity, high healthcare service utilization, and adverse emotional and physical impact on care partners. There are currently no FDA-approved pharmacological treatments for Agit-AD. We present the study design and baseline data for an ongoing multisite, three-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of dronabinol (synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]), titrated to a dose of 10 mg daily, in 80 participants to examine the safety and efficacy of dronabinol as an adjunctive treatment for Agit-AD. Preliminary findings for 44 participants enrolled thus far show a predominately female, white sample with advanced cognitive impairment (Mini Mental Status Examination mean 7.8) and agitation (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Clinician Agitation subscale mean 14.1). Adjustments to study design in light of the COVID-19 pandemic are described. Findings from this study will provide guidance for the clinical utility of dronabinol for Agit-AD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02792257.
Vast disparities between and within American states’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic have evoked renewed attention to whether greater centralization might enhance investments in subnational capacity and remedy subnational inequalities or instead erode subnational organizational capacity. Developments in American public education (1997–2015) offer perspective on this puzzle, which we examine by applying interrupted time series analysis to a novel dataset to assess the implications of centralization on subnational investments in administrative and technical capacity, two dimensions of organizational capacity. We find simultaneous subnational erosion in administrative capacity and growth in technical capacity following centralization, both of which appear concentrated in low-poverty areas despite centralization’s explicit antipoverty purposes. Public education reforms highlight both the challenge of dismantling subnational inequality through centralization and the need for future research on policy designs that enable centralization to yield subnational capacity that is able to remedy inequality.
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Objective: Approximately 86 million people in the US have prediabetes, but only a fraction of them receive proven effective therapies to prevent diabetes. Further, the effectiveness of these therapies varies with individual risk of progression to diabetes. We estimated the value of targeting those individuals at highest diabetes risk for treatment, compared to treating all individuals meeting inclusion criteria for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: METHODS: Using a micro-simulation model, we estimated total lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) for individuals receiving: (1) lifestyle intervention involving an intensive program focused on healthy diet and exercise, (2) metformin administration, or (3) no intervention. The model combines several components. First a Cox proportional hazards model predicted onset of diabetes from baseline characteristics for each pre-diabetic individual and yielded a probability distribution for each alternative. We derived this risk model from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) clinical trial data and the follow-up study DPP-OS. The Michigan Diabetes Research Center Model for Diabetes then estimated costs and outcomes for individuals after diabetes diagnosis using standard of care diabetes treatment. Based on individual costs and QALE, we evaluated NMB of the two interventions at population and individual levels, stratified by risk quintiles for diabetes onset at 3 years. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Results: Compared to usual care, lifestyle modification conferred positive benefits for all eligible individuals. Metformin’s NMB was negative for the lowest population risk quintile. By avoiding use among individuals who would not benefit, targeted administration of metformin conferred a benefit of $500-$800 per person, depending on duration of treatment effect. When treating only 20% of the population (e.g., due to capacity constraints), targeting conferred a NMB of $14,000-$18,000 per person for lifestyle modification and $16,000-$20,000 for metformin. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Conclusions: Metformin confers value only among higher risk individuals, so targeting its use is worthwhile. While lifestyle modification confers value for all eligible individuals, prioritizing the intervention to high risk patients when capacity is constrained substantially increases societal benefits.
We have previously shown that the minor alleles of vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGFA) single-nucleotide polymorphism rs833069 and superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2) single-nucleotide polymorphism rs2758331 are both associated with improved transplant-free survival after surgery for CHD in infants, but the underlying mechanisms are unknown. We hypothesised that one or both of these minor alleles are associated with better systemic ventricular function, resulting in improved survival.
This study is a follow-up analysis of 422 non-syndromic CHD patients who underwent neonatal cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Echocardiographic reports were reviewed. Systemic ventricular function was subjectively categorised as normal, or as mildly, moderately, or severely depressed. The change in function was calculated as the change from the preoperative study to the last available study. Stepwise linear regression, adjusting for covariates, was performed for the outcome of change in ventricular function. Model comparison was performed using Akaike’s information criterion. Only variables that improved the model prediction of change in systemic ventricular function were retained in the final model.
Genetic and echocardiographic data were available for 335/422 subjects (79%). Of them, 33 (9.9%) developed worse systemic ventricular function during a mean follow-up period of 13.5 years. After covariate adjustment, the presence of the VEGFA minor allele was associated with preserved ventricular function (p=0.011).
These data support the hypothesis that the mechanism by which the VEGFA single-nucleotide polymorphism rs833069 minor allele improves survival may be the preservation of ventricular function. Further studies are needed to validate this genotype–phenotype association and to determine whether this mechanism is related to increased vascular endothelial growth factor production.
Updated information on the epidemiology of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is needed to ensure that adequate resources are available to meet current and future healthcare needs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence and prevalence of AD.
The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from 1985 to 2012, as well as the reference lists of selected articles. Included articles had to provide an original population-based estimate for the incidence and/or prevalence of AD. Two individuals independently performed abstract and full-text reviews, data extraction and quality assessments. Random-effects models were employed to generate pooled estimates stratified by age, sex, diagnostic criteria, location (i.e., continent) and time (i.e., when the study was done).
Of 16,066 abstracts screened, 707 articles were selected for full-text review. A total of 119 studies met the inclusion criteria. In community settings, the overall point prevalence of dementia due to AD among individuals 60+ was 40.2 per 1000 persons (CI95%: 29.1-55.6), and pooled annual period prevalence was 30.4 per 1000 persons (CI95%: 15.6-59.1). In community settings, the overall pooled annual incidence proportion of dementia due to AD among individuals 60+ was 34.1 per 1000 persons (CI95%: 16.4-70.9), and the incidence rate was 15.8 per 1000 person-years (CI95%: 12.9-19.4). Estimates varied significantly with age, diagnostic criteria used and location (i.e., continent).
The burden of AD dementia is substantial. Significant gaps in our understanding of its epidemiology were identified, even in a high-income country such as Canada. Future studies should assess the impact of using such newer clinical diagnostic criteria for AD dementia such as those of the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association and/or incorporate validated biomarkers to confirm the presence of Alzheimer pathology to produce more precise estimates of the global burden of AD.
Dementia is a common neurological condition affecting many older individuals that leads to a loss of independence, diminished quality of life, premature mortality, caregiver burden and high levels of healthcare utilization and cost. This is an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence and incidence of dementia.
The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant studies published between 2000 (1985 for Canadian papers) and July of 2012. Papers selected for full-text review were included in the systematic review if they provided an original population-based estimate for the incidence and/or prevalence of dementia. The reference lists of included articles were also searched for additional studies. Two individuals independently performed abstract and full-text review, data extraction, and quality assessment of the papers. Random-effects models and/or meta-regression were used to generate pooled estimates by age, sex, setting (i.e., community, institution, both), diagnostic criteria utilized, location (i.e., continent) and year of data collection.
Of 16,066 abstracts screened, 707 articles were selected for full-text review. A total of 160 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among individuals 60 and over residing in the community, the pooled point and annual period prevalence estimates of dementia were 48.62 (CI95%: 41.98-56.32) and 69.07 (CI95%: 52.36-91.11) per 1000 persons, respectively. The respective pooled incidence rate (same age and setting) was 17.18 (CI95%: 13.90-21.23) per 1000 person-years, while the annual incidence proportion was 52.85 (CI95%: 33.08-84.42) per 1,000 persons. Increasing participant age was associated with a higher dementia prevalence and incidence. Annual period prevalence was higher in North America than in South America, Europe and Asia (in order of decreasing period prevalence) and higher in institutional compared to community and combined settings. Sex, diagnostic criteria (except for incidence proportion) and year of data collection were not associated with statistically significant different estimates of prevalence or incidence, though estimates were consistently higher for females than males.
Dementia is a common neurological condition in older individuals. Significant gaps in knowledge about its epidemiology were identified, particularly with regard to the incidence of dementia in low- and middle-income countries. Accurate estimates of prevalence and incidence of dementia are needed to plan for the health and social services that will be required to deal with an aging population.