Dataset Information

Stroke and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Stroke is an established risk factor for all-cause dementia, though meta-analyses are needed to quantify this risk. METHODS:We searched Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase for studies assessing prevalent or incident stroke versus a no-stroke comparison group and the risk of all-cause dementia. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted estimates across studies, and meta-regression was used to investigate potential effect modifiers. RESULTS:We identified 36 studies of prevalent stroke (1.9 million participants) and 12 studies of incident stroke (1.3 million participants). For prevalent stroke, the pooled hazard ratio for all-cause dementia was 1.69 (95% confidence interval: 1.49-1.92; P < .00001; I2 = 87%). For incident stroke, the pooled risk ratio was 2.18 (95% confidence interval: 1.90-2.50; P < .00001; I2 = 88%). Study characteristics did not modify these associations, with the exception of sex which explained 50.2% of between-study heterogeneity for prevalent stroke. DISCUSSION:Stroke is a strong, independent, and potentially modifiable risk factor for all-cause dementia.

SUBMITTER: Kuzma E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6231970 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stroke and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kuźma Elżbieta E Lourida Ilianna I Moore Sarah F SF Levine Deborah A DA Ukoumunne Obioha C OC Llewellyn David J DJ

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 20180831 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Stroke is an established risk factor for all-cause dementia, though meta-analyses are needed to quantify this risk.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase for studies assessing prevalent or incident stroke versus a no-stroke comparison group and the risk of all-cause dementia. Random effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted estimates across studies, and meta-regression was used to investigate potential effect modifiers.<h4>Results</h4>We identified 3 ...[more]

PMID: 30177276

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Fear of dementia is pervasive in older people with cognitive concerns. Much research is devoted to finding prognostic markers for dementia risk. Studies suggest apathy in older people may be prodromal to dementia and could be a relevant, easily measurable predictor of increased dementia risk. However, evidence is fragmented and methods vary greatly between studies. Objective:To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence for an association between apathy in dementia-free older individuals and incident dementia. Data Sources:Two reviewers conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO databases. Study Selection:Inclusion criteria were (1) prospective cohort studies, (2) in general populations or memory clinic patients without dementia, (3) with clear definitions of apathy and dementia, and (4) reporting on the association between apathy and incident dementia. Data Extraction and Synthesis:PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second. Main Outcomes and Measures:Main outcomes were pooled crude risk ratios, maximally adjusted reported hazard ratios (HR), and odds ratios (OR) using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models. Results:The mean age of the study populations ranged from 69.2 to 81.9 years (median, 71.6 years) and the percentage of women ranged from 35% to 70% (median, 53%). After screening 2031 titles and abstracts, 16 studies comprising 7365 participants were included. Apathy status was available for 7299 participants. Studies included populations with subjective cognitive concerns (n = 2), mild cognitive impairment (n = 11), cognitive impairment no dementia (n = 1), or mixed cognitive and no cognitive impairment (n = 2). Apathy was present in 1470 of 7299 participants (20.1%). Follow-up ranged from 1.2 to 5.4 years. In studies using validated apathy definitions (n = 12), the combined risk ratio of dementia for patients with apathy was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.32-2.50; I2 = 76%; n = 12), the hazard ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.27-4.51; I2 = 90%; n = 7), and the odds ratio was 17.14 (95% CI, 1.91-154.0; I2 = 60%; n = 2). Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and individual study results suggested the association between apathy and dementia weakened with increasing follow-up time, age, and cognitive impairment. Meta-regression adjusting for apathy definition and follow-up time explained 95% of heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment. Conclusions and Relevance:Apathy was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of dementia in memory clinic patients. Moderate publication bias may have inflated some of these estimates. Apathy deserves more attention as a relevant, cheap, noninvasive, and easily measureable marker of increased risk of incident dementia with high clinical relevance, particularly because these vulnerable patients may forgo health care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature relating to the impact of multiple co-occurring modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature relating to the impact of co-occurring key risk factors for incident cognitive decline and dementia. All abstracts and full text were screened independently by two reviewers and each article assessed for bias using a standard checklist. A fixed effects meta-analysis was undertaken.Data sourcesDatabases Medline, Embase and PsycINFO were searched from 1999 to 2017.Eligibility criteriaFor inclusion articles were required to report longitudinal data from participants free of cognitive decline at baseline, with formal assessment of cognitive function or dementia during follow-up, and an aim to examine the impact of additive or clustered comorbid risk factor burden in with two or more core modifiable risk factors.ResultsSeventy-nine full-text articles were examined. Twenty-two articles (18 studies) were included reporting data on >40 000 participants. Included studies consistently reported an increased risk associated with greater numbers of intraindividual risk factors or unhealthy behaviours and the opposite for healthy or protective behaviours. A meta-analysis of studies with dementia outcomes resulted in a pooled relative risk for dementia of 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.39) for one risk factor, 1.65 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.94) for two and 2.21 (95% CI 1.78 to 2.73) for three or more, relative to no risk factors. Limitations include dependence on published results and variations in study outcome, cognitive assessment, length of follow-up and definition of risk factor exposure.ConclusionsThe strength of the reported associations, the consistency across studies and the suggestion of a dose response supports a need to keep modifiable risk factor exposure to a minimum and to avoid exposure to additional modifiable risks. Further research is needed to establish whether particular combinations of risk factors confer greater risk than others.Prospero registration number42016052914.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The effect of antipsychotic (AP) drugs on risk of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) remains unclear due to methodological limitations of, and inconsistencies across, existing studies. We aimed to systematically review studies reporting on the associations between AP drug use and stroke or MI risk, and to investigate whether associations differed among different sub-populations. METHODS:We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO and Cochrane Library (from inception to May 28, 2017) for observational studies reporting on AP drug use and MI or stroke occurrence. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for each outcome, performing sub-groups analyses by study population - specifically general population (i.e. those not restricted to patients with a particular indication for AP drug use), people with dementia only and psychiatric illness only. Where feasible we performed subgroup analyses by AP drug class. RESULTS:From 7008 articles, we included 29 relevant observational studies, 19 on stroke and 10 on MI. Results of cohort studies that included a general population indicated a more than two-fold increased risk of stroke, albeit with substantial heterogeneity (pooled HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.13, 4.74, I2 = 83.2%). However, the risk among patients with dementia was much lower, with no heterogeneity (pooled HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.00, 1.33, I2 = 0%) and there was no clear association among studies of psychiatric populations (pooled HR 1.44, 95% CI 0.90, 2.30; substantial heterogeneity [I2 = 78.8])). Associations generally persisted when stratifying by AP class, but few studies reported on first generation AP drugs. We found no association between AP drug use and MI risk (pooled HR for cohort studies: 1.29, 95% CI 0.88, 1.90 and case-control studies: 1.07, 95% CI 0.94, 1.23), but substantial methodological and statistical heterogeneity among a relatively small number of studies limits firm conclusions. CONCLUSIONS:AP drug use may be associated with an increased risk of stroke, but there is no clear evidence that this risk is further elevated in patients with dementia. Further studies are need to clarify the effect of AP drug use on MI and stroke risk in different sub-populations and should control for confounding by indication and stratify by AP drug class.

Dataset Information

Stroke and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Stroke and dementia risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets