Dataset Information

Ethnic Differences in Dementia Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Globally around 50 million people have dementia. Risk factors for dementia such as hypertension and diabetes are more common in Black, Asian, and other ethnic minorities. There are also marked ethnic inequalities in care seeking, likelihood of diagnosis, and uptake of treatments for dementia. Nevertheless, ethnic differences in dementia incidence and prevalence remain under-explored.

Objective

To examine published peer-reviewed observational studies comparing age-specific or age-adjusted incidence or prevalence rates of dementia between at least two ethnic groups.

Methods

We searched seven databases on 1 September 2019 using search terms for ethnicity, dementia, and incidence or prevalence. We included population-based studies comparing incidence or prevalence of dementia after accounting for age of at least two ethnic groups in adults aged 18 or more. Meta-analysis was conducted for eligible ethnic comparisons.

Results

We included 12 cohort studies and seven cross-sectional studies. Thirteen were from the US, and two studies each from the UK, Singapore, and Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China. The pooled risk ratio for dementia incidence obtained from four studies comparing Black and White ethnic groups was 1.33 (95% CI 1.07-1.65; I-squared = 58.0%). The pooled risk ratio for dementia incidence comparing the Asian and White ethnic groups was 0.86 (95% CI 0.728-1.01; I-squared = 43.9%). There was no difference in the incidence of dementia for Latino ethnic group compared to the White ethnic group.

Conclusion

Evidence to date suggest there are ethnic differences in risk of dementia. Better understanding of the drivers of these differences may inform efforts to prevent or treat dementia.

SUBMITTER: Shiekh SI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8075390 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.