Title |
A call for comparative effectiveness research to learn whether routine clinical care decisions can protect from dementia and cognitive decline
|
---|---|
Published in |
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy, August 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13195-016-0200-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Penny A. Dacks, Joshua J. Armstrong, Stephen K. Brannan, Aaron J. Carman, Allan M. Green, M. Sue Kirkman, Lawrence R. Krakoff, Lewis H. Kuller, Lenore J. Launer, Simon Lovestone, Elizabeth Merikle, Peter J. Neumann, Kenneth Rockwood, Diana W. Shineman, Richard G. Stefanacci, Priscilla Velentgas, Anand Viswanathan, Rachel A. Whitmer, Jeff D. Williamson, Howard M. Fillit |
Abstract |
Common diseases like diabetes, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation are probable risk factors for dementia, suggesting that their treatments may influence the risk and rate of cognitive and functional decline. Moreover, specific therapies and medications may affect long-term brain health through mechanisms that are independent of their primary indication. While surgery, benzodiazepines, and anti-cholinergic drugs may accelerate decline or even raise the risk of dementia, other medications act directly on the brain to potentially slow the pathology that underlies Alzheimer's and other dementia. In other words, the functional and cognitive decline in vulnerable patients may be influenced by the choice of treatments for other medical conditions. Despite the importance of these questions, very little research is available. The Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation convened an advisory panel to discuss the existing evidence and to recommend strategies to accelerate the development of comparative effectiveness research on how choices in the clinical care of common chronic diseases may protect from cognitive decline and dementia. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 10 | 36% |
United Kingdom | 5 | 18% |
Canada | 5 | 18% |
United Arab Emirates | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 7 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 23 | 82% |
Scientists | 3 | 11% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 15 | 19% |
Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
Researcher | 7 | 9% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
Other | 10 | 13% |
Unknown | 29 | 37% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 8 | 10% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 10% |
Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
Other | 11 | 14% |
Unknown | 33 | 42% |