Dectin-1 plays a redundant role in the immunomodulatory activities of β-glucan-rich ligands in vivo

Copyright © 2013 Institut Pasteur. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Recruitment methods in Alzheimer's disease research: general practice versus population based screening by mail

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In Alzheimer's disease (AD) research patients are usually recruited from clinical practice, memory clinics or nursing homes. Lack of standardised inclusion and diagnostic criteria is a major concern in current AD studies. The aim of the study was to explore whether patient characteristics differ between study samples recruited from general practice and from a population based screening by mail within the same geographic areas in rural Northern Norway.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An interventional study in nine municipalities with 70000 inhabitants was designed. Patients were recruited from general practice or by population based screening of cognitive function by mail. We sent a questionnaire to 11807 individuals ≥ 65 years of age of whom 3767 responded. Among these, 438 individuals whose answers raised a suspicion of cognitive impairment were invited to an extended cognitive and clinical examination. Descriptive statistics, chi-square, independent sample t-test and analyses of covariance adjusted for possible confounders were used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The final study samples included 100 patients recruited by screening and 87 from general practice. Screening through mail recruited younger and more self-reliant male patients with a higher MMSE sum score, whereas older women with more severe cognitive impairment were recruited from general practice. Adjustment for age did not alter the statistically significant differences of cognitive function, self-reliance and gender distribution between patients recruited by screening and from general practice.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Different recruitment procedures of individuals with cognitive impairment provided study samples with different demographic characteristics. Initial cognitive screening by mail, preceding extended cognitive testing and clinical examination may be a suitable recruitment strategy in studies of early stage AD.</p> <p>Clinical Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT00443014</p

Co-morbidity and drug treatment in Alzheimer's disease. A cross sectional study of participants in the Dementia Study in Northern Norway

Inappropriate medical treatment of co-morbidities in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is an increasing concern in geriatric medicine. The objective of this study was to compare current drug use related to co-morbidity between individuals with a recent diagnosis of AD and a cognitively healthy control group in a population based clinical trial in Northern Norway. Setting: Nine rural municipalities with 70 000 inhabitants in Northern Norway. Participants: Participants with and without AD recruited in general practice and by population based screening. 187 participants with a recent diagnosis of AD were recruited among community dwellers. Of 791 respondents without cognitive symptoms, 500 were randomly selected and invited to further clinical and cognitive testing. The final control group consisted of 200 cognitively healthy individuals from the same municipalities. Demographic characteristics, data on medical history and current medication were included, and a physical and cognitive examination was performed. The statistical analyses were carried out by independent sample t-test, chi-square, ANCOVA and logistic regression. A co-morbidity score was significantly higher in AD participants compared to controls. The mean number of drugs was higher for AD participants compared to controls (5.1 ± 3.6 and 2.9 ± 2.4 respectively, p < 0.001 age and gender adjusted), also when adjusted for co-morbidity. AD participants used significantly more anticholinergic, sedative and antidepressant drugs. For nursing home residents with AD the mean number of drugs was significantly higher compared to AD participants living at home (6.9 ± 3.9 and 4.5 ± 3.3, respectively, p < 0.001). AD participants were treated with a significantly higher number of drugs as compared to cognitively healthy controls, even after adjustment for co-morbidity. An inappropriate use of anticholinergic and sedative drugs was identified, especially among nursing home residents with AD. The drug burden and the increased risk of adverse reactions among individuals suffering from AD need more attention from prescribing doctors