Change and Aging Senescence as an adaptation

Understanding why we age is a long-lived open problem in evolutionary biology. Aging is prejudicial to the individual and evolutionary forces should prevent it, but many species show signs of senescence as individuals age. Here, I will propose a model for aging based on assumptions that are compatible with evolutionary theory: i) competition is between individuals; ii) there is some degree of locality, so quite often competition will between parents and their progeny; iii) optimal conditions are not stationary, mutation helps each species to keep competitive. When conditions change, a senescent species can drive immortal competitors to extinction. This counter-intuitive result arises from the pruning caused by the death of elder individuals. When there is change and mutation, each generation is slightly better adapted to the new conditions, but some older individuals survive by random chance. Senescence can eliminate those from the genetic pool. Even though individual selection forces always win over group selection ones, it is not exactly the individual that is selected, but its lineage. While senescence damages the individuals and has an evolutionary cost, it has a benefit of its own. It allows each lineage to adapt faster to changing conditions. We age because the world changes.Comment: 19 pages, 4 figure

Care burden, loneliness, and social isolation in caregivers of people with physical and brain health conditions in English-speaking regions: Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Public health restrictions due to the COVID-19 (SARS CoV-2) pandemic have disproportionately affected informal caregivers of people living with long term health conditions. We aimed to explore levels of care burden, loneliness, and social isolation among caregivers of people with enduring physical and brain health conditions in English-speaking regions worldwide, by investigating outcomes before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous online survey data from 2287 English-speaking caregivers of people with long term health conditions from four English-speaking regions (UK, Ireland, USA, New Zealand) included measures of care burden, loneliness, and social isolation, reported before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses were descriptive, followed by an ordinal regression model for predictors of burden. RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic levels, all caregivers experienced a significant increase in burden, loneliness, and isolation. Caregivers of people with both brain health and physical conditions were the most burdened and had the highest levels of loneliness and isolation compared to caregivers of people with either a brain health or physical condition only. The increase in care burden among caregivers of people with brain health challenges was associated with caregiver's gender, moderate and severe emotional loneliness, magnitude and frequency of isolation during the pandemic, and care circumstances (cohabitation with the care recipient, restrictions on the ability to provide care). CONCLUSIONS: Health and social care interventions should target caregivers' care circumstances and psychological outcomes, particularly in women, accounting for the significant additional burden of care, loneliness, and isolation resulting from pandemic-related restrictions

The Reality of Neandertal Symbolic Behavior at the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France

The question of whether symbolically mediated behavior is exclusive to modern humans or shared with anatomically archaic populations such as the Neandertals is hotly debated. At the Grotte du Renne, Arcy-sur-Cure, France, the Châtelperronian levels contain Neandertal remains and large numbers of personal ornaments, decorated bone tools and colorants, but it has been suggested that this association reflects intrusion of the symbolic artifacts from the overlying Protoaurignacian and/or of the Neandertal remains from the underlying Mousterian

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial to assess the safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in people with Alzheimer’s disease and agitated behaviours: the HTA-SYMBAD trial

Background: Agitation is common and impacts negatively on people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is first-line treatment, but we need other treatment when this fails. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. Objectives: To assess clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine and carbamazepine in treating agitation in dementia. Design: Pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, double-blind, superiority, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness of mirtazapine over 12 weeks (carbamazepine arm discontinued). Setting: Twenty-six UK secondary care centres. Participants: Eligibility: probable or possible Alzheimer’s disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score ≥ 45. Interventions: Mirtazapine (target 45 mg), carbamazepine (target 300 mg) and placebo. Outcome measures: Primary: Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score 12 weeks post randomisation. Main economic outcome evaluation: incremental cost per six-point difference in Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory score at 12 weeks, from health and social care system perspective. Data from participants and informants at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks. Long-term follow-up Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory data collected by telephone from informants at 6 and 12 months. Randomisation and blinding: Participants allocated 1: 1: 1 ratio (to discontinuation of the carbamazepine arm, 1: 1 thereafter) to receive placebo or carbamazepine or mirtazapine, with treatment as usual. Random allocation was block stratified by centre and residence type with random block lengths of three or six (after discontinuation of carbamazepine, two or four). Double-blind, with drug and placebo identically encapsulated. Referring clinicians, participants, trial management team and research workers who did assessments were masked to group allocation. Results: Two hundred and forty-four participants recruited and randomised (102 mirtazapine, 102 placebo, 40 carbamazepine). The carbamazepine arm was discontinued due to slow overall recruitment; carbamazepine/placebo analyses are therefore statistically underpowered and not detailed in the abstract. Mean difference placebo-mirtazapine (−1.74, 95% confidence interval −7.17 to 3.69; p = 0.53). Harms: The number of controls with adverse events (65/102, 64%) was similar to the mirtazapine group (67/102, 66%). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n = 7) by week 16 than in the control group (n = 1). Post hoc analysis suggests this was of marginal statistical significance (p = 0.065); this difference did not persist at 6-and 12-month assessments. At 12 weeks, the costs of unpaid care by the dyadic carer were significantly higher in the mirtazapine than placebo group [difference: £1120 (95% confidence interval £56 to £2184)]. In the cost-effectiveness analyses, mean raw and adjusted outcome scores and costs of the complete cases samples showed no differences between groups. Limitations: Our study has four important potential limitations: (1) we dropped the proposed carbamazepine group; (2) the trial was not powered to investigate a mortality difference between the groups; (3) recruitment beyond February 2020, was constrained by the COVID-19 pandemic; and (4) generalisability is limited by recruitment of participants from old-age psychiatry services and care homes. Conclusions: The data suggest mirtazapine is not clinically or cost-effective (compared to placebo) for agitation in dementia. There is little reason to recommend mirtazapine for people with dementia with agitation. Future work: Effective and cost-effective management strategies for agitation in dementia are needed where non-pharmacological approaches are unsuccessful

Study of mirtazapine for agitated behaviours in dementia (SYMBAD): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Agitation is common in people with dementia and negatively affects the quality of life of both people with dementia and carers. Non-drug patient-centred care is the first-line treatment, but there is a need for other treatment when this care is not effective. Current evidence is sparse on safer and effective alternatives to antipsychotics. We assessed the efficacy and safety of mirtazapine, an antidepressant prescribed for agitation in dementia. METHODS: This parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial-the Study of Mirtazapine for Agitated Behaviours in Dementia trial (SYMBAD)-was done in 26 UK centres. Participants had probable or possible Alzheimer's disease, agitation unresponsive to non-drug treatment, and a Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score of 45 or more. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (titrated to 45 mg) or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in CMAI score at 12 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03031184, and ISRCTN17411897. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2017, and March 6, 2020, 204 participants were recruited and randomised. Mean CMAI scores at 12 weeks were not significantly different between participants receiving mirtazapine and participants receiving placebo (adjusted mean difference -1·74, 95% CI -7·17 to 3·69; p=0·53). The number of controls with adverse events (65 [64%] of 102 controls) was similar to that in the mirtazapine group (67 [66%] of 102 participants receiving mirtazapine). However, there were more deaths in the mirtazapine group (n=7) by week 16 than in the control group (n=1), with post-hoc analysis suggesting this difference was of marginal statistical significance (p=0·065). INTERPRETATION: This trial found no benefit of mirtazapine compared with placebo, and we observed a potentially higher mortality with use of mirtazapine. The data from this study do not support using mirtazapine as a treatment for agitation in dementia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

Feasibility and Acceptability of Computerised Cognitive Training of Everyday Cognition in Parkinson's Disease

Objectives. We piloted a computerised cognitive training battery in a group of participants with Parkinson’s disease without dementia to investigate the relevance of the training to daily life and the feasibility and the acceptability of the tasks. Previous studies of CT have had limited success in the benefits of training, extending to improvements in everyday function. By taking a pragmatic approach and targeting training to the cognitive skills affected by Parkinson’s disease (planning, attention, and recollection), whilst using tasks that emulated real-life scenarios, we sought to understand whether participants perceived the training to be effective and to identify the elements of the training that elicited beneficial effects. Methods. Four participants completed a cognitive training session comprising three distinct tasks 5 days a week over two weeks. Participants completed baseline questionnaires examining health-related quality of life, everyday cognition, and apathy before the training period, after the last session, and two weeks after the last session. An interview was held after participants had completed the training. Results. The findings indicated that participants felt the training was acceptable, enhanced their awareness, and encouraged them to monitor their thinking abilities. The group interview indicated that the training was feasible; participants felt the tasks had potential to improve everyday performance, but more supporting information should be provided to facilitate this transfer. Responses to the questionnaires reflected these findings, indicating improvement for some participants’ cognition and quality of life. Objective measures supported the subjective reports; there were improvements in some but not all domains. Performance on the planning and recollection tasks improved over the training period, and the evidence for improvement on the attention task was mixed. Conclusion. This study has found that pragmatic computer-based training with real-life outcomes is both feasible and acceptable and should be evaluated more extensively using controlled methods

Rhythms of walking : history and presence in a city street

Peer reviewedPostprin

A core outcome set for nonpharmacological community-based interventions for people living with dementia at home: A systematic review of outcome measurement instruments

YesIt is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from over 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, socINDEX and COSMIN database. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency and responsiveness. We held a co-research workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the COS items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The 'best' available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire (EID-Q). This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons.This study was funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). ESRC is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)