Immune system-wide Mendelian randomization and triangulation analyses support autoimmunity as a modifiable component in dementia-causing diseases

Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Immune system and blood–brain barrier dysfunction are implicated in the development of Alzheimer’s and other dementia-causing diseases, but their causal role remains unknown. We performed Mendelian randomization for 1,827 immune system- and blood–brain barrier-related biomarkers and identified 127 potential causal risk factors for dementia-causing diseases. Pathway analyses linked these biomarkers to amyloid-β, tau and α-synuclein pathways and to autoimmunity-related processes. A phenome-wide analysis using Mendelian randomization-based polygenic risk score in the FinnGen study (n = 339,233) for the biomarkers indicated shared genetic background for dementias and autoimmune diseases. This association was further supported by human leukocyte antigen analyses. In inverse-probability-weighted analyses that simulate randomized controlled drug trials in observational data, anti-inflammatory methotrexate treatment reduced the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease in high-risk individuals (hazard ratio compared with no treatment, 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.49–0.88, P = 0.005). These converging results from different lines of human research suggest that autoimmunity is a modifiable component in dementia-causing diseases.Peer reviewe

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention : a cohort study

Background Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs. Methods We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40-64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, >= 7.5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs. Findings Of 6964 participants (mean age 50.0 years [ SD 6.0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22.0 years [SD 5.0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130-8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57-66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7-9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40-49) for the study population. Interpretation In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention : a cohort study

Background Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs. Methods We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40-64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, >= 7.5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs. Findings Of 6964 participants (mean age 50.0 years [ SD 6.0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22.0 years [SD 5.0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130-8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57-66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7-9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40-49) for the study population. Interpretation In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Estimating Dementia Risk Using Multifactorial Prediction Models

IMPORTANCE: The clinical value of current multifactorial algorithms for individualized assessment of dementia risk remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value associated with 4 widely used dementia risk scores in estimating 10-year dementia risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective population-based UK Biobank cohort study assessed 4 dementia risk scores at baseline (2006-2010) and ascertained incident dementia during the following 10 years. Replication with a 20-year follow-up was based on the British Whitehall II study. For both analyses, participants who had no dementia at baseline, had complete data on at least 1 dementia risk score, and were linked to electronic health records from hospitalizations or mortality were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 5, 2022, to April 20, 2023. EXPOSURES: Four existing dementia risk scores: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE)-Clinical score, the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented score, the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI), and the Australian National University Alzheimer Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Dementia was ascertained from linked electronic health records. To evaluate how well each score predicted the 10-year risk of dementia, concordance (C) statistics, detection rate, false-positive rate, and the ratio of true to false positives were calculated for each risk score and for a model including age alone. RESULTS: Of 465 929 UK Biobank participants without dementia at baseline (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; range, 38-73 years; 252 778 [54.3%] female participants), 3421 were diagnosed with dementia at follow-up (7.5 per 10 000 person-years). If the threshold for a positive test result was calibrated to achieve a 5% false-positive rate, all 4 risk scores detected 9% to 16% of incident dementia and therefore missed 84% to 91% (failure rate). The corresponding failure rate was 84% for a model that included age only. For a positive test result calibrated to detect at least half of future incident dementia, the ratio of true to false positives ranged between 1 to 66 (for CAIDE-APOE-supplemented) and 1 to 116 (for ANU-ADRI). For age alone, the ratio was 1 to 43. The C statistic was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.67) for the CAIDE clinical version, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) for the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.69) for BDSI, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.58-0.60) for ANU-ADRI, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) for age alone. Similar C statistics were seen for 20-year dementia risk in the Whitehall II study cohort, which included 4865 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [5.9] years; 1342 [27.6%] female participants). In a subgroup analysis of same-aged participants aged 65 (±1) years, discriminatory capacity of risk scores was low (C statistics between 0.52 and 0.60). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In these cohort studies, individualized assessments of dementia risk using existing risk prediction scores had high error rates. These findings suggest that the scores were of limited value in targeting people for dementia prevention. Further research is needed to develop more accurate algorithms for estimation of dementia risk

Cognitive stimulation in the workplace, plasma proteins, and risk of dementia : three analyses of population cohort studies

OBJECTIVES To examine the association between cognitively stimulating work and subsequent risk of dementia and to identify protein pathways for this association. DESIGN Multicohort study with three sets of analyses. SETTING United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States. PARTICIPANTS Three associations were examined: cognitive stimulation and dementia risk in 107 896 participants from seven population based prospective cohort studies from the IPD-Work consortium (individual participant data meta-analysis in working populations); cognitive stimulation and proteins in a random sample of 2261 participants from one cohort study; and proteins and dementia risk in 13 656 participants from two cohort studies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cognitive stimulation was measured at baseline using standard questionnaire instruments on active versus passive jobs and at baseline and over time using a job exposure matrix indicator. 4953 proteins in plasma samples were scanned. Follow-up of incident dementia varied between 13.7 to 30.1 years depending on the cohort. People with dementia were identified through linked electronic health records and repeated clinical examinations. RESULTS During 1.8 million person years at risk, 1143 people with dementia were recorded. The risk of dementia was found to be lower for participants with high compared with low cognitive stimulation at work (crude incidence of dementia per 10 000 person years 4.8 in the high stimulation group and 7.3 in the low stimulation group, age and sex adjusted hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92, heterogeneity in cohort specific estimates I2=0%, P=0.99). This association was robust to additional adjustment for education, risk factors for dementia in adulthood (smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, job strain, obesity, hypertension, and prevalent diabetes at baseline), and cardiometabolic diseases (diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke) before dementia diagnosis (fully adjusted hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98). The risk of dementia was also observed during the first 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.95) and from year 10 onwards (0.79, 0.66 to 0.95) and replicated using a repeated job exposure matrix indicator of cognitive stimulation (hazard ratio per 1 standard deviation increase 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.86). In analysis controlling for multiple testing, higher cognitive stimulation at work was associated with lower levels of proteins that inhibit central nervous system axonogenesis and synaptogenesis: slit homologue 2 (SLIT2, fully adjusted r3 -0.34, P(0.001), carbohydrate sulfotransferase 12 (CHSTC, fully adjusted r3 -0.33, P(0.001), and peptidyl-glycine alpha-amidating monooxygenase (AMD, fully adjusted r3 -0.32, P(0.001). These proteins were associated with increased dementia risk, with the fully adjusted hazard ratio per 1 SD being 1.16 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.28) for SLIT2, 1.13 (1.00 to 1.27) for CHSTC, and 1.04 (0.97 to 1.13) for AMD. CONCLUSIONS The risk of dementia in old age was found to be lower in people with cognitively stimulating jobs than in those with non-stimulating jobs. The findings thatPeer reviewe

Association between change in cardiovascular risk scores and future cardiovascular disease: analyses of data from the Whitehall II longitudinal, prospective cohort study

Background Evaluation of cardiovascular disease risk in primary care, which is recommended every 5 years in middle-aged and older adults (typical age range 40-75 years), is based on risk scores, such as the European Society of Cardiology Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) algorithms. This evaluation currently uses only the most recent risk factor assessment. We aimed to examine whether 5-year changes in SCORE and ASCVD risk scores are associated with future cardiovascular disease risk.Methods We analysed data from the Whitehall II longitudinal, prospective cohort study for individuals with no history of stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, definite angina, heart failure, or peripheral artery disease. Participants underwent clinical examinations in 5-year intervals between Aug 7, 1991, and Dec 6, 2016, and were followed up for incident cardiovascular disease until Oct 2, 2019. Levels of, and 5-year changes in, cardiovascular disease risk were assessed using the SCORE and ASCVD risk scores and were analysed as predictors of cardiovascular disease. Harrell's C index, continuous net reclassification improvement, the Akaike information criterion, and calibration analysis were used to assess whether incorporating change in risk scores into a model including only a single risk score assessment improved the predictive performance. We assessed the levels of, and 5-year changes in, SCORE and ASCVD risk scores as predictors of cardiovascular disease and disease-free life-years using Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric survival models.Findings 7574 participants (5233 [69 center dot 1%] men, 2341 [30 center dot 9%] women) aged 40-75 years were included in analyses of risk score change between April 24, 1997, and Oct 2, 2019. During a mean follow-up of 18 center dot 7 years (SD 5 center dot 5), 1441 (19 center dot 0%; 1042 [72 center dot 3%] men and 399 [27 center dot 7%] women) participants developed cardiovascular disease. Adding 5-year change in risk score to a model that included only a single risk score assessment improved model performance according to Harrell's C index (from 0 center dot 685 to 0 center dot 690, change 0 center dot 004 [95% CI 0 center dot 000 to 0 center dot 008] for SCORE; from 0 center dot 699 to 0 center dot 700, change 0 center dot 001 [0 center dot 000 to 0 center dot 003] for ASCVD), the Akaike information criterion ( from 17 255 to 17 200, change -57 [95% CI -97 to -13] for SCORE; from 14 739 to 14 729, change -10 [-28 to 7] for ASCVD), and the continuous net reclassification index (0 center dot 353 [95% CI 0 center dot 234 to 0 center dot 447] for SCORE; 0 center dot 232 [0 center dot 030 to 0 center dot 344] for ASCVD). Both favourable and unfavourable changes in SCORE and ASCVD were associated with cardiovascular disease risk and disease-free life-years. The associations were seen in both sexes and all age groups up to the age of 75 years. At the age of 45 years, each 2-unit improvement in risk scores was associated with an additional 1 center dot 3 life-years (95% CI 0 center dot 4 to 2 center dot 2) free of cardiovascular disease for SCORE and an additional 0 center dot 9 life-years (95% CI 0 center dot 5 to 1 center dot 3) for ASCVD. At age 65 years, this same improvement was associated with an additional 0 center dot 4 life-years (95% CI 0 center dot 0 to 0 center dot 7) free of cardiovascular disease for SCORE and 0 center dot 3 life-years (95% CI 0 center dot 1 to 0 center dot 5) for ASCVD. These models were developed into an interactive calculator, which enables estimation of the number of cardiovascular disease-free life-years for an individual as a function of two risk score measurements.Interpretation Changes in the SCORE and ASCVD risk scores over time inform cardiovascular disease risk prediction beyond a single risk score assessment. Repeat data might allow more accurate cardiovascular risk stratification and strengthen the evidence base for decisions on preventive interventions. Copyright (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.</p

Cognitive stimulation in the workplace, plasma proteins, and risk of dementia: three analyses of population cohort studies

Objectives: To examine the association between cognitively stimulating work and subsequent risk of dementia and to identify protein pathways for this association.Design: Multicohort study with three sets of analyses.Setting: United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States.Participants: Three associations were examined: cognitive stimulation and dementia risk in 107 896 participants from seven population based prospective cohort studies from the IPD-Work consortium (individual participant data meta-analysis in working populations); cognitive stimulation and proteins in a random sample of 2261 participants from one cohort study; and proteins and dementia risk in 13 656 participants from two cohort studies.Main outcome measures: Cognitive stimulation was measured at baseline using standard questionnaire instruments on active versus passive jobs and at baseline and over time using a job exposure matrix indicator. 4953 proteins in plasma samples were scanned. Follow-up of incident dementia varied between 13.7 to 30.1 years depending on the cohort. People with dementia were identified through linked electronic health records and repeated clinical examinations.Results: During 1.8 million person years at risk, 1143 people with dementia were recorded. The risk of dementia was found to be lower for participants with high compared with low cognitive stimulation at work (crude incidence of dementia per 10 000 person years 4.8 in the high stimulation group and 7.3 in the low stimulation group, age and sex adjusted hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.92, heterogeneity in cohort specific estimates I2=0%, P=0.99). This association was robust to additional adjustment for education, risk factors for dementia in adulthood (smoking, heavy alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, job strain, obesity, hypertension, and prevalent diabetes at baseline), and cardiometabolic diseases (diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke) before dementia diagnosis (fully adjusted hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98). The risk of dementia was also observed during the first 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.95) and from year 10 onwards (0.79, 0.66 to 0.95) and replicated using a repeated job exposure matrix indicator of cognitive stimulation (hazard ratio per 1 standard deviation increase 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 0.86). In analysis controlling for multiple testing, higher cognitive stimulation at work was associated with lower levels of proteins that inhibit central nervous system axonogenesis and synaptogenesis: slit homologue 2 (SLIT2, fully adjusted β -0.34, PConclusions: The risk of dementia in old age was found to be lower in people with cognitively stimulating jobs than in those with non-stimulating jobs. The findings that cognitive stimulation is associated with lower levels of plasma proteins that potentially inhibit axonogenesis and synaptogenesis and increase the risk of dementia might provide clues to underlying biological mechanisms.</p

Estimating Dementia Risk Using Multifactorial Prediction Models

IMPORTANCE The clinical value of current multifactorial algorithms for individualized assessment of dementia risk remains unclear.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical value associated with 4 widely used dementia risk scores in estimating 10-year dementia risk.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective population-based UK Biobank cohort study assessed 4 dementia risk scores at baseline (2006-2010) and ascertained incident dementia during the following 10 years. Replication with a 20-year follow-up was based on the British Whitehall II study. For both analyses, participants who had no dementia at baseline, had complete data on at least 1 dementia risk score, and were linked to electronic health records from hospitalizations or mortality were included. Data analysis was conducted from July 5, 2022, to April 20, 2023.EXPOSURES Four existing dementia risk scores: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia (CAIDE)-Clinical score, the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented score, the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI), and the Australian National University Alzheimer Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI).MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Dementia was ascertained from linked electronic health records. To evaluate how well each score predicted the 10-year risk of dementia, concordance (C) statistics, detection rate, false-positive rate, and the ratio of true to false positives were calculated for each risk score and for a model including age alone.RESULTS Of 465929 UK Biobank participants without dementia at baseline (mean [SD] age, 56.5 [8.1] years; range, 38-73 years; 252778 [54.3%] female participants), 3421 were diagnosed with dementia at follow-up (7.5 per 10000 person-years). If the threshold for a positive test result was calibrated to achieve a 5% false-positive rate, all 4 risk scores detected 9% to 16% of incident dementia and therefore missed 84% to 91% (failure rate). The corresponding failure rate was 84% for a model that included age only. For a positive test result calibrated to detect at least half of future incident dementia, the ratio of true to false positives ranged between 1 to 66 (for CAIDE-APOE-supplemented) and 1 to 116 (for ANU-ADRI). For age alone, the ratio was 1 to 43. The C statistic was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.65-0.67) for the CAIDE clinical version, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.72-0.73) for the CAIDE-APOE-supplemented, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.67-0.69) for BDSI, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.58-0.60) for ANU-ADRI, and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.79-0.80) for age alone. Similar C statistics were seen for 20-year dementia risk in the Whitehall II study cohort, which included 4865 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.9 [5.9] years; 1342 [27.6%] female participants). In a subgroup analysis of same-aged participants aged 65 (1) years, discriminatory capacity of risk scores was low (C statistics between 0.52 and 0.60).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In these cohort studies, individualized assessments of dementia risk using existing risk prediction scores had high error rates. These findings suggest that the scores were of limited value in targeting people for dementia prevention. Further research is needed to develop more accurate algorithms for estimation of dementia risk.Peer reviewe

5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention: a cohort study

Summary: Background: Clinical guidelines suggest preventive interventions such as statin therapy for individuals with a high estimated 10-year risk of major cardiovascular events. For those with a low or intermediate estimated risk, risk-factor screenings are recommended at 5-year intervals; this interval is based on expert opinion rather than on direct research evidence. Using longitudinal data on the progression of cardiovascular disease risk over time, we compared different screening intervals in terms of timely detection of high-risk individuals, cardiovascular events prevented, and health-care costs. Methods: We used data from participants in the British Whitehall II study (aged 40–64 years at baseline) who had repeated biomedical screenings at 5-year intervals and linked these data to electronic health records between baseline (Aug 7, 1991, to May 10, 1993) and June 30, 2015. We estimated participants' 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and fatal or non-fatal stroke) using the revised Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) calculator. We used multistate Markov modelling to estimate optimum screening intervals on the basis of progression rates from low-risk and intermediate-risk categories to the high-risk category (ie, ≥7·5% 10-year risk of a major cardiovascular event). Our assessment criteria included person-years spent in a high-risk category before detection, the number of major cardiovascular events prevented and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and screening costs. Findings: Of 6964 participants (mean age 50·0 years [SD 6·0] at baseline) with 152 700 person-years of follow-up (mean follow-up 22·0 years [SD 5·0]), 1686 participants progressed to the high-risk category and 617 had a major cardiovascular event. With the 5-year screening intervals, participants spent 7866 (95% CI 7130–8658) person-years unrecognised in the high-risk group. For individuals in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high risk categories, 21 alternative risk category-based screening intervals outperformed the 5-yearly screening protocol. Screening intervals at 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year for those in the low, intermediate-low, and intermediate-high-risk category would reduce the number of person-years spent unrecognised in the high-risk group by 62% (95% CI 57–66; 4894 person-years), reduce the number of major cardiovascular events by 8% (7–9; 49 events), and raise 44 QALYs (40–49) for the study population. Interpretation: In terms of timely preventive interventions, the 5-year screening intervals were unnecessarily frequent for low-risk individuals and insufficiently frequent for intermediate-risk individuals. Screening intervals based on risk-category-specific progression rates would perform better in terms of preventing major cardiovascular disease events and improving cost-effectiveness. Funding: Medical Research Council, British Heart Association, National Institutes on Aging, NordForsk, Academy of Finland