METHODS: We harmonized longitudinal data of 11,988 participants from 10 cohorts in eight countries to examine the dose-response relationship between late-life physical activity and incident dementia among older adults.
RESULTS: Using no physical activity as a reference, dementia risk decreased with duration of physical activity up to 3.1 to 6.0 hours/week (hazard ratio [HR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.15 for 0.1 to 3.0 hours/week; HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89 for 3.1 to 6.0 hours/week), but plateaued with higher duration. For the amount of physical activity, a similar pattern of dose-response curve was observed, with an inflection point of 9.1 to 18.0 metabolic equivalent value (MET)-hours/week (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22 for 0.1 to 9.0 MET-hours/week; HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.93 for 9.1 to 18.0 MET-hours/week).
DISCUSSION: This cross-national analysis suggests that performing 3.1 to 6.0 hours of physical activity and expending 9.1 to 18.0/MET-hours of energy per week may reduce dementia risk.
METHODS: We used individual participant data (N = 39271, Mage = 70.67 (40-102), 58.86% female, Meducation = 8.43 years, Mfollow-up = 3.22 years) from 13 longitudinal ageing studies. A two-stage meta-analysis of Cox regression models examined the association between social connection markers with our primary outcomes.
RESULTS: We found associations between good social connections structure and quality and lower risk of incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI); between social structure and function and lower risk of incident dementia and mortality. Only in Asian cohorts, being married/in a relationship was associated with reduced risk of dementia, and having a confidante was associated with reduced risk of dementia and mortality.
DISCUSSION: Different aspects of social connections - structure, function, and quality - are associated with benefits for healthy aging internationally.
HIGHLIGHTS: Social connection structure (being married/in a relationship, weekly community group engagement, weekly family/friend interactions) and quality (never lonely) were associated with lower risk of incident MCI. Social connection structure (monthly/weekly friend/family interactions) and function (having a confidante) were associated with lower risk of incident dementia. Social connection structure (living with others, yearly/monthly/weekly community group engagement) and function (having a confidante) were associated with lower risk of mortality. Evidence from 13 longitudinal cohort studies of ageing indicates that social connections are important targets for reducing risk of incident MCI, incident dementia, and mortality. Only in Asian cohorts, being married/in a relationship was associated with reduced risk of dementia, and having a confidante was associated with reduced risk of dementia and mortality.
METHODS: We combined individual participant data for 16 cohorts from 15 countries (members of the COSMIC consortium) and used qualitative and quantitative (Item Response Theory/IRT) harmonization techniques to estimate SCD prevalence.
RESULTS: The sample comprised 39,387 cognitively unimpaired individuals above age 60. The prevalence of SCD across studies was around one quarter with both qualitative harmonization/QH (23.8%, 95%CI = 23.3-24.4%) and IRT (25.6%, 95%CI = 25.1-26.1%); however, prevalence estimates varied largely between studies (QH 6.1%, 95%CI = 5.1-7.0%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%; IRT: 7.8%, 95%CI = 6.8-8.9%, to 52.7%, 95%CI = 47.4-58.0%). Across studies, SCD prevalence was higher in men than women, in lower levels of education, in Asian and Black African people compared to White people, in lower- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, and in studies conducted in later decades.
CONCLUSIONS: SCD is frequent in old age. Having a quarter of older individuals with SCD warrants further investigation of its significance, as a risk stage for AD and other dementias, and of ways to help individuals with SCD who seek medical advice. Moreover, a standardized instrument to measure SCD is needed to overcome the measurement variability currently dominant in the field.
METHODS: A total of 29,850 participants (58% women) from 21 cohorts across six continents were included in an individual participant data meta-analysis. Sex-specific hazard ratios (HRs), and women-to-men ratio of hazard ratios (RHRs) for associations between RFs and all-cause dementia were derived from mixed-effect Cox models.
RESULTS: Incident dementia occurred in 2089 (66% women) participants over 4.6 years (median). Women had higher dementia risk (HR, 1.12 [1.02, 1.23]) than men, particularly in low- and lower-middle-income economies. Associations between longer education and former alcohol use with dementia risk (RHR, 1.01 [1.00, 1.03] per year, and 0.55 [0.38, 0.79], respectively) were stronger for men than women; otherwise, there were no discernible sex differences in other RFs.
DISCUSSION: Dementia risk was higher in women than men, with possible variations by country-level income settings, but most RFs appear to work similarly in women and men.
METHODS: We combined data from 21 prospective cohorts across six continents (N = 31,680) and conducted cohort-specific Cox proportional hazard regression analyses in a two-step individual participant data meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A one-standard-deviation increase in LIBRA score was associated with a 21% higher risk for dementia. The association was stronger for Asian cohorts compared to European cohorts, and for individuals aged ≤75 years (vs older), though only within the first 5 years of follow-up. No interactions with sex, education, or socioeconomic position were observed.
DISCUSSION: Modifiable risk and protective factors appear relevant for dementia risk reduction across diverse geographical and sociodemographic groups.
HIGHLIGHTS: A two-step individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted. This was done at a global scale using data from 21 ethno-regionally diverse cohorts. The association between a modifiable dementia risk score and dementia was examined. The association was modified by geographical region and age at baseline. Yet, modifiable dementia risk and protective factors appear relevant in all investigated groups and regions.