Premium
The Barcelonabeta dementia prevention research clinic: Study design, recruitment profiles and inclusion in prevention studies — An update
Author(s) -
Fauria Karine,
Minguillón Carolina,
FélezSánchez Marta,
MenezesCabral Sofia,
SánchezBenavides Gonzalo,
GrauRivera Oriol,
Gispert Juan Domingo,
Molinuevo Jose Luis
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1002/alz.045800
Subject(s) - dementia , cognition , medicine , population , gerontology , cognitive decline , inclusion (mineral) , memory clinic , clinical psychology , psychology , cognitive impairment , psychiatry , disease , pathology , environmental health , social psychology
Background Up to 40% new patients in memory clinics complain of worse cognitive performance scoring within normal ranges in cognitive tests, hence presenting what is termed ‘subjective cognitive decline’ (SCD). Although usually dismissed, they present an increased progression rate to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. There is, therefore, an emergent need for newly designed programs to provide individual risk estimates and tailored risk‐reduction plans. With the aim of assessing the emotional impact and cost‐benefit of these programs, we established the B arcelona B eta D ementia P revention R esearch C linic (BBDPRC). Method A longitudinal, prospective study of 400 participants (60‐80 years) with SCD or MCI was set‐up. General population participants concerned about their cognitive performance were pre‐selected by their replies to web‐based forms capturing information about their subjective cognitive performance. Those selected undergo baseline visit for (1) diagnosis, (2) collecting data to enable the estimation of a dementia risk score and (3) produce their personalised prevention action plan. At the subsequent visit, their risk estimates are disclosed and personalised primary prevention advice presented. Individuals with MCI are readily offered to enter studies/trials they may benefit from. The emotional impact of disclosure is measured at 1 and 6 weeks and 6 and 12 months post‐disclosure. At 6‐weeks, SCD participants are offered to enter suitable prevention studies (Fig.1). A cost‐benefit analysis of this program will also be performed using standard methods. Result BBDPRC was presented in a press‐conference. 1,633 persons registered on the website and >50% of them were classified by an embedded algorithm as a priori eligible (Fig.2). To date, ∼300 persons (First‐Patient‐In 16/7/2018) have undergone baseline visit (screening failure 6.5%). From the ones with disclosed diagnosis, 18.5% were MCI, 55.0% SCD plus (fulfilling >3 SCD plus features) and 26.5% SCD. 52.9% of these participants comply with eligibility criteria with ongoing studies at BBRC and, remarkably, 69.9% were included in the studies proposed (Fig.3). Conclusion We have established a web‐based registry that is proving to be very efficient in recruiting SCD plus or MCI individuals being more than half suited for dementia prevention studies and trials. Furthermore, this infrastructure sets the basis for future personalised approaches.