The last time
that NIH requested a review of the data on preventing cognitive decline in old
age (including Mild Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer’s type dementia, and
“usual” age-related cognitive deterioration) was in 2010. At that time, the
systematic review of the published literature (performed by the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality) and the associated state of the science
conference (convened by NIH) concluded there was insufficient evidence to make
any recommendations about interventions to prevent cognitive decline and
dementia.
Now, the NIA
has asked the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine to
commission a new systematic review of the data and, based on that review, to
issue recommendations about prevention. Its report, optimistically entitled, “Preventing Cognitive Decline and Dementia: A Way Forward,” was just released. Alas, while the commission bent over backwards
to find beneficial interventions, adding observational, non-experimental
studies, risk factor analysis, and neurobiological work to the randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) that were supposed to provide the evidence for their
conclusions, it was forced to conclude, once again, that the review “identified no specific
interventions that are supported by sufficient evidence to justify mounting out
an assertive public health campaign to encourage people to adopt them for the
purpose of preventing cognitive decline and dementia.” The best the group could
come up with was that the review did “find some degree of support for the
benefit of three classes of intervention: cognitive training, blood pressure
management in people with hypertension, and increased physical activity.
If we examine
these three domains, what we find is not entirely encouraging. The arena of
cognitive training (brain games, crossword puzzles, studying a foreign
language, etc.) had the greatest degree of evidence. There is good evidence
that it can improve performance in a trained task—that is, if you work at
generating synonyms for words over and over again, you will get better at
finding synonyms, at least in the short term. What is less clear is whether the
benefits are sustained, whether training in one domain yields benefits in other
domains, and whether it translates at all into improvement in daily
functioning, in areas such as shopping, cooking, or paying bills. The good news,
such as it is, about cognitive training, derives principally from one study,
the Advanced Cognitive Training for Independent and Vital Elderly (ACTIVE),
which provides moderately strong evidence of effectiveness in the training
domain after 2 years but low strength evidence after 5 or 10 years. The
improvements that were found failed to translate into areas other than the one
where training was provided.
Perhaps
surprisingly, given the strong evidence that blood pressure control in people
with hypertension is beneficial in preventing stroke and coronary artery
disease, vigorous blood pressure treatment did not so readily translate into
prevention or delay of any form of cognitive decline in old age. One British
study did show efficacy. Given that blood pressure treatment is already
recommended for other reasons, encouraging its use in the hope that it might
also help fend off cognitive decline evidently seemed harmless enough to the
committee.
The story on
exercise is similar to that on blood pressure control: the RCT data are
inconsistent, but there’s at least some data that shows a positive effect.
Exercise studies are problematic because they so often utilize different forms
of exercise and prescribe varying duration and frequency of exercise. Nonetheless,
given the evidence that exercise is useful to promote mobility and to prevent
depression, and that some studies find it beneficial in preventing cognitive
decline, the committee opted to include exercise in its short list of
interventions for which there is “some degree of support.”
The main
justification, it seems to me, for subtitling this report “A Way Forward” is
the section on recommendations for future research. The areas that have shown
some promise deserve further study. And that study, as well as all other
avenues that might be pursued, should be methodologically sound. That means
acknowledging the deficiencies of existing work and avoiding those flaws in the
future.
No comments:
Post a Comment