Prediction of dementia risk in low-income and middle-income countries (the 10/66 Study): an independent external validation of existing models.
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
07
10
2019
revised:
03
02
2020
accepted:
10
02
2020
pubmed:
22
3
2020
medline:
2
7
2020
entrez:
22
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To date, dementia prediction models have been exclusively developed and tested in high-income countries (HICs). However, most people with dementia live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where dementia risk prediction research is almost non-existent and the ability of current models to predict dementia is unknown. This study investigated whether dementia prediction models developed in HICs are applicable to LMICs. Data were from the 10/66 Study. Individuals aged 65 years or older and without dementia at baseline were selected from China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Dementia incidence was assessed over 3-5 years, with diagnosis according to the 10/66 Study diagnostic algorithm. Discrimination and calibration were tested for five models: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia risk score (CAIDE); the Study on Aging, Cognition and Dementia (AgeCoDe) model; the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI); the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI); and the Rotterdam Study Basic Dementia Risk Model (BDRM). Models were tested with use of Cox regression. The discriminative accuracy of each model was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c)-statistic, with a value of 0·70 or higher considered to indicate acceptable discriminative ability. Calibration (model fit) was assessed statistically using the Grønnesby and Borgan test. 11 143 individuals without baseline dementia and with available follow-up data were included in the analysis. During follow-up (mean 3·8 years [SD 1·3]), 1069 people progressed to dementia across all sites (incidence rate 24·9 cases per 1000 person-years). Performance of the models varied. Across countries, the discriminative ability of the CAIDE (0·52≤c≤0·63) and AgeCoDe (0·57≤c≤0·74) models was poor. By contrast, the ANU-ADRI (0·66≤c≤0·78), BDSI (0·62≤c≤0·78), and BDRM (0·66≤c≤0·78) models showed similar levels of discriminative ability to those of the development cohorts. All models showed good calibration, especially at low and intermediate levels of predicted risk. The models validated best in Peru and poorest in the Dominican Republic and China. Not all dementia prediction models developed in HICs can be simply extrapolated to LMICs. Further work defining what number and which combination of risk variables works best for predicting risk of dementia in LMICs is needed. However, models that transport well could be used immediately for dementia prevention research and targeted risk reduction in LMICs. National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust, WHO, US Alzheimer's Association, and European Research Council.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To date, dementia prediction models have been exclusively developed and tested in high-income countries (HICs). However, most people with dementia live in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where dementia risk prediction research is almost non-existent and the ability of current models to predict dementia is unknown. This study investigated whether dementia prediction models developed in HICs are applicable to LMICs.
METHODS
Data were from the 10/66 Study. Individuals aged 65 years or older and without dementia at baseline were selected from China, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and Venezuela. Dementia incidence was assessed over 3-5 years, with diagnosis according to the 10/66 Study diagnostic algorithm. Discrimination and calibration were tested for five models: the Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging and Dementia risk score (CAIDE); the Study on Aging, Cognition and Dementia (AgeCoDe) model; the Australian National University Alzheimer's Disease Risk Index (ANU-ADRI); the Brief Dementia Screening Indicator (BDSI); and the Rotterdam Study Basic Dementia Risk Model (BDRM). Models were tested with use of Cox regression. The discriminative accuracy of each model was assessed using Harrell's concordance (c)-statistic, with a value of 0·70 or higher considered to indicate acceptable discriminative ability. Calibration (model fit) was assessed statistically using the Grønnesby and Borgan test.
FINDINGS
11 143 individuals without baseline dementia and with available follow-up data were included in the analysis. During follow-up (mean 3·8 years [SD 1·3]), 1069 people progressed to dementia across all sites (incidence rate 24·9 cases per 1000 person-years). Performance of the models varied. Across countries, the discriminative ability of the CAIDE (0·52≤c≤0·63) and AgeCoDe (0·57≤c≤0·74) models was poor. By contrast, the ANU-ADRI (0·66≤c≤0·78), BDSI (0·62≤c≤0·78), and BDRM (0·66≤c≤0·78) models showed similar levels of discriminative ability to those of the development cohorts. All models showed good calibration, especially at low and intermediate levels of predicted risk. The models validated best in Peru and poorest in the Dominican Republic and China.
INTERPRETATION
Not all dementia prediction models developed in HICs can be simply extrapolated to LMICs. Further work defining what number and which combination of risk variables works best for predicting risk of dementia in LMICs is needed. However, models that transport well could be used immediately for dementia prevention research and targeted risk reduction in LMICs.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research, Wellcome Trust, WHO, US Alzheimer's Association, and European Research Council.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32199121
pii: S2214-109X(20)30062-0
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30062-0
pmc: PMC7090906
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e524-e535Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/137/62
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : GR066133
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : GR080002
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Lancet. 2003 Mar 15;361(9361):909-17
pubmed: 12648969
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Dec 16;149(12):889-97
pubmed: 19075208
Neuropsychology. 2015 Jul;29(4):649-57
pubmed: 25222199
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 03;10(9):e0136181
pubmed: 26334524
Am J Psychiatry. 2019 Jul 1;176(7):543-551
pubmed: 30525906
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Mar;53(3):452-5
pubmed: 15743288
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 14;6(3):e010159
pubmed: 26975935
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 23;9(1):e86141
pubmed: 24465922
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Apr 1;46(2):406-406i
pubmed: 27154633
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jan 6;162(1):55-63
pubmed: 25560714
BMC Public Health. 2007 Jul 20;7:165
pubmed: 17659078
Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9 Suppl 1:173-6; discussion 177-8
pubmed: 9447441
Alzheimers Dement. 2014 Nov;10(6):656-665.e1
pubmed: 24491321
Prev Sci. 2013 Aug;14(4):411-21
pubmed: 23319292
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
Psychol Med. 1986 Feb;16(1):89-99
pubmed: 3515380
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2013 Jul 01;5(4):27
pubmed: 23809176
Alzheimers Dement. 2014 Sep;10(5):562-70
pubmed: 24035147
Nat Rev Neurol. 2010 Jun;6(6):318-26
pubmed: 20498679
Neurodegener Dis Manag. 2017 Dec;7(6):345-347
pubmed: 29160146
Lancet Neurol. 2006 Sep;5(9):735-41
pubmed: 16914401
J Neural Transm (Vienna). 2009 Nov;116(11):1513-21
pubmed: 19784754
Ann Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;5(1):1-7
pubmed: 7728280
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 18;6(2):e16852
pubmed: 21364746
Eur J Epidemiol. 2018 Jul;33(7):645-655
pubmed: 29740780
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;29(2):174-80
pubmed: 26779863