Existing dementia risk scores require collection of additional data from patients, limiting their use in practice. Routinely collected healthcare data have the potential to assess dementia risk without the need to collect further information. Our objective was to develop and validate a 5-year dementia risk score derived from primary healthcare data.
Methods
We used data from general practices in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database from across the UK, randomly selecting 377 practices for a development cohort and identifying 930,395 patients aged 60–95 years without a recording of dementia, cognitive impairment or memory symptoms at baseline. We developed risk algorithm models for two age groups (60–79 and 80–95 years). An external validation was conducted by validating the model on a separate cohort of 264,224 patients from 95 randomly chosen THIN practices that did not contribute to the development cohort. Our main outcome was 5-year risk of first recorded dementia diagnosis. Potential predictors included sociodemographic, cardiovascular, lifestyle and mental health variables.
Results
Dementia incidence was 1.88 (95 % CI, 1.83–1.93) and 16.53 (95 % CI, 16.15–16.92) per 1000 PYAR for those aged 60–79 (n = 6017) and 80–95 years (n = 7104), respectively. Predictors for those aged 60–79 included age, sex, social deprivation, smoking, BMI, heavy alcohol use, anti-hypertensive drugs, diabetes, stroke/TIA, atrial fibrillation, aspirin, depression. The discrimination and calibration of the risk algorithm were good for the 60–79 years model; D statistic 2.03 (95 % CI, 1.95–2.11), C index 0.84 (95 % CI, 0.81–0.87), and calibration slope 0.98 (95 % CI, 0.93–1.02). The algorithm had a high negative predictive value, but lower positive predictive value at most risk thresholds. Discrimination and calibration were poor for the 80–95 years model.
Conclusions
Routinely collected data predicts 5-year risk of recorded diagnosis of dementia for those aged 60–79, but not those aged 80+. This algorithm can identify higher risk populations for dementia in primary care. The risk score has a high negative predictive value and may be most helpful in ‘ruling out’ those at very low risk from further testing or intensive preventative activities.
The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0549-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
KW and GR conceived the study, and developed the study design and protocol with contributions from all authors. SH extracted the data and undertook the analysis, supervised by KW, IP and RO, and overseen by all authors. All authors contributed to the data interpretation. KW drafted the paper and all authors contributed to revisions and approved the final version. KW is the guarantor for the study.
Abkürzungen
BMI
Body mass index
CHD
Coronary Heart Disease
GP
General Practitioner
HDL
High Density Lipoprotein
NSAIDS
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs
NPV
Negative predictive value
PPV
Positive predictive value
PYAR
Person years at risk
THIN
The Health Improvement Network primary care database
SBP
Systolic blood pressure
TIA
Transient ischemic attack
Background
More than 115 million people are predicted to have dementia by 2050 [1], with huge associated health and social care costs [2]. There is both epidemiological [3, 4] and policy [5] support for the identification and management of modifiable risk factors for dementia to delay dementia onset. Around a third of Alzheimer’s disease cases might be attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors (diabetes, mid-life hypertension, mid-life obesity, depression, physical inactivity, smoking, low education) [3]. It has been estimated that a reduction in the seven main modifiable risk factors by 10–25 % would prevent an estimated 1–3 million dementia cases worldwide [4]. There is a strong drive internationally for clinicians to be more pro-active in dementia diagnosis [6, 7]. There is, however, a limited evidence base for current approaches to dementia screening and case-finding [8, 9] and further work needs to be completed to validate new methods across different settings, including primary care [9].
Many multi-factorial prognostic dementia risk models have been developed based on neuropsychological testing and sociodemographic, health, lifestyle, and environmental variables from a range of cohort studies, e.g. [10‐20]. These have had variable discriminating power [10, 11], there is no one model that is recommended for population based settings [11], and none are widely used in practice. These risk scores entail collecting extra information from patients that would not form part of routine clinical care for the general population, for example, on fish oil intake [20], pesticide exposure [20], needing assistance with money or medication [19], years of education [12, 19, 20], depression symptom score [19, 20], genotype [12‐14], or neuropsychological testing [13, 15, 17, 18], making these scores potentially more difficult and costly to implement to large populations in non-specialized clinical settings. One tool has recently been developed as a brief screening indicator to identify a high risk population for cognitive screening in primary care, using data from four cohort studies [19]. However, three of the seven factors in this tool are not routinely recorded in General Practitioner (GP) records in the United Kingdom (UK), and would have to be collected from patients individually. Validated risk scores developed using routinely collected primary care data have been used in practice for other disease areas, such as cardiovascular disease prediction, where they performed better than standard algorithms (e.g. Framingham) originally derived from cohort studies [21]. These scores can be easy to implement and calculated without collecting extra new information from the patient. They can be used to risk stratify an eligible practice population, as the process is automated and uses data already in medical records. No dementia risk model has yet been developed and validated using routinely collected primary care data in the general population. Our study objectives were to develop and validate a 5-year dementia risk score utilizing routinely collected data from a large nationally representative primary care database in the UK.
Anzeige
Methods
Study design
Cohort studies using routinely collected data; development and validation of a 5-year risk score for predicting newly recorded dementia diagnoses.
Setting and data source
We used The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database, which derives data from routine clinical practice in the UK [22]. Around 6 % of General Practices in the UK contribute data to the THIN database, which contains nearly 12 million patients and is broadly representative of the UK population [22, 23]. Data is collected longitudinally during routine care and includes consultations, symptoms, diagnoses, investigations, health measurements, prescriptions, surgical procedures, and referrals. Diagnoses from secondary care and other health information received by the practice are coded and entered using Read codes, a hierarchical coding system which maps onto ICD-10 codes, but which also includes symptom descriptions. THIN data is collected and anonymized centrally and linked by postal (zip) code for 150 households to population census data, including neighbourhood deprivation (quintiles of Townsend deprivation index) [24]. Diagnostic and prescribing information are generally well recorded and accurate [25, 26] and have been successfully used in numerous studies [22], including dementia [27‐29]. Further, THIN data are subject to a range of quality assurance procedures [30, 31]. A validation study of dementia recording suggested a specificity of a GP recorded dementia diagnosis of 83 % and no false negatives in a small sample without recorded dementia [27].
We randomly selected 377 practices from 472 eligible practices providing acceptable quality data to THIN during our study period for a development cohort. The remaining 95 randomly selected eligible practices formed a completely separate validation cohort.
Participants
In both development and validation cohort studies we included individuals aged between 60 and 95 years contributing to the THIN database between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. We excluded individuals with recorded dementia, cognitive impairment, memory symptoms and confusion prior to study entry, those with an exclusion diagnosis indicating specific sub-types of dementia syndrome (Parkinson’s disease, Huntingdon’s disease, Pick’s disease, alcohol-induced dementia, dementia in other conditions, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), Lewy body disease, Cruetzfeldt-Jacob Disease), and those with less than a year’s follow-up data, to allow time for patient history and risk factor information to be recorded (Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Figure A1).
Fig. 1
Flowchart of derivation of the development cohort
×
Anzeige
Follow-up period
Follow-up time was restricted to a maximum of 5 years in both cohort studies. The start of follow-up was the latest of: 1) January 1, 2000; 2) when the individual turned 60 years; 3) one year following new registration with a THIN practice; 4) one year after the practice met standard criteria for accurate recording of deaths, consultation, health measurements, and prescribing [30, 31]. The end date was the earliest of dementia incident date, 5 years follow-up, patient died, patient developed an exclusion diagnosis (as listed above), patient left practice, practice left THIN database, or December 31, 2011.
Main outcome
Newly recorded dementia diagnoses, including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and unspecified or mixed dementia, but excluding dementia diagnoses associated with Parkinson’s disease, Lewy body dementia, Huntingdon, Picks, HIV, and drug-induced and alcohol-related dementia (Read code lists available from the authors) were the primary outcome.
Risk factor measurements
Based on potential risk factors for dementia [3, 4, 32] available in THIN, we examined the following as predictor variables in the risk model:
(1)
Sociodemographic measures: age (years), sex, social deprivation (quintiles of Townsend Index), calendar year at baseline (to account for temporal trends).
(2)
Health status/lifestyle measurements: smoking status up to 5 years prior to baseline (current, non-smoker or ex-smoker), body mass index (BMI), lipids (total cholesterol/ high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio), systolic blood pressure (SBP), history of heavy alcohol use (more than 56 units per week for men/49 units per week for women), or a Read-code entry in their medical records indicating an alcohol problem.
(3)
Medical diagnoses: diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), or atrial fibrillation at any time prior to baseline. Current (in 12 months prior to baseline) depression diagnosis/treatment with antidepressant medication, anxiety diagnosis/treatment with anxiolytic medication.
(4)
Prescription medication: As listed in (3) and anti-hypertensive drugs, hypnotic medication, statins, aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were identified as exposed to medications if they had received at least two consecutive prescriptions in the 12 months before baseline.
Analysis
For both the development and validation cohort studies the study population was divided into two groups: those aged 60–79 years and aged 80–95 at baseline. At age 80 years, a sharp increased risk of dementia has previously been found [19], and in our population there were differences in the distribution of risk factors and their associations with dementia in those aged 60–79 years and older individuals. We considered additional stratification by sex but age-adjusted risk factor associations with dementia in men and women were similar, justifying combining both sexes in a single model. Separate model development was carried out for the two age groups in the development cohort and separate validation and calibration was performed for each age group in the validation cohort. Analyses were performed using Stata version 12.1.
Sample size calculation
We conservatively estimated that 20 events were required per coefficient to fit a risk model based on studies evaluating the relationship between the number of events and the performance of a risk prediction model, which have shown that 15 events at least may be required to achieve a satisfactory level of model calibration [33]. There were a total of 25 coefficients for all the predictors initially considered, corresponding to 500 dementia events needed. Applying an inflation factor to adjust for clustering within practices of 10.741 for the 60–79 years age model (based on intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.00117, estimated from the data, and a mean cluster size of 2,122 people aged 60–79 years per practice), corresponded to a total of 500 × 10.741 = 5,371 dementia events. For the 80–95 years model, the inflation factor was 10.915 (based on intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.00863 and a mean cluster size of 346 people aged 80–95 years per practice), which corresponded to a total of 500 × 10.915 = 5,458 dementia events.
Missing data imputation
We used the two-fold Fully Conditional Specification algorithm method for multiple imputation of longitudinal clinical datasets to impute missing data for both fixed (smoking and height) and time-varying variables (total cholesterol and HDL cholesterol, SBP and weight) in both the development and validation cohorts [34]. This algorithm is an efficient way to use the full longitudinal patient record rather than just the baseline measurements to inform the imputation. Missing data in the validation cohort was imputed separately from that in the development cohort. The remaining variables were complete. The imputation model included all variables in the analysis model, plus the outcome and cumulative hazard function. In the backwards elimination process, the variables were included in the final model if retained in 7 out of 10 imputed datasets to avoid over-selection of the variables [35].
Development cohort: model development
For each age group (60–79 years and 80–95 years), we derived the dementia risk score using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with robust standard errors to account for clustering of individuals within general practices. The assumption of proportional hazards was checked using plots of the log cumulative hazard function and Schoenfeld residuals. Continuous variables were centred and the assumption of a linear relationship was assessed using fractional polynomials, visual checks by plotting graphs of the log hazard ratio by increasing category of the continuous variable, and by inclusion of squared and cubic terms in the Cox models; transformations were made when linear relationships were not confirmed.
All variables were included in the full model prior to backwards elimination. We used backwards elimination to determine which variables should be retained, using the Akaike Information Criteria. After the elimination process we considered the interaction terms systolic blood pressure*anti-hypertensive medication and lipid ratio*statin prescriptions. Interactions were retained if significant and clinically meaningful.
Anzeige
Validation cohort: validation and calibration
For each age group, the model developed using the development cohort was applied to the validation cohort, to assess performance. We assessed the discriminative performance of the dementia risk models by computing the Uno’s C [36] and Royston’s D [37] statistics for the validation cohort. Uno’s C and Royston’s D statistics were chosen as they have been shown to be less biased in the presence of censored data than other discriminative statistics [36, 37]. Each validation statistic was estimated separately for each imputed validation dataset, and then combined using Rubin’s rules to obtain an overall validation statistic. For Uno’s C statistic we calculated confidence intervals from bootstrapping. A random sub-sample of 15 % of the validation cohort was used as the vast size of the dataset made computation of bootstrap confidence intervals for the full sample unfeasible. We assessed calibration by comparing the observed and predicted dementia risk in the validation cohort per decile of predicted risk, and computing the calibration slope. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) using a range of potential risk thresholds, to explore the clinical utility of the risk algorithms.
Results
Development cohort study
We identified 930,395 eligible patients aged 60–95 years in 377 practices in the development cohort study, of which 800,013 were aged 60–79 years and 130,382 aged 80–95 years at baseline (Fig. 1).
Development cohort aged 60–79 years
Baseline characteristics
There were 413,974 (52 %) women in the 60–79 years development cohort, the mean age at baseline was 65.6 years (SD 6.1 years; Table 1). Missing data on health measurements are detailed in Additional file 1: Table A.1, with characteristics after multiple imputation in Table A.2.
Table 1
Characteristics of development and validation cohorts for those aged 60–79 years (before multiple imputation)
Development cohort n = 800,013 Median follow-up 5 years (IQR, 3.15–5 years) Dementia events n = 6,017
Validation cohort n = 226,140 Median follow-up 5 years (IQR, 3.27–5 years) Dementia events n = 1,699
Obs
Mean
SD
Obs
Mean
SD
Baseline age, years
800,013
65.6
6.08
226,140
65.6
6.11
Baseline total cholesterol, mmol/L
242,045
5.21
1.13
64,832
5.25
1.13
Baseline HDL cholesterol, mmol/L
167,937
1.42
0.41
45,682
1.42
0.42
Baseline weight, kg
226,671
79.2
16.9
59,594
79.1
16.8
Baseline systolic blood pressure, mmHg
452,306
142.4
17.0
125,744
142.7
17.1
Height, m
553,195
1.67
0.10
159,136
1.67
0.10
Baseline BMI, kg/m2
193,524
28.5
5.44
51,590
28.4
5.36
Baseline lipid ratio
166,420
3.88
1.17
45,352
3.91
1.17
Obs
Freq
%
Obs
Freq
%
Sex
800,013
226,140
Men
386,039
48.3
109,108
48.3
Women
413,974
51.8
117,032
51.8
Local area deprivation score (quintiles)
800,013
226,140
1 (=least deprived)
218,198
27.3
71,040
31.4
2
194,637
24.3
57,763
25.5
3
166,956
20.9
42,278
18.7
4
134,103
16.8
33,945
15.0
5 (=most deprived)
86,119
10.8
21,114
9.3
Baseline smoking status
756,115
213,419
Never
323,345
42.8
96,256
45.1
Past
286,763
37.9
78,608
36.8
Current
146,007
19.3
38,555
18.1
History of very heavy drinking/alcohol problem
800,013
22,308
2.8
226,140
6,011
2.7
History of diabetes
800,013
70,377
8.8
226,140
18,662
8.3
History of coronary heart disease
800,013
93,408
11.7
226,140
26,016
11.5
History of stroke or transient ischemic attack
800,013
38,976
4.9
226,140
10,930
4.8
History of atrial fibrillation
800,013
24,763
3.1
226,140
7,085
3.1
Depression or use of anti-depressants at baseline
800,013
83,464
10.4
226,140
23,583
10.4
Anxiety or use of anxiolytics at baseline
800,013
29,690
3.7
226,140
8,549
3.8
Use of anti-hypertensive drugs at baseline
800,013
274,657
34.3
226,140
75,359
33.3
Use of statins at baseline
800,013
151,275
18.9
226,140
39,738
17.6
Use of hypnotics at baseline
800,013
30,787
3.9
226,140
8,736
3.9
Use of NSAIDs (other than aspirin) at baseline
800,013
98,397
12.3
226,140
27,546
12.2
Use of aspirin at baseline
800,013
127,550
15.9
226,140
34,756
15.4
Incidence of dementia
In the development cohort there were 6,017 new diagnoses in 800,013 individuals with 3,205,190 Person Years at Risk (PYAR), corresponding to a crude overall incidence of dementia of 1.88/1000 PYAR (95 % CI, 1.83–1.93) for 60–79 year olds. This included 1,831 newly recorded diagnoses of Alzheimer’s dementia, 1,308 of vascular dementia and 2,878 of unspecified or mixed dementia during follow-up.
Associations of risk factors with new GP recorded dementia diagnoses within 5 years
Newly recorded dementia diagnoses were associated with increasing age, female sex, calendar year, and living in a deprived area (Additional file 1: Table A.3). There were positive associations with current smoking, hazardous/harmful alcohol drinking, and history of stroke/TIA, diabetes, CHD, atrial fibrillation, or current depression/anti-depressant drug, anxiety/anxiolytic drug, hypnotic drug, and aspirin use. There were no significant associations with NSAIDs (excluding aspirin) and anti-hypertensive drugs. There was a small negative association with both BMI and systolic blood pressure.
Selection of variables for risk model
Following backwards elimination, age, sex, deprivation, calendar year, BMI, current anti-hypertensive use, smoking status, hazardous/harmful alcohol drinking, current depression, current aspirin use, and history of diabetes, stroke, TIA and atrial fibrillation were all retained in the model (Table 2). Because statin use, lipid ratio, and SBP were all eliminated in the backwards elimination, interaction terms for statin use*lipid ratio and anti-hypertensive use*SBP were not considered.
Table 2
Final dementia risk model for cohort aged 60–79 years after backwards elimination (from development cohort)
Coefficienta
95 % CI
HRa
95 % CI
Age, per year increase
0.209
0.200 to 0.219
1.23
1.22 to 1.25
Age2, per unit increase
−0.003
−0.004 to −0.003
0.997
0.996 to 0.997
Gender (female vs. male)
0.129
0.074 to 0.183
1.14
1.08 to 1.20
Calendar year, per year increase
0.045
0.035 to 0.054
1.05
1.04 to 1.06
Local area deprivation score (quintile)
1 (=least deprived)
0
1
2
0.013
−0.063 to 0.090
1.01
0.94 to 1.09
3
0.118
0.041 to 0.194
1.13
1.04 to 1.22
4
0.202
0.123 to 0.280
1.22
1.13 to 1.32
5 (=most deprived)
0.226
0.138 to 0.314
1.25
1.15 to 1.37
BMI (kg/m2), per unit increase
−0.062
−0.069 to −0.054
0.94
0.93 to 0.95
BMI2, per unit increase
0.003
0.002 to 0.003
1.003
1.002 to 1.003
Current anti-hypertensive use (yes vs. no)
−0.132
−0.190 to −0.074
0.88
0.83 to 0.93
Smoking status
Never
0
1
Past
−0.068
−0.127 to −0.009
0.93
0.88 to 0.99
Current
−0.087
−0.168 to −0.005
0.92
0.85 to 1.00
History of alcohol problem (yes vs. no)
0.444
0.287 to 0.600
1.56
1.33 to 1.82
History of diabetes (yes vs. no)
0.287
0.205 to 0.368
1.33
1.23 to 1.45
Current depression/use of anti-depressants (yes vs. no)
0.834
0.770 to 0.897
2.30
2.16 to 2.45
History of stroke or transient ischemic attack (yes vs. no)
0.577
0.500 to 0.654
1.78
1.65 to 1.92
History of atrial fibrillation (yes vs. no)
0.221
0.120 to 0.322
1.25
1.13 to 1.38
Current aspirin use (yes vs. no)
0.253
0.189 to 0.316
1.29
1.21 to 1.37
aCoefficients and hazard ratios (HRs) are obtained by building Cox models separately within each of the 10 imputation datasets and then combining the results using Rubin’s rules. Baseline 5-year survival function, So(5) = 0.9969
Age2 = age-squared i.e. the hazard ratio corresponds to the relative increase in hazard per unit increase in the quadratic function of age
Development cohort aged 80–95 years
Baseline characteristics
There were 86,096 (66 %) women in the 80–95 years development cohort, with a mean age at baseline of 85 years (SD 3.9 years; Table 3). Missing data on health measurements are reported in Additional file 1: Table A.1. Characteristics after multiple imputation are reported in Table A.4.
Table 3
Characteristics of development and validation cohorts for those aged 80–95 years (before imputation)
Development cohort n = 130,382 Median follow-up 3.76 years
(IQR, 1.71–5 years) Dementia events n = 7,104
Validation cohort n = 38,084 Median follow-up 3.92 years
(IQR, 1.75–5 years) Dementia events n = 1,923
Obs
Mean
SD
Obs
Mean
SD
Baseline age, years
130,382
84.8
3.93
38,084
84.9
3.97
Baseline total cholesterol, mmol/L
26,841
4.99
1.19
6,785
5.08
1.21
Baseline HDL cholesterol, mmol/L
16,630
1.50
0.44
4,066
1.49
0.44
Baseline weight, kg
31,272
67.1
14.0
8,038
67.2
13.8
Baseline systolic blood pressure, mmHg
78,979
146.9
19.8
22,347
147.5
19.8
Height, m
62,622
1.62
0.10
17,616
1.62
0.10
Baseline BMI, kg/m2
24,091
25.7
4.65
6,213
25.7
4.53
Baseline lipid ratio
16,566
3.49
1.10
4,054
3.57
1.13
Obs
Freq
%
Obs
Freq
%
Sex
130,382
38,084
Men
44,286
34.0
13,017
34.2
Women
86,096
66.0
25,067
65.8
Local area deprivation score (quintiles)
130,382
38,084
1 (=least deprived)
26,643
20.4
10,048
26.4
2
30,143
23.1
9,307
24.4
3
28,970
22.2
7,830
20.6
4
26,758
20.5
6,644
17.5
5 (=most deprived)
17,868
13.7
4,255
11.2
Baseline smoking status
113,391
32,702
Never
63,684
56.2
19,389
59.3
Past
39,778
35.1
10,697
32.7
Current
9,929
8.8
2,616
8.0
History of very heavy drinking/alcohol problem
130,382
921
0.7
38,084
250
0.7
History of diabetes
130,382
12,762
9.8
38,084
3,331
8.8
History of coronary heart disease
130,382
28,190
21.6
38,084
8,281
21.7
History of stroke or transient ischemic attack
130,382
20,221
15.5
38,084
5,824
15.3
History of atrial fibrillation
130,382
14,518
11.1
38,084
4,293
11.3
Depression or use of anti-depressants at baseline
130,382
17,201
13.2
38,084
4,886
12.8
Anxiety or use of anxiolytics at baseline
130,382
5,953
4.6
38,084
1,816
4.8
Use of anti-hypertensive drugs at baseline
130,382
58,323
44.7
38,084
16,396
43.1
Use of statins at baseline
130,382
16,546
12.7
38,084
4,111
10.8
Use of hypnotics at baseline
130,382
14,121
10.8
38,084
4,137
10.9
Use of NSAIDs (other than aspirin) at baseline
130,382
15,056
11.6
38,084
4,430
11.6
Use of aspirin at baseline
130,382
41,448
31.8
38,084
11,830
31.1
Incidence of dementia
In the 80–95 years development cohort there were 1,483 newly recorded diagnoses of Alzheimer’s dementia, 1,331 of vascular dementia, and 4,290 of unspecified or mixed dementia during follow-up. In total, there were 7,104 new diagnoses in 429, 670 PYAR, corresponding to a crude incidence of dementia of 16.53/1000 PYAR (95 % CI, 16.15–16.92) for those aged 80–95 years at baseline.
Associations of risk factors with new GP recorded dementia diagnosis within 5 years
New dementia diagnoses were associated with increasing age and female sex (Additional file 1: Table A.3). There were positive associations with history of stroke/TIA, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, statin prescriptions, hazardous/harmful alcohol drinking, current depression/anti-depressant drugs, anxiety/anxiolytic drugs, hypnotic drugs and aspirin use. There were no significant associations with living in a deprived area, CHD, and total cholesterol/HDL ratio. There was a small negative association with current smoking, BMI, systolic blood pressure, anti-hypertensive drugs, and NSAIDs (excluding aspirin).
Selection of variables for risk model
Following backwards elimination, age, sex, calendar year, BMI, current anti-hypertensive use, SBP, lipid ratio, smoking status, hazardous/harmful alcohol drinking, current depression/anti-depressants, current anxiety/anxiolytics, current aspirin use, current other NSAID use, and history of diabetes, stroke, or TIA and atrial fibrillation were all retained in the model (Table 4). As statin use was excluded, the interaction term statin use*lipid ratio was not considered. An interaction term for SBP*anti-hypertensive use was considered, but was not statistically significant (P = 0.6) and therefore was not included.
Table 4
Final dementia risk model for cohort aged 80–95 years after backwards elimination (development cohort)
Coefficienta
95 % CI
HRa
95 % CI
Age, per year increase
0.055
0.047 to 0.062
1.06
1.05 to 1.06
Age2, per unit increase
−0.005
−0.007 to −0.004
0.995
0.993 to 0.996
Gender (female v male)
0.160
0.104 to 0.216
1.17
1.11 to 1.24
Calendar year, per year increase
0.074
0.063 to 0.084
1.08
1.07 to 1.09
BMI (kg/m2), per unit increase
−0.050
−0.063 to-0.036
0.95
0.94 to 0.96
Current anti-hypertensive use (yes vs. no)
−0.249
−0.301 to −0.197
0.78
0.74 to 0.82
Systolic blood pressure (mmHg), per unit increase
−0.006
−0.008 to −0.005
0.994
0.992 to 0.995
Lipid ratio (per unit increase)
0.042
−0.055 to 0.138
1.04
0.95 to 1.15
Smoking status
Never
0
1
Past
−0.178
−0.233 to −0.122
0.84
0.79 to 0.89
Current
−0.134
−0.229 to −0.039
0.88
0.80 to 0.96
History of alcohol problem (yes vs. no)
0.256
−0.009 to 0.521
1.29
0.99 to 1.68
History of diabetes (yes vs. no)
0.183
0.102 to 0.264
1.20
1.11 to 1.30
History of stroke or transient ischemic attack (yes vs. no)
0.242
0.177 to 0.306
1.27
1.19 to 1.36
History of atrial fibrillation (yes vs. no)
0.057
−0.018 to 0.132
1.06
0.98 to 1.14
Current depression/use of anti-depressants (yes vs. no)
0.400
0.335 to 0.465
1.49
1.40 to 1.59
Current anxiety/use of anxiolytics (yes vs. no)
0.136
0.034 to 0.237
1.15
1.04 to 1.27
Current NSAID use, excluding aspirin (yes vs. no)
−0.157
−0.237 to −0.078
0.86
0.79 to 0.93
Current aspirin use (yes vs. no)
0.092
0.037 to 0.147
1.10
1.04 to 1.16
aCoefficients and hazard ratios (HRs) are obtained by building Cox models separately within each of the 10 imputation datasets and then combining the results using Rubin’s rules. Baseline 5 year survival function, So(5) = −0.9277
Age2 = age-squared i.e. the hazard ratio corresponds to the relative increase in hazard per unit increase in the quadratic function of age
Validation cohort study
We identified 264,224 eligible patients aged 60–95 years in 95 practices for the validation cohort, of which 226,140 were aged 60–79 years and 38,084 were aged 80–95 years at baseline (Additional file 1: Figure A.1).
Validation cohort aged 60–79 years
Baseline characteristics/incidence of dementia
The characteristics of the validation cohort were similar to the development cohort (Table 1). Missing data on health measurements are reported in Additional file 1: Table A.1, with characteristics after multiple imputation in Table A.2. Incidence rates for dementia were similar to those in the development cohort, with 1,699 new diagnoses in 226,140 individuals with 915,380 PYAR, corresponding to a crude overall incidence of dementia of 1.86/1000 PYAR (95 % CI, 1.77–1.95) for 60–79 year olds. This included 528 newly recorded diagnoses of Alzheimer’s dementia, 384 of vascular dementia, and 787 of unspecified or mixed dementia during follow-up.
Discrimination and calibration
The model performed well in terms of discrimination, with a Royston’s D statistic of 2.03 (95 % CI, 1.95–2.11) and Uno’s C index 0.84 (95 % CI, 0.81–0.87). The calibration slope suggested good calibration (0.98, 95 % CI, 0.93–1.02).
Risk classification
Utilizing a range of possible cut-offs to indicate ‘high risk’ for dementia, the specificity of the risk algorithm was high but with lower sensitivity, and there was a high NPV, but a low PPV (Table 5). For example, if we chose a threshold to define high risk of 2 %, the specificity would be 85.15 %, sensitivity 58.36 %, PPV 2.89, and NPV 99.63. We include details of how to calculate the risk of dementia for a new patient in Additional file 1.
Table 5
Risk classification using the 60–79 years dementia risk algorithm when applied to validation cohort
Cut off for high risk
Sensitivity
Specificity
PPV
NPV
Patients classified as high risk, n (%)
Patients classified as high risk who develop dementia, n (%)
Patients classified as low risk, n (%)
Patients classified as low risk who develop dementia, n (%)
1 %
77.70
73.05
2.14
99.77
61,803 (27.33)
1,320 (2.14)
164,337 (72.67)
379 (0.23)
2 %
58.36
85.15
2.89
99.63
34,323 (15.18)
992 (2.89)
191,817 (84.82)
707 (0.37)
5 %
19.39
97.03
4.71
99.38
6,989 (3.09)
329 (4.71)
219,151 (96.91)
1,370 (0.62)
10 %
5.62
99.52
8.20
99.29
1,164 (0.51)
95 (8.2)
224,976 (99.49)
1,604 (0.71)
20 %
0.72
99.96
10.87
99.25
113 (0.05)
12 (10.87)
226,027 (99.95)
1,687 (0.75)
PPV, Positive predictive value; NPV, Negative predictive value
Validation cohort aged 80–95 years
Baseline characteristics/incidence of dementia
The characteristics of those aged 80–95 years in the validation cohort were similar to the development cohort (Table 3). Missing data on health measurements are reported in Additional file 1: Table A.1, with characteristics after multiple imputation in Table A.3. Incidence rates for dementia were similar to those in the development cohort, with 1,923 new diagnoses in 38,084 individuals with 127,510 PYAR, corresponding to a crude overall incidence of dementia of 15.08/1000 PYAR (95 % CI, 14.42–15.77) for 80–95 year olds. This included 408 newly recorded diagnoses of Alzheimer’s dementia, 364 of vascular dementia, and 1,151 of unspecified or mixed dementia during follow-up.
Discrimination and calibration
The model from the development cohort performed poorly in terms of discrimination (Royston’s D statistic 0.86, 95 % CI, 0.76–0.95 and Uno’s C index 0.56, 95 % CI, 0.55–0.58) and calibration (calibration slope 1.04, 95 % CI, 0.89–1.18) when applied to the validation cohort. As this model performed poorly we have not reported on risk classification.
Discussion
This study developed risk algorithms for predicting a new recorded dementia diagnosis in two age groups in primary care. In our validation study, the dementia risk algorithm developed for the 60–79 year old population performed well, but the algorithm for the older 80–95 years population did not. Our model is the first to be derived entirely from routinely collected health data, which can be calculated without collecting additional information from the patient. In people aged between 60–79 years, the dementia risk score included records of depression, stroke, high alcohol consumption, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, aspirin use, smoking, decreasing weight, and untreated blood pressure. Aspirin use may be a marker for underlying vascular risk. The directions of associations of some factors, such as weight and cholesterol, have been shown to change in later life with the onset of disability, frailty and cognitive decline and potential pre-clinical dementia [38, 39]. In our study, the ‘high risk’ population may include those with pre-clinical or undetected/recorded dementia, which may explain some of the associations observed with individual factors. Our algorithm uses routinely collected healthcare data to predict the risk of a GP recorded diagnosis within 5 years, and the profile of risk factors within the score is different to those aimed at identifying future risk, for example mid-life risk scores for dementia [40].
Anzeige
At a low threshold of 1 %, our risk algorithm had a sensitivity of 78 % and specificity of 73 %. With thresholds of 2 % or above, our risk algorithm had higher specificity (85 %) but a correspondingly lower sensitivity (58 %). In previous prediction models derived from cohort studies, models have generally had either high specificity with low sensitivity or vice versa [10, 11], and the choice of threshold will depend on the intended use.
Strengths and limitations
Our development cohort study included more than 900,000 older people from across the UK registered with THIN General Practices, with more than 13,000 new dementia events recorded. The findings are likely to be generalizable to the UK population, but may not be generalizable to other different healthcare settings. The data source includes longitudinal data on a wide range of potential risk factors, including demographic factors, lifestyle, heath status measurements, medical history/diagnoses, and drugs. We had power to consider a wide range of potentially important risk factors, in comparison to cohort studies with smaller samples [10‐20]. In those aged 60–79 years, we had good recording of data for most factors, and for missing data at baseline we used robust multiple imputation techniques utilizing the entire patient record, taking into account the longitudinal records rather than relying solely on baseline parameters.
Using routinely collected data to develop the risk algorithm has some inherent limitations. It may be less complete in terms of potential predictor variables than cohorts designed for research. The older cohort (80–95 years) had fewer routine measurements of health status such as BMI and lipid profile. The current validation applies to use of the risk score in the case where the GP has complete information on the factors in the model. There were low levels of missing data in some individuals on smoking status and BMI for those 60–79 years, which we imputed for our analysis. For all other factors in the final model, if missing, the factor was presumed to be absent.
Some potential risk factors, such as family history of dementia, physical activity or educational status, are poorly recorded in routine UK primary care and could not be included. Studies suggest that chronic and significant medical diagnoses entered in electronic records are likely to be accurate [25]. Other evidence suggests dementia is under-recorded in primary care [41]. Our incidence rates for dementia were lower than rates reported in studies using screening, particularly for those over 80 years [42]; however, there is some evidence that dementia prevalence is stabilizing more recently, despite population ageing [43], and our study is based on more contemporary data. This potential under-recording of dementia diagnoses in GP records may lead to an underestimation of the true predictive power of the risk score. In common with most risk models, we only accounted for baseline variables and for time-varying factors, exposure status may change during the follow-up period. Routinely collected data has the advantage of reflecting the data normally available to a clinician in practice.
Anzeige
Implications
We used routinely collected primary care data to derive a relatively simple new risk algorithm, predicting a new GP recorded dementia diagnosis within 5 years, which worked well in those aged 60–79 years, but not in older age groups. This supports the previous suggestion that given the steep rise in risk of dementia at 80 years, it would be reasonable to test for dementia beyond this point on the basis of age alone [19]. It is likely that risk scores using traditional risk factors will not perform well in this population, and a different approach might be needed to identify a higher risk group aged 80 or above using, for example, measures of frailty.
Our new dementia risk algorithm for 60–79 year olds can be added to clinical software systems and a practice could, for example, run this risk model on all eligible people and offer those at risk more detailed testing or specific preventive management. Using a range of thresholds, there was good specificity but lower sensitivity, and a very high NPV but a low PPV. This risk algorithm may be most helpful to ‘rule out’ those at low risk from dementia case finding programs. This might avoid unnecessary investigations and anxiety for those at very low risk and make these programs more cost-effective. The risk algorithm may enable the identification of ‘at risk’ groups to approach for future research studies. We report a range of thresholds to allow clinicians or researchers to select the threshold that gives the optimum balance of sensitivity and specificity for dementia risk, depending on the intended use.
Further research should be undertaken to explore the performance of the Dementia Risk Score in different settings and populations, including variations in performance in areas where the prevalence, detection, and recording of dementia by GPs is very low or very high. We also need to further understand how the tool might be used in practice, the ethical implications, and what the impact of this might be for older people, clinicians, and the potential costs for health services.
Conclusion
Routinely collected health data can predict five year risk of recorded diagnosis of dementia in primary care for individuals aged 60-79 years, but not for those aged 80 years or more. This risk score can be used to identify higher risk populations for dementia in primary care. The risk score has a high negative predictive value and may be most helpful in ‘ruling out’ those at very low risk from further testing.
Availability of data and materials
Codelists, Do-files to construct the Dementia Risk Score, and data are available from the corresponding author, Dr. Kate Walters.
Ethics
The NHS South-East Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee approved the scheme for THIN to provide anonymous patient data to researchers. Scientific approval for this study was obtained from THIN Scientific Review Committee in October 2012.
Acknowledgements
The “Predicting dementia risk in primary care: development and validation of a risk score using routinely collected data” study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), UK (http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding/school-for-primary-care-research.htm). RO was funded by the NIHR UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre. This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR, UK. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The funder has had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit for publication.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
KW and GR conceived the study, and developed the study design and protocol with contributions from all authors. SH extracted the data and undertook the analysis, supervised by KW, IP and RO, and overseen by all authors. All authors contributed to the data interpretation. KW drafted the paper and all authors contributed to revisions and approved the final version. KW is the guarantor for the study.
Bei Reizdarmsyndrom scheinen Diäten, wie etwa die FODMAP-arme oder die kohlenhydratreduzierte Ernährung, effektiver als eine medikamentöse Therapie zu sein. Das hat eine Studie aus Schweden ergeben, die die drei Therapieoptionen im direkten Vergleich analysierte.
Akuter Schwindel stellt oft eine diagnostische Herausforderung dar. Wie nützlich dabei eine MRT ist, hat eine Studie aus Finnland untersucht. Immerhin einer von sechs Patienten wurde mit akutem ischämischem Schlaganfall diagnostiziert.
Wenn unter einer medikamentösen Hochdrucktherapie der diastolische Blutdruck in den Keller geht, steigt das Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Ereignisse: Darauf deutet eine Sekundäranalyse der SPRINT-Studie hin.
Beginnen ältere Männer im Pflegeheim eine Antihypertensiva-Therapie, dann ist die Frakturrate in den folgenden 30 Tagen mehr als verdoppelt. Besonders häufig stürzen Demenzkranke und Männer, die erstmals Blutdrucksenker nehmen. Dafür spricht eine Analyse unter US-Veteranen.
Update Allgemeinmedizin
Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.
