A review of 15 randomized controlled trials in which people with mild to moderate dementia were offered mental stimulation has concluded that such stimulation does indeed help slow down cognitive decline.

In total, 718 people with mild to moderate dementia, of whom 407 received cognitive stimulation, were included in the meta-analysis. The studies included in the review were identified from a search of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, and included all randomized controlled trials of cognitive stimulation for dementia which incorporated a measure of cognitive change.

Participants were generally treated in small groups and activities ranged from discussions and word games to music and baking. Treatment was compared to those seen without treatment, with "standard treatments" (such as medicine, day care or visits from community mental health workers), or with alternative activities such as watching TV and physical therapy.

There was a “clear, consistent benefit” on cognitive function for those receiving cognitive stimulation, and these benefits were still seen one to three months after the treatment. Benefits were also seen for social interaction, communication and quality of life and well-being.

While no evidence was found for improvements in the mood of participants, or their ability to care for themselves or function independently, or in problem behaviors, this is not to say that lengthier or more frequent interventions might not be beneficial in these areas (that’s purely my own suggestion).

In one study, family members were trained to deliver cognitive stimulation on a one-to-one basis, and the reviewers suggested that this was an approach deserving of further attention.

The reviewers did note that the quality of the studies was variable, with small sample sizes. It should also be noted that this review builds on an earlier review, involving a subset of these studies, in which the opposite conclusion was drawn — that is, at that time, there was insufficient evidence that such interventions helped people with dementia. There is no doubt that larger and lengthier trials are needed, but these new results are very promising.

Another study adds to the evidence that changes in the brain that may lead eventually to Alzheimer’s begin many years before Alzheimer’s is diagnosed. The findings also add to the evidence that what we regard as “normal” age-related cognitive decline is really one end of a continuum of which the other end is dementia.

In the study, brain scans were taken of 137 highly educated people aged 30-89 (participants in the Dallas Lifespan Brain Study). The amount of amyloid-beta (characteristic of Alzheimer’s) was found to increase with age, and around a fifth of those over 60 had significantly elevated levels of the protein. These higher amounts were linked with worse performance on tests of working memory, reasoning and processing speed.

More specifically, across the whole sample, amyloid-beta levels affected processing speed and fluid intelligence (in a dose-dependent relationship — that is, as levels increased, these functions became more impaired), but not working memory, episodic memory, or crystallized intelligence. Among the elevated-levels group, increased amyloid-beta was significantly associated with poorer performance for processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence, but not episodic memory or crystallized intelligence. Among the group without elevated levels of the protein, increasing amyloid-beta only affected fluid intelligence.

These task differences aren’t surprising: processing speed, working memory, and fluid intelligence are the domains that show the most decline in normal aging.

Those with the Alzheimer’s gene APOE4 were significantly more likely to have elevated levels of amyloid-beta. While 38% of the group with high levels of the protein had the risky gene variant, only 15% of those who didn’t have high levels carried the gene.

Note that, while the prevalence of carriers of the gene variant matched population estimates (24%), the proportion was higher among those in the younger age group — 33% of those under 60, compared to 19.5% of those aged 60 or older. It seems likely that many older carriers have already developed MCI or Alzheimer’s, and thus been ineligible for the study.

The average age of the participants was 64, and the average years of education 16.4.

Amyloid deposits varied as a function of age and region: the precuneus, temporal cortex, anterior cingulate and posterior cingulate showed the greatest increase with age, while the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, parietal and occipital cortices showed smaller increases with age. However, when only those aged 60+ were analyzed, the effect of age was no longer significant. This is consistent with previous research, and adds to evidence that age-related cognitive impairment, including Alzheimer’s, has its roots in damage occurring earlier in life.

In another study, brain scans of 408 participants in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging also found that higher levels of amyloid-beta were associated with poorer cognitive performance — but that this interacted with APOE status. Specifically, carriers of the Alzheimer’s gene variant were significantly more affected by having higher levels of the protein.

This may explain the inconsistent findings of previous research concerning whether or not amyloid-beta has significant effects on cognition in normal adults.

As the researchers of the first study point out, what’s needed is information on the long-term course of these brain changes, and they are planning to follow these participants.

In the meantime, all in all, the findings do provide more strength to the argument that your lifestyle in mid-life (and perhaps even younger) may have long-term consequences for your brain in old age — particularly for those with a genetic susceptibility to Alzheimer’s.

A small study of the sleep patterns of 100 people aged 45-80 has found a link between sleep disruption and level of amyloid plaques (characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease). The participants were recruited from the Adult Children Study, of whom half have a family history of Alzheimer’s disease.

Sleep was monitored for two weeks. Those who woke frequently (more than five times an hour!) and those who spent less than 85% of their time in bed actually asleep, were more likely to have amyloid plaques. A quarter of the participants had evidence of amyloid plaques.

The study doesn’t tell us whether disrupted sleep leads to the production of amyloid plaques, or whether brain changes in early Alzheimer's disease lead to changes in sleep, but evidence from other studies do, I think, give some weight to the first idea. At the least, this adds yet another reason for making an effort to improve your sleep!

The abstract for this not-yet-given conference presentation, or the press release, don’t mention any differences between those with a family history of Alzheimer’s and those without, suggesting there was none — but since the researchers made no mention either way, I wouldn’t take that for granted. Hopefully we’ll one day see a journal paper providing more information.

The main findings are supported by another recent study. A Polish study involving 150 older adults found that those diagnosed with Alzheimer’s after a seven-year observation period were more likely to have experienced sleep disturbances more often and with greater intensity, compared to those who did not develop Alzheimer’s.

New data from the ongoing validation study of the Alzheimer's Questionnaire (AQ), from 51 cognitively normal individuals (average age 78) and 47 aMCI individuals (average age 74), has found that the AQ is effective in identifying not only those with Alzheimer’s but also those older adults with mild cognitive impairment.

Of particular interest is that four questions were strong indicators of aMCI. These related to:

• repeating questions and statements,
• trouble knowing the date or time,
• difficulties managing finances, and
• decreased sense of direction.

The AQ consists of 21 yes/no questions designed to be answered by a relative or carer. The questions fall into five categories: memory, orientation, functional ability, visuospatial ability, and language. Six of these questions are known to be predictive of AD and are given extra weighting, resulting in a score out of 27. A score above 15 was indicative of AD, and between 5 and 14 of aMCI. Scores of 4 or lower indicate that the person does not have significant memory problems.

The questionnaire is not of course definitive, but is intended as an indicator for further testing. Note, too, that all participants in this study were Caucasian.

The value and limitations of brief cognitive screenings

The value of brief cognitive screenings combined with offering further evaluation is demonstrated in a recent large VA study, which found that, of 8,342 Veterans aged 70+ who were offered screening (the three-minute Mini-Cog), 8,063 (97%) accepted, 2,081 (26%) failed the screen, and 580 (28%) agreed to further evaluation. Among those accepting further evaluation, 93% were found to have cognitive impairment, including 75% with dementia.

Among those who declined further evaluation, 17% (259/1,501) were diagnosed with incident cognitive impairment through standard clinical care. In total, the use of brief cognitive screenings increased the numbers with cognitive impairment to 11% (902/8,063) versus 4% (1,242/28,349) in similar clinics without this program.

Importantly, the limits of such questionnaires were also demonstrated: 118 patients who passed the initial screen nevertheless requested further evaluation, and 87% were found to have cognitive impairment, including 70% with dementia.

This should not be taken as a reason not to employ such cognitive tests! There are two points that should, I think, be taken from this:

• Routine screening of older adults is undoubtedly an effective strategy for identifying those with cognitive impairment.
• Individuals who pass such tests but nevertheless believe they have cognitive problems should be taken seriously.

I have reported often on studies pointing to obesity as increasing your risk of developing dementia, and on the smaller evidence that calorie restriction may help fight age-related cognitive decline and dementia (and help you live longer). A new mouse study helps explain why eating less might help the brain.

It turns out that a molecule called CREB-1 is triggered by calorie restriction (defined as only 70% of normal consumption). cAMP Response Element Binding (CREB) protein is an essential component of long-term memory formation, and abnormalities in the expression of CREB have been reported in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. Restoring CREB to Alzheimer’s mice has been shown to improve learning and memory impairment.

Animal models have also indicated a role for CREB in the improvements in learning and memory brought about by physical exercise. CREB seems to be vital for adult neurogenesis.

The current study found that, when CREB1 was missing (in mice genetically engineered to lack this molecule), calorie restriction had no cognitive benefits. CREB deficiency in turn drastically reduced the expression of Sirt-1. These proteins have been implicated in cardiac function, DNA repair and genomic stability (hence the connection to longevity). More recently, Sirt-1 has also been found to modulate synaptic plasticity and memory formation — an effect mediated by CREB. This role in regulating normal brain function appears to be quite separate from its cell survival functions.

The findings identify a target for drugs that could produce the same cognitive (and longevity) benefits without the need for such strict food reduction.

Reducing your eating and drinking to 70% of normal intake is a severe reduction. Recently, researchers at the National Institute on Ageing in Baltimore have suggested that the best way to cut calories to achieve cognitive benefits was to virtually fast (down to around 500 calories) for two days a week, while eating as much as you want on the other days. Their animal experiments indicate that timing is a crucial element if cognitive benefits are to accrue.

Another preliminary report, this time from the long-running Mayo Clinic study of aging, adds to the evidence that lower consumption reduces the risk of serious cognitive impairment. The first analysis of data has revealed that the risk of developing mild cognitive impairment more than doubled for those in the highest food consumption group (daily calorie consumption between 2,143 and 6,000) compared to those in the lowest (between 600 and 1,526 calories).

Calorie consumption was taken from food questionnaires in which respondents described their diets over the previous year, so must be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, the analysis didn’t take into account types of food and beverages, or other lifestyle factors, such as exercise. Further analysis will investigate these matters in more depth.

The study involved 1,233 older adults, aged 70 to 89. Of these, 163 were found to have MCI.

None of this should be taken as a recommendation for severely restricting your diet. Certainly such behavior should not be undertaken without the approval of your doctor, but in any case, calorie restriction is only part of a much more complex issue concerning diet. I look forward to hearing more from the Mayo Clinic study regarding types of foods and interacting factors.