Objective Previous observational studies reported beneficial effects of the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) on cognitive function, but results were inconsistent. We assessed the effect on cognition of a nutritional intervention using MedDiets in comparison with a low-fat control diet. Methods We assessed 522 participants at high vascular risk (44.6% men, age 74.6 ± 5.7 years at cognitive evaluation) enrolled in a multicentre, randomised, primary prevention trial (PREDIMED), after a nutritional intervention comparing two MedDiets (supplemented with either extra-virgin olive oil (EVOO) or mixed nuts) versus a low-fat control diet. Global cognitive performance was examined by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) after 6.5 years of nutritional intervention. Researchers who assessed the outcome were blinded to group assignment. We used general linear models to control for potential confounding. Results After adjustment for sex, age, education, Apolipoprotein E genotype, family history of cognitive impairment/dementia, smoking, physical activity, body mass index, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, alcohol and total energy intake, participants allocated to the MedDiet+EVOO showed higher mean MMSE and CDT scores with significant differences versus control (adjusted differences: +0.62 95% CI +0.18 to +1.05, p=0.005 for MMSE, and +0.51 95% CI +0.20 to +0.82, p=0.001 for CDT). The adjusted means of MMSE and CDT scores were also higher for participants allocated to the MedDiet+Nuts versus control (adjusted differences: +0.57 (95% CI +0.11 to +1.03), p=0.015 for MMSE and +0.33 (95% CI +0.003 to +0.67), p=0.048 for CDT). These results did not differ after controlling for incident depression. Conclusions An intervention with MedDiets enhanced with either EVOO or nuts appears to improve cognition compared with a low-fat diet. ISRCTN:35739639

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/84/12/1318.full.pdf

Mediterranean diet improves cognition: the PREDIMED-NAVARRA randomised trial

Background
The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.

Objectives
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.

Search methods
We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.

Selection criteria
We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.

Data collection and analysis
At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.

Main results
We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.

The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.

Authors' conclusions
The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.

/pdf/mini-mental-state-examination-mmse-for-the-detection-of-2hf8fes1sc.pdf

Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a cognitive-motor program in patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) who are treated with a cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI). Methods: Patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (12), mild AD (48), and moderate AD (24) (Global Deterioration Scale stages 3, 4, and 5) were randomized to receive psychosocial support plus cognitive-motor intervention (experimental group) or psychosocial support alone (control group). Cognitive-motor intervention (CMI) consisted of a 1-year structured program of 103 sessions of cognitive exercises, plus social and psychomotor activities. The primary efficacy measure was the cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog). Secondary efficacy measures were the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Functional Activities Questionnaire, and the Geriatric Depression Scale. Evaluations were conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months by blinded evaluators. Results: Patients in the CMI group maintained cognitive status at month 6, whereas patients in the control group had significantly declined at that time. Cognitive response was higher in the patients with fewer years of formal education. In addition, more patients in the experimental group maintained or improved their affective status at month 12 (experimental group, 75%; control group, 47%; p = 0.017). Conclusions: A long-term CMI in ChEI-treated early Alzheimer disease patients produced additional mood and cognitive benefits.

Benefits of cognitive-motor intervention in MCI and mild to moderate Alzheimer disease

XXXto assess the effect on cognition of a controlled intervention testing Mediterranean diets (MedDiet). XXXrandomized trial after 6.5 years of nutritional intervention. Eight primary care centers affiliated to the University of Navarra. A random subsample of 285 participants (95 randomly allocated to each of 3 groups) of the PREDIMED-NAVARRA trial. All of them were at high vascular risk (44.8% men, 74.1± 5.7 years at cognitive evaluation). Nutritional intervention comparing two MedDiets (supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil [EVOO] or mixed nuts) versus a low-fat control diet. Participants received intensive education to increase adherence to the intended intervention. Participants allocated to the MedDiet groups received EVOO (1 l/week) or 30 g/day of mixed nuts. Dietary habits were evaluated using a validated 137-item food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Additionally, adherence to MedDiet was appraised using a 14-item questionnaire both at baseline and yearly thereafter. XXXcognitive performance as a main outcome and cognitive status (normal, mild cognitive impairment [MCI] or dementia) as a secondary outcome were evaluated by two neurologists blinded to group assignment after 6.5 years of nutritional intervention. Better post-trial cognitive performance versus control in all cognitive domains and significantly better performance across fluency and memory tasks were observed for participants allocated to the MedDiet+EVOO group. After adjustment for sex, age, education, apolipoprotein E genotype, family history of cognitive impairment/dementia, smoking, physical activity, body mass index, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, diabetes, alcohol and total energy intake, this group also showed lower MCI (OR=0.34 95% CI: 0.12–0.97) compared with control group. Participants assigned to MedDiet+Nuts group did not differ from controls. A long-term intervention with an EVOO-rich MedDiet resulted in a better cognitive function in comparison with a control diet. However, non-significant differences were found for most cognitive domains. Participants allocated to an EVOO-rich MedDiet had less MCI than controls.

Virgin olive oil supplementation and long-term cognition: the PREDIMED-NAVARRA randomized, trial.

https://www.test-barcelona.com/es/component/attachments/download/29.html

Spanish Multicenter Normative Studies (NEURONORMA Project): Methods and Sample Characteristics

Clinical validity of the 'mini-mental state' for Spanish speaking communities.

Objective: Combined hyperlipidaemia is a common and highly atherogenic lipid phenotype with multiple lipoprotein abnormalities that are difficult to normalise with single-drug therapy. The ATOMIX multicentre, controlled clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and bezafibrate in patients with diet-resistant combined hyperlipidaemia.

https://repositorio.chlc.min-saude.pt/bitstream/10400.17/2135/1/Clin%20Drug%20Invest%202003%20153.pdf

José M. Sol

Papers

Clinical validity of the 'mini-mental state' for Spanish speaking communities.

Atorvastatin versus Bezafibrate in Mixed Hyperlipidaemia Randomised Clinical Trial of Efficacy and Safety (the ATOMIX Study)