-
1.
Association Between Blood Pressure Variability With Dementia and Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
de Heus, RAA, Tzourio, C, Lee, EJL, Opozda, M, Vincent, AD, Anstey, KJ, Hofman, A, Kario, K, Lattanzi, S, Launer, LJ, et al
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979). 2021;(5):1478-1489
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
[Figure: see text].
-
2.
Visual Impairment, Eye Diseases, and Dementia Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Kuźma, E, Littlejohns, TJ, Khawaja, AP, Llewellyn, DJ, Ukoumunne, OC, Thiem, U
Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2021;(3):1073-1087
Abstract
BACKGROUND Visual impairment and eye diseases have been associated with dementia, though with mixed findings and often in cross-sectional studies. OBJECTIVE To identify prospective studies investigating associations between visual impairment or common eye diseases and risk of all-cause dementia or key dementia subtypes. METHODS We searched Medline, PsycINFO, and Embase from inception to January 2020. We also conducted backward and forward citation searches of included studies and set up alerts to identify studies published after the search date. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine adjusted estimates across studies. RESULTS Thirty studies met our eligibility criteria. For visual impairment, pooled estimates indicated an increased risk of all-cause dementia (37,705 participants, 3,415 cases, risk ratio [RR] = 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-1.59, I2 = 28.6%). Pooled estimates also suggested an increased dementia risk associated with cataract (6,659 participants, 1,312 cases, hazard ratio [HR] = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.00-1.38, I2 = 0.0%) and diabetic retinopathy (43,658 participants, 7,060 cases, HR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11-1.61, I2 = 63.9%), respectively. There was no evidence of an association between glaucoma (175,357 participants, 44,144 cases, HR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.90-1.04, I2 = 51.5%) or age-related macular degeneration (7,800,692 participants, > 2,559 cases, HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.88-1.50, I2 = 91.0%) and risk of dementia, respectively. CONCLUSION As visual impairment, cataract, and diabetic retinopathy are associated with an increased likelihood of developing dementia, early diagnosis may help identify those at risk of dementia. Given most causes of visual impairment are treatable or preventable, the potential for dementia prevention warrants further investigation.
-
3.
Anticholinergic burden (prognostic factor) for prediction of dementia or cognitive decline in older adults with no known cognitive syndrome.
Taylor-Rowan, M, Edwards, S, Noel-Storr, AH, McCleery, J, Myint, PK, Soiza, R, Stewart, C, Loke, YK, Quinn, TJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;(5):CD013540
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the 'anticholinergic burden' because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for development of cognitive decline or dementia. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES To assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases from inception to 24 March 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies with a minimum of one year' follow-up that examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and GRADE assessment. We extracted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and linear data on the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive decline or dementia. We intended to pool each metric separately; however, only OR-based data were suitable for pooling via a random-effects meta-analysis. We initially established adjusted and unadjusted pooled rates for each available anticholinergic scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales. We examined variability based on severity of anticholinergic burden. MAIN RESULTS We identified 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria (968,428 older adults). Twenty studies were conducted in the community care setting, two in primary care clinics, and three in secondary care settings. Eight studies (320,906 participants) provided suitable data for meta-analysis. The Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale (ACB scale) was the only scale with sufficient data for 'scale-based' meta-analysis. Unadjusted ORs suggested an increased risk for cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with an anticholinergic burden (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96) and adjusted ORs similarly suggested an increased risk for anticholinergic burden, defined according to the ACB scale (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.29). Exploratory analysis combining adjusted ORs across available scales supported these results (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.38), and there was evidence of variability in risk based on severity of anticholinergic burden (ACB scale 1: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29; ACB scale 2: OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.56; ACB scale 3: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.61); however, overall GRADE evaluation of certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is low-certainty evidence that older adults without cognitive impairment who take medications with anticholinergic effects may be at increased risk of cognitive decline or dementia.
-
4.
Postmenopausal hormone therapy and Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and time-response meta-analysis.
Wu, M, Li, M, Yuan, J, Liang, S, Chen, Z, Ye, M, Ryan, PM, Clark, C, Tan, SC, Rahmani, J, et al
Pharmacological research. 2020;:104693
Abstract
Hormone therapy continues to be a favourable option in the management of menopausal symptomatology, but the associated risk-benefit ratios with respect to neurodegenerative diseases remain controversial. The study aim was to determine the relation between menopausal hormone therapy and Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and Parkinson's disease in human subjects. A literature search was performed in PubMed/Medline, Cochrane collaboration, and Scopus databases from onset of the database to September 2019. Random-effects model was used to estimate pooled odd ratio (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type and formulation of hormone. In addition, the time-response effect of this relationship was also assessed based on duration of hormone therapy. Associations between hormone therapy and Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and Parkinson's disease in menopausal women were reported in 28 studies. Pooled results with random effect model showed a significant association between hormone therapy and Alzheimer's disease (OR 1.08, 95 % CI 1.03-1.14, I2: 69 %). This relationship was more pronounced in patients receiving the combined estrogen-progestogen formulation. Moreover, a significant non-linear time-response association between hormone therapy and Alzheimer's disease was also identified (Coef1 = 0.0477, p1<0.001; Coef2 = -0.0932, p2<0.001). Similarly, pooled analysis revealed a significant association between hormone therapy and all-cause dementia (OR 1.16, 95 % CI 1.02-1.31, I2: 19 %). Interestingly, no comparable relationship was uncovered between hormone therapy as a whole and Parkinson's disease (OR 1.14, 95 % CI 0.95-1.38, I2: 65 %); however, sub-group analysis revealed a significant relationship between the disease and progestogen (OR 3.41, 95 % CI 1.23-9.46) or combined estrogen-progestogen formulation use (OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.34-1.65). Indeed, this association was also found to be driven by duration of exposure (Coef1 = 0.0626, p1 = 0.04). This study reveals a significant direct relationship between the use of certain hormonal therapies and Alzheimer's disease, all-cause dementia, and Parkinson's disease in menopausal women. However, the association appears to shift in direct after five years in the context of Alzheimer's disease, adding further weight to the critical window or timing hypothesis of neurodegeneration and neuroprotection.
-
5.
Dietary Pattern, Diet Quality, and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies.
Liu, YH, Gao, X, Na, M, Kris-Etherton, PM, Mitchell, DC, Jensen, GL
Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2020;(1):151-168
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diet is an important lifestyle factor that may prevent or slow the onset and progression of neurodegeneration. Some, but not all, recent studies have suggested that adherence to a healthy dietary pattern may be associated with reduced risk of dementia. OBJECTIVE In this meta-analysis, we systematically examined the associations between overall dietary patterns, assessed a priori and a posteriori, and risk of dementia. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health databases from January 1, 1981 to September 11, 2019. Prospective studies published in English were included. Random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS Sixteen research articles were identified in the systematic review and 12 research articles including 66,930 participants were further included for the meta-analysis. Adherence to high diet quality or a healthy dietary pattern was significantly associated with lower risk of overall dementia (pooled risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.95; n = 12) and Alzheimer's disease (pooled risk ratio = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.79; n = 6) relative to those with low diet quality or an unhealthy dietary pattern. Subgroup analyses stratified by age, sex, follow-up duration, diet quality assessment approach, study location, and study quality generated similar results. CONCLUSION Adherence to a healthy dietary pattern was associated with lower risk of overall dementia. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to provide additional evidence about the role of a healthy diet on the development and progression of dementia.
-
6.
Memantine for dementia.
McShane, R, Westby, MJ, Roberts, E, Minakaran, N, Schneider, L, Farrimond, LE, Maayan, N, Ware, J, Debarros, J
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;(3):CD003154
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Memantine is a moderate affinity uncompetitive antagonist of glutamate NMDA receptors. It is licensed for use in moderate and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD); in the USA, it is also widely used off-label for mild AD. OBJECTIVES To determine efficacy and safety of memantine for people with dementia. To assess whether memantine adds benefit for people already taking cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs). SEARCH METHODS We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register of trials (http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois/) up to 25 March 2018. We examined clinical trials registries, press releases and posters of memantine manufacturers; and the web sites of the FDA, EMEA and NICE. We contacted authors and companies for missing information. SELECTION CRITERIA Double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, randomised trials of memantine in people with dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We pooled and analysed data from four clinical domains across different aetiologies and severities of dementia and for AD with agitation. We assessed the impact of study duration, severity and concomitant use of ChEIs. Consequently, we restricted analyses to the licensed dose (20 mg/day or 28 mg extended release) and data at six to seven months duration of follow-up, and analysed separately results for mild and moderate-to-severe AD.We transformed results for efficacy outcomes into the difference in points on particular outcome scales. MAIN RESULTS Across all types of dementia, data were available from almost 10,000 participants in 44 included trials, most of which were at low or unclear risk of bias. For nearly half the studies, relevant data were obtained from unpublished sources. The majority of trials (29 in 7885 participants) were conducted in people with AD.1. Moderate-to-severe AD (with or without concomitant ChEIs). High-certainty evidence from up to 14 studies in around 3700 participants consistently shows a small clinical benefit for memantine versus placebo: clinical global rating (CGR): 0.21 CIBIC+ points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.30); cognitive function (CF): 3.11 Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) points (95% CI 2.42 to 3.92); performance on activities of daily living (ADL): 1.09 ADL19 points (95% CI 0.62 to 1.64); and behaviour and mood (BM): 1.84 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points (95% CI 1.05 to 2.76). There may be no difference in the number of people discontinuing memantine compared to placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.93 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.04) corresponding to 13 fewer people per 1000 (95% CI 31 fewer to 7 more). Although there is moderate-certainty evidence that fewer people taking memantine experience agitation as an adverse event: RR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.99) (25 fewer people per 1000, 95% CI 1 to 44 fewer), there is also moderate-certainty evidence, from three additional studies, suggesting that memantine is not beneficial as a treatment for agitation (e.g. Cohen Mansfield Agitation Inventory: clinical benefit of 0.50 CMAI points, 95% CI -3.71 to 4.71) .The presence of concomitant ChEI does not impact on the difference between memantine and placebo, with the possible exceptions of the BM outcome (larger effect in people taking ChEIs) and the CF outcome (smaller effect).2. Mild AD (Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) 20 to 23): mainly moderate-certainty evidence based on post-hoc subgroups from up to four studies in around 600 participants suggests there is probably no difference between memantine and placebo for CF: 0.21 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI -0.95 to 1.38); performance on ADL: -0.07 ADL 23 points (95% CI -1.80 to 1.66); and BM: -0.29 NPI points (95% CI -2.16 to 1.58). There is less certainty in the CGR evidence, which also suggests there may be no difference: 0.09 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.12 to 0.30). Memantine (compared with placebo) may increase the numbers of people discontinuing treatment because of adverse events (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.39).3. Mild-to-moderate vascular dementia. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence from two studies in around 750 participants indicates there is probably a small clinical benefit for CF: 2.15 ADAS-Cog points (95% CI 1.05 to 3.25); there may be a small clinical benefit for BM: 0.47 NOSGER disturbing behaviour points (95% CI 0.07 to 0.87); there is probably no difference in CGR: 0.03 CIBIC+ points (95% CI -0.28 to 0.34); and there may be no difference in ADL: 0.11 NOSGER II self-care subscale points (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) or in the numbers of people discontinuing treatment: RR 1.05 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.34).There is limited, mainly low- or very low-certainty efficacy evidence for other types of dementia (Parkinson's disease and dementia Lewy bodies (for which CGR may show a small clinical benefit; four studies in 319 people); frontotemporal dementia (two studies in 133 people); and AIDS-related Dementia Complex (one study in 140 people)).There is high-certainty evidence showing no difference between memantine and placebo in the proportion experiencing at least one adverse event: RR 1.03 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06); the RR does not differ between aetiologies or severities of dementia. Combining available data from all trials, there is moderate-certainty evidence that memantine is 1.6 times more likely than placebo to result in dizziness (6.1% versus 3.9%), low-certainty evidence of a 1.3-fold increased risk of headache (5.5% versus 4.3%), but high-certainty evidence of no difference in falls. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found important differences in the efficacy of memantine in mild AD compared to that in moderate-to-severe AD. There is a small clinical benefit of memantine in people with moderate-to-severe AD, which occurs irrespective of whether they are also taking a ChEI, but no benefit in people with mild AD.Clinical heterogeneity in AD makes it unlikely that any single drug will have a large effect size, and means that the optimal drug treatment may involve multiple drugs, each having an effect size that may be less than the minimum clinically important difference.A definitive long-duration trial in mild AD is needed to establish whether starting memantine earlier would be beneficial over the long term and safe: at present the evidence is against this, despite it being common practice. A long-duration trial in moderate-to-severe AD is needed to establish whether the benefit persists beyond six months.
-
7.
Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for dementia and Alzheimer's disease: an updated meta-analysis.
Chai, B, Gao, F, Wu, R, Dong, T, Gu, C, Lin, Q, Zhang, Y
BMC neurology. 2019;(1):284
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to comprehensively explore the associations between serum 25(OH)D deficiency and risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease(AD). METHODS We systematically searched Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Embase and the reference lists of pertinent review articles for relevant articles published from database inception up until January 2019. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with random effects models using the Stata 12.0 statistical software package. RESULTS Twelve prospective cohort studies and four cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled HRs of dementia and AD, respectively, were 1.32 (95%CI: 1.16, 1.52) and 1.34 (95%CI: 1.13, 1.60) for vitamin D deficiency (< 20 ng/ml). In the subgroup analyses, the pooled HRs of dementia and AD, respectively, were 1.48 (95%CI: 1.19, 1.85) and 1.51 (95%CI: 1.04, 2.18) for moderate vitamin D deficiency (10-20 ng/ml) and 1.20 (95%CI: 0.99, 1.44) and 1.36 (95%CI: 1.01, 1.84) for severe vitamin D deficiency (< 10 ng/ml). CONCLUSION There are significant associations between vitamin D deficiency and both dementia and AD. There are stronger associations between severe vitamin D deficiency (< 10 ng/ml) and both dementia and AD compared to moderate vitamin D deficiency (10-20 ng/ml).
-
8.
Midlife Modifiable Risk Factors for Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 34 Prospective Cohort Studies.
Li, XY, Zhang, M, Xu, W, Li, JQ, Cao, XP, Yu, JT, Tan, L
Current Alzheimer research. 2019;(14):1254-1268
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the association between midlife risk factors and dementia. METHODS PubMed and Cochrane library were systematically searched on May 24, 2018, to retrieve prospective cohort studies. The summary Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) were calculated by the random-effect model to explore the association between midlife risk factors and dementia. Sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity. Publication bias was examined using Begg's and Egger's tests. RESULTS Thirty-four prospective cohort studies were included, among which 24 were eligible for metaanalysis. A total of 159,594 non-demented adults were enrolled at baseline before 65 years and 13,540 people were diagnosed with dementia after follow-up. The pooled results revealed that five factors could significantly increase the dementia risk by 41 to 78%, including obesity (RR, 1.78; 95% CI: 1.31-2.41), diabetes mellitus (RR, 1.69; 95% CI: 1.38-2.07), current smoking (RR, 1.61; 95%, CI: 1.32-1.95), hypercholesterolemia (RR, 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.07), and hypertension (borderline blood pressure RR, 1.41; 95% CI: 1.23-1.62 and high Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) RR, 1.72; 95% CI: 1.25-2.37). However, the sensitivity analyses found that the results of hypercholesterolemia and high SBP were not reliable, which need to be confirmed by more high-quality studies. No influences due to publication bias were revealed. In the systematic review, another three factors (hyperhomocysteinemia, psychological stress, and heavy drinking) were found to be associated with elevated dementia risk. In addition, physical exercise, a healthy diet, and hormone therapy in middle age were associated with the reduction of dementia risk. CONCLUSIONS Middle-aged people with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia, and current smokers in midlife are at higher risk of developing dementia later in life.
-
9.
Dietary Fat Intake and Risk of Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia: A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies.
Ruan, Y, Tang, J, Guo, X, Li, K, Li, D
Current Alzheimer research. 2018;(9):869-876
Abstract
BACKGROUND Epidemiological studies showed that dietary fat intake is associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia risk, however, the association remain inconsistent. This metaanalysis aimed to systematically examine the association of dietary fat intake with AD and dementia risk. METHODS We have systematically searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to May 1st 2017. Prospective cohort studies were included if they reported on the association of dietary fat intake with AD and dementia risk. Multivariate-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for the highest versus lowest category were pooled by using a random-effects model. RESULTS A total of 8630 participants and 633 cases from four independent prospective cohort studies were included in the present meta-analysis. A higher dietary saturated fat intake was significantly associated with an increased risk of 39% and 105% for AD (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.00, 1.94) and dementia (RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.06, 3.98), respectively. Dose-response analysis indicated a 4 g/day increment of saturated fat intake was related to 15% higher risk of AD (RR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.31). However, there was no significant association found between dietary intake of total, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated fat and AD or dementia risk. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis provides significant evidence of positive association between higher saturated fat intake and AD and dementia risk.
-
10.
Vitamin and mineral supplementation for preventing dementia or delaying cognitive decline in people with mild cognitive impairment.
McCleery, J, Abraham, RP, Denton, DA, Rutjes, AW, Chong, LY, Al-Assaf, AS, Griffith, DJ, Rafeeq, S, Yaman, H, Malik, MA, et al
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(11):CD011905
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vitamins and minerals have many functions in the nervous system which are important for brain health. It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. In this review, we sought to examine the evidence for this in people who already had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. SEARCH METHODS We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACs, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated orally administered vitamin or mineral supplements in participants with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and which assessed the incidence of dementia or cognitive outcomes, or both. We were interested in studies applicable to the general population of older people and therefore excluded studies in which participants had severe vitamin or mineral deficiencies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We sought data on our primary outcomes of dementia incidence and overall cognitive function and on secondary outcomes of episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, quality of life, functional performance, clinical global impression, adverse events, and mortality. We conducted data collection and analysis according to standard Cochrane systematic review methods. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We grouped vitamins and minerals according to their putative mechanism of action and, where we considered it to be clinically appropriate, we pooled data using random-effects methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome. MAIN RESULTS We included five trials with 879 participants which investigated B vitamin supplements. In four trials, the intervention was a combination of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid; in one, it was folic acid only. Doses varied. We considered there to be some risks of performance and attrition bias and of selective outcome reporting among these trials. Our primary efficacy outcomes were the incidence of dementia and scores on measures of overall cognitive function. None of the trials reported the incidence of dementia and the evidence on overall cognitive function was of very low-quality. There was probably little or no effect of B vitamins taken for six to 24 months on episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, or quality of life. The evidence on our other secondary clinical outcomes, including harms, was very sparse or very low-quality. There was evidence from one study that there may be a slower rate of brain atrophy over two years in participants taking B vitamins. The same study reported subgroup analyses based on the level of serum homocysteine (tHcy) at baseline and found evidence that B vitamins may improve episodic memory in those with tHcy above the median at baseline.We included one trial (n = 516) of vitamin E supplementation. Vitamin E was given as 1000 IU of alpha-tocopherol twice daily. We considered this trial to be at risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. There was probably no effect of vitamin E on the probability of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's dementia over three years (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; n = 516; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of an effect at intermediate time points. The available data did not allow us to conduct analyses, but the authors reported no significant effect of three years of supplementation with vitamin E on overall cognitive function, episodic memory, speed of processing, clinical global impression, functional performance, adverse events, or mortality (five deaths in each group). We considered this to be low-quality evidence.We included one trial (n = 256) of combined vitamin E and vitamin C supplementation and one trial (n = 26) of supplementation with chromium picolinate. In both cases, there was a single eligible cognitive outcome, but we considered the evidence to be very low-quality and so could not be sure of any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence on vitamin and mineral supplements as treatments for MCI is very limited. Three years of treatment with high-dose vitamin E probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia, but we have no data on this outcome for other supplements. Only B vitamins have been assessed in more than one RCT. There is no evidence for beneficial effects on cognition of supplementation with B vitamins for six to 24 months. Evidence from a single study of a reduced rate of brain atrophy in participants taking vitamin B and a beneficial effect of vitamin B on episodic memory in those with higher tHcy at baseline warrants attempted replication.