Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder leading to cognitive impairment, neuropsychiatric symptoms, disability, dependency, caregiver burden, substantial healthcare expenditures and premature death.Reference Demakis 1 - 3 Up to 70% of the dementias occurring in older adults are attributed in whole or in part to AD.Reference Brookmeyer, Evans, Hebert, Langa, Heeringa and Plassman 4 Though described more than a century ago,Reference Alzheimer 5 treatment options remain limited. Available pharmacotherapies provide modest symptomatic benefitsReference Doody, Stevens, Beck, Dubinsky, Kaye and Gwyther 6 of debatable cost-effectiveness.Reference Morris 7
Updated information on the epidemiology of dementia due to AD is needed if we are to ensure that adequate resources are mobilized to deal with the needs of those with this condition and their families. Such studies can also inform prevention strategies and approaches to management. Systematic reviews on the epidemiology of dementia generally do not deal with specific causes such as AD, but rather provide estimates of overall dementia. 8 , 9 The last systematic review of the global incidence of dementia specifically due to AD was published in 2008.Reference Ziegler-Graham, Brookmeyer, Johnson and Arrighi 10 While the age-specific incidence rate of AD dementia doubles approximately every 5.5 years in older populationsReference Kukull, Higdon, Bowen, McCormick, Teri and Schellenberg 11 and several studies have produced estimates stratified by sex and geographic region,Reference Ziegler-Graham, Brookmeyer, Johnson and Arrighi 10 , Reference Jorm and Jolley 12 - Reference Rockwood and Stadnyk 14 an unexplored issue is the heterogeneity produced by differing diagnostic criteria and study setting. In a majority of the more recent reviews, either a systematic methodology was not utilizedReference Ziegler-Graham, Brookmeyer, Johnson and Arrighi 10 , Reference Jorm and Jolley 12 , Reference Fratiglioni, De Ronchi and Aguero-Torres 15 or it was uncertain whether one was.Reference Rockwood and Stadnyk 14 , Reference Clarfield 16 , Reference Suh and Shah 17
In this report, we present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies of the incidence and prevalence of dementia due to AD. We also examine the extent and causes of heterogeneity in these estimates.
This is one in a series of systematic reviews on the prevalence and incidence of priority neurological conditions as part of the National Population Health Study of Neurological Conditions.Reference Caesar-Chavannes and MacDonald 18
The systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to a predetermined protocol based on the PRISMA statement for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Reference Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff and Altman 19 The search strategy (Appendix A) was developed by the study authors (who have expertise in dementia and/or disease epidemiology) in consultation with a research librarian with systematic review expertise. The primary search was conducted in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in February of 2011 and updated in July of 2012. References were exported and managed using EndNote X5. 20 International studies published before the year 2000 and Canadian studies published prior to 1985 were excluded because of the availability of prior meta-analyses summarizing earlier work. The earlier date for Canadian studies was to ensure that all relevant national work was included, as this was part of a nationally funded study examining the burden of neurological conditions in Canada. The review was restricted to articles published in English or French. The reference lists of included articles were manually searched for additional articles.
Two reviewers independently examined the titles and abstracts of all retrieved references in order to identify papers likely reporting original population-based data on the prevalence and/or incidence of AD dementia. Two reviewers also independently examined the full-text papers identified during the first phase. To be included in the systematic review, reviewed papers had to: (1) report original research; (2) be population-based; and (3) provide an incidence and/or prevalence estimate of dementia due to AD. Disagreements about the inclusion of articles were resolved by consensus or involvement of a third author if necessary.
Data Extraction and Study Quality
Two reviewers extracted data from included articles using a standard data collection form. Any disagreement was resolved by consensus. When multiple articles reported data on the same study population, the most accurate and comprehensive data as determined by the reviewers were used. In cases where the studies reported on different data collection years or subgroups (e.g., by sex and/or age), all data were included. The demographic data recorded included age, sex, setting (community-only, both community and institution, institution-only) and study location (i.e., Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, South America). The approach to ascertain cases was noted, as were sources of data and definitions/diagnostic criteria used. Incidence and prevalence estimates of AD dementia from each study were recorded, along with any stratification by age, sex or year of data collection. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using an assessment toolReference Loney, Chambers, Bennett, Roberts and Stratford 21 , Reference Boyle 22 (Appendix B), with each study given a quality score that ranged from 0 to 8 (higher scores indicating a higher-quality assessment).
Data Synthesis and Analysis
The significance of age, sex, diagnostic criteria, location (i.e., continent) and time (i.e., when the study was conducted) on incidence and prevalence estimates was assessed using meta-regression. Age was examined using the youngest-aged person in the study as a continuous factor of potential heterogeneity (note that few studies provided data on mean or median age). Sex, diagnostic criteria and geographic location were treated as categorical variables. Changes over time were examined using the study start, midpoint and end-years as potential sources of heterogeneity. All pooled estimates were restricted to studies reporting on older individuals (i.e., aged 60+, 65+, 70+) to mitigate the potential confounding effects of age. All period estimates were converted to annual estimates (e.g., period prevalence represents the annual period prevalence). Studies were also stratified by the location of participants (i.e., community-only, community and institution, institution-only) to minimize confounding by disease severity. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they reported the estimate with 95% confidence intervals (CI95%), the number of AD cases along with overall sample size, or the information with which to calculate an estimate. Additionally, subgroup meta-analysis was only performed if more than one study was available for each subgroup (e.g., a region could have been omitted from this analysis if only one study was available in a region; however, if more than one study was included in the other regions, these data were then analyzed).
To compare study quality characteristics across groups (i.e., continent), ANOVA testing was utilized to determine differences. To assess for significant between-study heterogeneity, the Cochrane Q statistic was calculated and I 2 was employed to quantify the magnitude. All the pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using random-effects models. Publication bias was investigated visually using funnel plots and statistically using Begg’s,Reference Begg and Mazumdar 23 Egger’sReference Egger and Smith 24 and the trim-and-fill tests. The trim-and-fill method identifies funnel plot asymmetry by imputing the effect estimates of potentially missing studies and assessing the influence of these studies on the pooled estimate. For all tests, a value of p less than 0.05 was deemed to be significant. All statistical analyses were carried out in R version 2.14. 25 The meta package was used to produce the pooled estimates, forest plots and publication bias assessments.Reference Schwarzer 26 The metafor package was used to conduct the meta-regression using restricted maximum-likelihood estimation.Reference Viechtbauer 27
Identification and Description of Studies
The search strategy yielded a total of 16,066 citations, including duplicates (8743 from MEDLINE, 7323 from EMBASE) (Figure 1). After screening titles and abstracts, 707 articles were selected for full-text review. Of them, 547 were excluded (230 international studies were published before 2000, 164 did not report incidence or prevalence of dementia, 114 were not population-based, 39 did not report original data). The updating of the search and hand searching the references led to an additional 4 and 12 articles, respectively. Among the 176 eligible papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 57 were excluded, as they did not report on the incidence or prevalence of AD dementia. A total of 119 papers reported on AD dementia.
The characteristics of the 119 included studies are shown in Tables 1-3. Seventy-five reported on prevalence, 43 on incidence and 1 on both. Forty-four studies provided data from Europe, 36 from Asia, 32 from North America, 5 from South America, 2 from Africa and 2 from Australia (2 studies reported data from more than one continent). Nine studies reported on those aged 60+, 68 on those 65+ and 19 on those 70+.
Prevalence of AD
Forty-five articles 28 - Reference Li, Yan, Li, Zhang, Liu and Jie 72 reported on the point prevalence of AD dementia, with 20 eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis of those aged 60+. 28 , Reference Anttila, Helkala, Viitanen, Kareholt, Fratiglioni and Winblad 29 , Reference Bermejo-Pareja, Benito-Leon, Vega, Olazaran, de Toledo and Diaz-Guzman 31 , Reference Bottino, Azevedo, Tatsch, Hototian, Moscoso and Folquitto 33 , Reference Camicioli, Willert, Lear, Grossmann, Kaye and Butterfield 35 , Reference Chen, Chiu, Tang, Chiu, Chang and Su 36 , Reference de Jesus Llibre, Fernandez, Marcheco, Contreras, Lopez and Otero 38 , Reference de Silva, Gunatilake and Smith 39 , Reference Gurvit, Emre, Tinaz, Bilgic, Hanagasi and Sahin 42 , Reference Herrera, Caramelli, Silveira and Nitrini 45 , Reference Ikeda, Hokoishi, Maki, Nebu, Tachibana and Komori 46 , Reference Kivipelto, Helkala, Laakso, Hanninen, Hallikainen and Alhainen 48 , Reference Rovio, Kareholt, Helkala, Viitanen, Winblad and Tuomilehto 57 , Reference Shaji, Bose and Verghese 60 - Reference Suh, Kim and Cho 63 , Reference Wada-Isoe, Uemura, Suto, Doi, Imamura and Hayashi 65 , Reference Yamada, Hattori, Miura, Tanabe and Yamori 67 , Reference Bowirrat, Friedland, Farrer, Baldwin and Korczyn 70 In community-only settings, the point prevalence among those 60+ years of age was 40.19 (CI95%: 29.06-55.59) per 1000 (Figure 2). Point prevalence estimates in the community ranged from a low of 15.51 per 1000 in one study from IndiaReference Shaji, Bose and Verghese 60 to a high of 204.13 per 1000 in a study from Israel.Reference Bowirrat, Friedland, Farrer, Baldwin and Korczyn 70 The pooled point prevalence in those 60+ in combined community and institution studies was 26.57 (CI95%: 11.83-59.69) per 1000. In community and institution studies, point prevalence estimates ranged from a low of 12.34 per 1000 in a study from the United StatesReference Camicioli, Willert, Lear, Grossmann, Kaye and Butterfield 35 to a high of 51.00 per 1000 in a study from Canada. 28 The pooled point prevalence of AD among those 60+ in institution-only settings was 226.97 (CI95%: 88.23-583.87).
Thirty studies reported on the period prevalence of AD,Reference Andreasen, Blennow, Sjodin, Winblad and Svardsudd 73 - Reference Zhao, Zhou, Ding, Guo and Hong 103 with 10 eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis of those 60+.Reference Das, Biswas, Roy, Bose, Roy and Banerjee 77 , Reference Gascon-Bayarri, Rene, Del Barrio, De Pedro-Cuesta, Ramon and Manubens 82 , Reference Gavrila, Antunez, Tormo, Carles, Garcia Santos and Parrilla 83 , Reference Jhoo, Kim, Huh, Lee, Park and Lee 87 , Reference Lee, Lee, Ju, Lee, Kim and Jhoo 89 - Reference Lopez, Kuller, Fitzpatrick, Ives, Becker and Beauchamp 91 , Reference Scazufca, Menezes, Vallada, Crepaldi, Pastor-Valero and Coutinho 99 , Reference Vanhanen, Koivisto, Moilanen, Helkala, Hanninen and Soininen 100 , Reference Xu, Qiu, Gatz, Pedersen, Johansson and Fratiglioni 102 In community settings, the pooled annual period prevalence among those aged 60+ was 30.4 (CI95%: 15.6-59.1) per 1000 (Figure 3). In combined community and institution settings, the pooled annual period prevalence was 44.0 (CI95%: 19.9-97.1) per 1000. A single study from an institution in the United States reported an annual period prevalence of 101.0 (CI95%: 89.4-114.1) per 1000.Reference Magaziner, German, Zimmerman, Hebel, Burton and Gruber-Baldini 93 Annual period prevalence estimates for any setting ranged from 1.1 per 1000 in a community study from IndiaReference Das, Biswas, Roy, Bose, Roy and Banerjee 77 to 123.0 in a community study from the United States.Reference Lopez, Kuller, Fitzpatrick, Ives, Becker and Beauchamp 91
Incidence of AD
Fourteen studies reported on the incidence proportion of AD,Reference Cornelius, Fastbom, Winblad and Viitanen 104 - Reference Zandi, Carlson, Plassman, Welsh-Bohmer, Mayer and Steffens 117 with six included in the meta-analysis of 60+ studies.Reference Ganguli, Dodge, Chen, Belle and DeKosky 107 , Reference Hendrie, Ogunniyi, Hall, Baiyewu, Unverzagt and Gureje 108 , Reference Kuller, Lopez, Jagust, Becker, DeKosky and Lyketsos 111 , Reference Miech, Breitner, Zandi, Khachaturian, Anthony and Mayer 113 , Reference Morris, Evans, Bienias, Tangney, Bennett and Aggarwal 114 , Reference Seshadri, Beiser, Selhub, Jacques, Rosenberg and D’Agostino 116 In community settings, the pooled annual incidence proportion among those aged 60+ was 34.1 (CI95%: 16.4-70.9) per 1000 (Figure 4). A single U.S. study reported on the annual incidence proportion in combined community and institution settings with an estimate of 27.2 (CI95%: 22.2-33.3) per 1000.Reference Evans, Bennett, Wilson, Bienias, Morris and Scherr 105 There were no studies from an institution-only setting. Annual incidence proportion estimates for any setting ranged from 11.5 per 1000 in a community study from NigeriaReference Hendrie, Ogunniyi, Hall, Baiyewu, Unverzagt and Gureje 108 to 97.8 per 1000 in a community study from the United States.Reference Kuller, Lopez, Jagust, Becker, DeKosky and Lyketsos 111
Thirty studies reported on the incidence rate of AD,Reference Li, Yan, Li, Zhang, Liu and Jie 72 , Reference Bermejo-Pareja, Benito-León, Vega, Medrano and Román 118 - Reference Waite, Broe, Grayson and Creasey 146 with 11 eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis of those 60+.Reference Bermejo-Pareja, Benito-León, Vega, Medrano and Román 118 , Reference Fitzpatrick, Kuller, Ives, Lopez, Jagust and Breitner 122 , Reference Kukull, Higdon, Bowen, McCormick, Teri and Schellenberg 126 - Reference Lee, Chang, Jang, Chang, Suh and Jung 129 , Reference Perez, Helmer, Dartigues, Auriacombe and Tison 136 , Reference Ravaglia, Forti, Maioli, Martelli, Servadei and Brunetti 140 , Reference Tang, Cross, Andrews, Jacobs, Small and Bell 143 - Reference Vermeer, Prins, den Heijer, Hofman, Koudstaal and Breteler 145 In community-only settings, the pooled incidence rate of AD among those 60+ was 15.8 (CI95%: 12.9-19.4) per 1000 person-years (Figure 5). A single Italian study reported on the incidence rate in combined community and institution settings with an estimate of 7.0 (CI95%: 5.5-8.9) per 1000 person-years.Reference Di Carlo, Baldereschi, Amaducci, Lepore, Bracco and Maggi 120 There were no studies from an institution-only setting. The lowest estimate for any setting was 7.0 (CI95%: 4.8-10.3) per 1000 person-years in a community study from the NetherlandsReference Vermeer, Prins, den Heijer, Hofman, Koudstaal and Breteler 145 and the aforementioned study from Italy, and the highest 30.0 (CI95%: 25.4-35.5) per 1000 person-years in a community study from the United States.Reference Tang, Cross, Andrews, Jacobs, Small and Bell 143
Sources of Heterogeneity
The effect of important potential sources of heterogeneity (i.e., age, sex, diagnostic criteria, location [continent], time [when the study was done]) on incidence and prevalence estimates in those aged 60+ was assessed using univariate meta-regressions.
Increasing age was associated with increasing point prevalence, period prevalence, incidence rate and incidence proportion estimates (p<0.001).
Though the differences did not reach statistical significance (p values ranged from 0.102 to 0.582), estimates of incidence and prevalence by sex of the subjects were higher in females than in males, in the 22 studies that reported on this.
Diagnostic Criteria for AD
Within community settings, DSM–IV criteria 147 (n=2) produced a statistically significant (p=0.044) higher estimate for AD dementia point prevalence (91.7 [CI95%: 19.0-442.8] per 1000) than those based on NINCDS–ADRDA criteria for probable ADReference McKhann, Drachman, Folstein, Katzman, Price and Stadlan 148 (n=14; 38.2 [CI95%: 31.3-46.6] per 1000). No statistically significant differences between the aforementioned criteria were seen for period prevalence in the community (p = 0.065), though the association was in the same direction as seen in the pooled point prevalence. All incidence studies used NINCDS–ADRDA criteria for probable AD.
Within community settings, the estimated annual period prevalence for North America (n = 2; 103.6 [CI95%: 73.4-146.1] per 1000) was significantly higher than those for Asia (n = 4; 11.7 [CI95%: 2.8-48.5] per 1000; p = 0.017) and Europe (n = 2; 31.3 [CI95%: 14.4-67.7] per 1000; p = 0.006). The estimates for single studies for continents were: South America (16.0 [CI95%: 11.3-22.6] per 1000) and Australia (88.0 [CI95%: 82.7-93.7] per 1000). The incidence proportion estimate in a single-community African study (11.5 [CI95%: 9.70-13.64] per 1000) was lower than the estimated incidence proportion from five North American community studies (42.6 [CI95%: 23.0-78.8] per 1000) but could not be subjected to a meta-analysis as we required at least two estimates from a single region to be included.
There was no effect of the time of study initiation, midpoint or conclusion on point prevalence, period prevalence, incidence rate or incidence proportion estimates.
For the period prevalence, point prevalence, incidence rate and incidence proportion of AD dementia, significant funnel plot asymmetry was not found using Begg’s or Egger’s test (p > 0.05). Upon visual inspection, the funnel plots appeared symmetrical.
The median study quality score for studies reporting on the incidence or prevalence of AD dementia was 6/8 (range 3-8) (Table 4). Study quality did not vary by continent based on the results of ANOVA analyses.
*Note: NR= Not reported; NC= Not clear
A substantial societal burden from AD dementia was demonstrated in our systematic review and meta-analyses. In community settings, the point prevalence of AD dementia among those 60+ was 40.2 per 1000, while its incidence proportion was 34.1 per 1000 and incidence rate was 15.8 per 1000 person-years. Despite the large number of studies included in our meta-analysis, the resulting estimates lacked precision at times due to significant statistical heterogeneity. Our finding that the period prevalence of AD dementia in community settings (30.4 per 1000 persons) was lower than the point prevalence (40.2 per 1000 persons) was unexpected and should be interpreted with caution. You would typically expect the opposite finding (i.e., a higher pooled estimate from the period prevalence studies). This was likely due to the significant heterogeneity (i.e., >99% for period prevalence studies) that existed between these two pools of studies, leading to wide confidence intervals. In addition, there were several outliers, particularly in the period prevalence estimates, which ranged from a low of 1.1 in IndiaReference Das, Biswas, Roy, Bose, Roy and Banerjee 77 to a high of 123.0 per 1000 persons in a U.S. study.Reference Lopez, Kuller, Fitzpatrick, Ives, Becker and Beauchamp 91
Our exploration of the sources of this heterogeneity led to several interesting findings. There was an insufficient number of population-based institution studies to do meta-analyses for this setting, but our descriptive analysis indicated that incidence rate for AD dementia is higher in the community while prevalence is greater in institutions. This is not surprising. There are few at-risk individuals within institutions, and the high mortality rate from other causes in the small at-risk institutional group likely means that they will likely die from another cause before they have time to develop AD. The inclusion of an institutionalized sample as well as region-specific variation in the availability of facility-based care and/or likelihood for institutionalization can have a substantial impact on the estimated prevalence of AD dementia in a community.Reference Hendrie, Osuntokun, Hall, Ogunniyi, Hui and Unverzagt 149 Institutionalization typically occurs as a result of the functional impairments, behavioural challenges and associated burden on family caregivers that arise as the disease progresses and largely explain the high prevalence in this setting. Information on the incidence and prevalence of AD stratified by setting is particularly relevant for planning resource allocation. We identified a significant gap when it comes to the population-based epidemiology of AD dementia in institutional and residential settings. Future studies are required to understand the true burden of AD dementia in long-term and supportive care facilities. The use of standardized assessments based on data abstracted from interRAI instruments to provide estimates for the prevalence of dementia in these settings holds promise, but it is unclear whether they could be utilized for estimates of dementia arising specifically from AD.Reference Danila, Hirdes, Maxwell, Marrie, Patten, Pringsheim and Jetté 150
All estimates of incidence and prevalence were higher for females compared to males, though the differences were not statistically different. In economically developed nations, about two-thirds of individuals diagnosed with AD dementia are women.Reference Hebert, Weuve, Scherr and Evans 151 This is primarily due to the fact that women on average live longer than men, and increasing age is the most important non-genetic risk factor for AD dementia. Incidence studies suggest an age-dependent relationship between sex and likelihood of developing AD dementia. One of the studies we included noted differences in incidence rates by sex after 90 years of age.Reference Ruitenberg, Ott, van Swieten, Hofman and Breteler 142 Other reports indicate that the incidence of AD dementia increases with age in both sexes until 85-90 years of age, after which it plateaus for men but continues to increase among women.Reference Andersen, Launer, Dewey, Letenneur, Ott and Copeland 152 , Reference Fratiglioni, Launer, Andersen, Breteler, Copeland and Dartiques 153 A prior meta-analysis reported slightly longer doubling times with increasing age for AD dementia in men compared to women,Reference Ziegler-Graham, Brookmeyer, Johnson and Arrighi 10 while another study reported that women tend to have a higher incidence at very advanced ages.Reference Jorm and Jolley 12 These noted differences between the sexes could be due to methodological issues, the differential impact of historical environmental risk factors, or true biological differences in disease susceptibility between the sexes.Reference Mielke, Vemuri and Rocca 154 Interestingly, recent data suggest that, relative to women, men who survive to older ages may exhibit a lower risk for developing AD because of a healthier cardiovascular risk profile.Reference Chene, Beiser, Au, Preis, Wolf and Dufouil 155
Difficulties examining the effect of the diagnostic criteria utilized to diagnose AD cases were encountered due to the ubiquitous use of NINCDS–ADRDA criteria. However, for point prevalence in community-only settings, DSM–IV criteria were found to produce significantly higher estimates than studies utilizing NINCDS–ADRDA criteria for probable AD (and possibly ICD–10 criteria 156 ); a trend in the same direction was also shown in community period prevalence estimates. The choice and operationalization of diagnostic criteria can have a large effect on estimated incidence and/or prevalence.Reference Erkinjuntti, Ostbye, Steenhuis and Hachinski 157 , Reference Wilson, Weir, Leurgans, Evans, Hebert and Langa 158 In one study, the use of DSM–III criteria led to 29.1% of subjects receiving a dementia diagnosis compared to 13.7% when DSM–IV criteria were employed.Reference Erkinjuntti, Ostbye, Steenhuis and Hachinski 157 Newer diagnostic criteria for AD decouple AD from the presence of a dementia and no longer require the presence of a memory impairment, the impact of which on epidemiological estimates of the incidence and prevalence of AD is yet unknown.Reference McKhann, Knopman, Chertkow, Hyman, Jack and Kawas 159 In the future, a diagnosis of preclinical AD may be made on the basis of biomarkers, though clinical criteria will be required to diagnose symptomatic (i.e., mild cognitive impairment or dementia) AD.Reference Dubois, Feldman, Jacova, Hampel, Molinuevo and Blennow 160 We suspect that the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia due to ADReference Lopez, McDade, Riverol and Becker 161 will be used in future incidence and prevalence studies of AD. Studies are needed to assess the potential impact of using these newer diagnostic approaches compared to the criteria that have been used to date on the estimated incidence and prevalence of AD and trends over time.
Estimates of AD dementia incidence and prevalence tended to be higher in North America as compared to Asia, but these differences were not statistically different except for estimates of period prevalence in community settings. Geographical differences in epidemiological estimates of AD could be due to a variety of factors other than true differences in age-specific disease risk, such as differing screening methods and thresholds for diagnosis, age distribution of the assessed population, duration of survival after the onset of AD dementia, overall life expectancy and competing risks.Reference Suh and Shah 17 Nonetheless, the possibility of true regional differences in AD incidence and prevalence has important implications. It is unlikely that the observed findings can be fully explained by differences in life expectancy. While North America has a relatively high life expectancy, estimates of life expectancy are similar or even higher in several Asian countries (e.g., Japan). 162 Similar findings (i.e., lower estimates in Asia) have been reported for Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s disease, where it is felt that differences in the distribution, life expectancy and degree of stigmatization associated with a diagnosis of the condition may contribute to variations in disease reporting.Reference Pringsheim, Jetté, Frolkis and Steeves 163 , Reference Pringsheim, Wiltshire, Day, Dykeman, Steeves and Jetté 164
The methodology utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis closely followed established guidelines. We feel we were able to identify most eligible studies as multiple sources of study ascertainment were employed. We found no evidence for publication bias. We did, however, find a good deal of statistical heterogeneity.
In order to accurately plan for future needs, there remains an ongoing requirement to provide accurate estimates of the incidence and prevalence of AD. Relying on older data may lead to either over- or underestimating the resources required if incidence and prevalence rates are changing over time. Though, using meta-regression analysis, we did not find that time had an effect on the incidence or prevalence of AD, this does not preclude the possibility of true changes in age-standardized incidence and/or prevalence rates for dementia from AD occurring either now or in the near future due to changes in the presence of risk factors at a population level.Reference Norton, Matthews, Barnes, Yaffe and Brayne 165 There could well be rising and/or falling rates of AD within specific nations or regions that could be obscured by looking at international changes. For dementia overall, as an example, there is a suggestion that rates are falling in high-rate areas (often high-income countries) and might be rising in low- and middle-income countries, where premature mortality is decreasing.Reference Schrijvers, Verhaaren, Koudstaal, Hofman, Ikram and Breteler 166 , Reference Matthews, Arthur, Barnes, Bond, Jagger and Robinson 167 This underscores the need for future studies on the epidemiology of this important condition.
Kirsten Fiest, Jodie Roberts, Colleen Maxwell, Eric Smith, Alexandra Frolkis, Adrienne Cohen, Andrew Kirk, Dawn Pearson, Tamara Pringsheim, and Andres Venegas-Torres have nothing to disclose.
David Hogan holds the Brenda Strafford Foundation Chair in Geriatric Medicine, though receives no salary support from this.
Nathalie Jetté has the following disclosures: Public Health Agency of Canada, Principal Investigator, research support; Canada Research Chair in Neurological Health Services Research, Researcher, research support; Alberta Innovates Health Solutions Population Health Investigator, Researcher, research support.
We thank Ms. Diane Lorenzetti, librarian at the University of Calgary, who guided the development of the search strategy for this systematic review. Our study is part of the National Population Health Study of Neurological Conditions. We acknowledge the membership of the Neurological Health Charities Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada for their contribution to the success of this initiative. Funding for the study was provided by the Public Health Agency of Canada. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors/researchers and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Public Health Agency of Canada.
Statement of Authorship
KMF, JIR, CJM, DBH, TP and NJ contributed to study conception and design. KMF, JIR, CJM, DBH, EES, AC, AK, DP, AV-T and NJ contributed to the acquisition of data. KMF and AF conducted the data analysis. KMF, JIR, CJM, DBH, EES and NJ participated in the interpretation of study data. All authors participated in critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content and gave final approval for the submission of this manuscript and any further submissions of this work.
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cjn.2016.36