Association of Apathy With Risk of Incident Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Importance: Fear of dementia is pervasive in older people with cognitive concerns. Much research is devoted to finding prognostic markers for dementia risk. Studies suggest apathy in older people may be prodromal to dementia and could be a relevant, easily measurable predictor of increased dementia risk. However, evidence is fragmented and methods vary greatly between studies.

Objective: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence for an association between apathy in dementia-free older individuals and incident dementia.

Data sources: Two reviewers conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO databases.

Study selection: Inclusion criteria were (1) prospective cohort studies, (2) in general populations or memory clinic patients without dementia, (3) with clear definitions of apathy and dementia, and (4) reporting on the association between apathy and incident dementia.

Data extraction and synthesis: PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines were followed. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second.

Main outcomes and measures: Main outcomes were pooled crude risk ratios, maximally adjusted reported hazard ratios (HR), and odds ratios (OR) using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models.

Results: The mean age of the study populations ranged from 69.2 to 81.9 years (median, 71.6 years) and the percentage of women ranged from 35% to 70% (median, 53%). After screening 2031 titles and abstracts, 16 studies comprising 7365 participants were included. Apathy status was available for 7299 participants. Studies included populations with subjective cognitive concerns (n = 2), mild cognitive impairment (n = 11), cognitive impairment no dementia (n = 1), or mixed cognitive and no cognitive impairment (n = 2). Apathy was present in 1470 of 7299 participants (20.1%). Follow-up ranged from 1.2 to 5.4 years. In studies using validated apathy definitions (n = 12), the combined risk ratio of dementia for patients with apathy was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.32-2.50; I2 = 76%; n = 12), the hazard ratio was 2.39 (95% CI, 1.27-4.51; I2 = 90%; n = 7), and the odds ratio was 17.14 (95% CI, 1.91-154.0; I2 = 60%; n = 2). Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and individual study results suggested the association between apathy and dementia weakened with increasing follow-up time, age, and cognitive impairment. Meta-regression adjusting for apathy definition and follow-up time explained 95% of heterogeneity in mild cognitive impairment.

Conclusions and relevance: Apathy was associated with an approximately 2-fold increased risk of dementia in memory clinic patients. Moderate publication bias may have inflated some of these estimates. Apathy deserves more attention as a relevant, cheap, noninvasive, and easily measureable marker of increased risk of incident dementia with high clinical relevance, particularly because these vulnerable patients may forgo health care.

Figure 1.. Flowchart of Search and Study Selection

Figure 2.. Forest Plot for Risk Ratio of Developing Dementia in Studies Using Recommended Validated Apathy Scales According to Subgroups Based on Diagnosis

IV indicates inverse variance; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; NCI MCI, mixed normal cognition and MCI; SCC, subjective cognitive impairment.

Figure 3.. Subgroup Analyses Within Mild Cognitive Impairment Patients Based on Risk Ratio

Only studies using validated apathy scales are included. FU indicates follow-up; RR, risk ratio.