ObjectivesIncreasing evidence suggests that inflammation is involved in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology. This study quantitatively summarised the data on peripheral inflammatory markers in patients with AD compared with healthy controls (HC).MethodsOriginal reports containing measurements of peripheral inflammatory markers in AD patients and HC were included for meta-analysis. Standardised mean differences were calculated using a random effects model. Meta-regression and exploration of heterogeneity was performed using publication year, age, gender, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores, plasma versus serum measurements and immunoassay type.ResultsA total of 175 studies were combined to review 51 analytes in 13 344 AD and 12 912 HC patients. Elevated peripheral interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-2, IL-6, IL-18, interferon-γ, homocysteine, high-sensitivity C reactive protein, C-X-C motif chemokine-10, epidermal growth factor, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α converting enzyme, soluble TNF receptors 1 and 2, α1-antichymotrypsin and decreased IL-1 receptor antagonist and leptin were found in patients with AD compared with HC. IL-6 levels were inversely correlated with mean MMSE scores.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that AD is accompanied by a peripheral inflammatory response and that IL-6 may be a useful biological marker to correlate with the severity of cognitive impairment. Further studies are needed to determine the clinical utility of these markers.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe use of financial incentives to promote physical activity (PA) has grown in popularity due in part to technological advances that make it easier to track and reward PA. The purpose of this study was to update the evidence on the effects of incentives on PA in adults.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CCTR, CINAHL and COCH.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCT) published between 2012 and May 2018 examining the impact of incentives on PA.DesignA simple count of studies with positive and null effects (‘vote counting’) was conducted. Random-effects meta-analyses were also undertaken for studies reporting steps per day for intervention and post-intervention periods.Results23 studies involving 6074 participants were included (64.42% female, mean age = 41.20 years). 20 out of 22 studies reported positive intervention effects and four out of 18 reported post-intervention (after incentives withdrawn) benefits. Among the 12 of 23 studies included in the meta-analysis, incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts during the intervention period (pooled mean difference (MD), 607.1; 95% CI: 422.1 to 792.1). Among the nine of 12 studies with post-intervention daily step count data incentives were associated with increased mean daily step counts (pooled MD, 513.8; 95% CI:312.7 to 714.9).ConclusionDemonstrating rising interest in financial incentives, 23 RCTs were identified. Modest incentives ($1.40 US/day) increased PA for interventions of short and long durations and after incentives were removed, though post-intervention ‘vote counting’ and pooled results did not align. Nonetheless, and contrary to what has been previously reported, these findings suggest a short-term incentive ‘dose’ may promote sustained PA.