Background Understanding patterns of multimorbidity in the US older adult population and their relationship with mortality is important for reducing healthcare utilization and improving health. Previous investigations measured multimorbidity as counts of conditions rather than specific combination of conditions. Methods This cross-sectional study with longitudinal mortality follow-up employed latent class analysis (LCA) to develop clinically meaningful subgroups of participants aged 50 and older with different combinations of 13 chronic conditions from the National Health Interview Survey 2002–2014. Mortality linkage with National Death Index was performed through December 2015 for 166,126 participants. Survival analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between LCA classes and all-cause mortality and cause specific mortalities. Results LCA identified five multimorbidity groups with primary characteristics: “healthy” (51.5%), “age-associated chronic conditions” (33.6%), “respiratory conditions” (7.3%), “cognitively impaired” (4.3%) and “complex cardiometabolic” (3.2%). Covariate-adjusted survival analysis indicated “complex cardiometabolic” class had the highest mortality with a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 5.30, 99.5% CI [4.52, 6.22]; followed by “cognitively impaired” class (3.34 [2.93, 3.81]); “respiratory condition” class (2.14 [1.87, 2.46]); and “age-associated chronic conditions” class (1.81 [1.66, 1.98]). Patterns of multimorbidity classes were strongly associated with the primary underlying cause of death. The “cognitively impaired” class reported similar number of conditions compared to the “respiratory condition” class but had significantly higher mortality (3.8 vs 3.7 conditions, HR = 1.56 [1.32, 1.85]). Conclusion We demonstrated that LCA method is effective in classifying clinically meaningful multimorbidity subgroup. Specific combinations of conditions including cognitive impairment and depressive symptoms have a substantial detrimental impact on the mortality of older adults. The numbers of chronic conditions experienced by older adults is not always proportional to mortality risk. Our findings provide valuable information for identifying high risk older adults with multimorbidity to facilitate early intervention to treat chronic conditions and reduce mortality.

No abstract

Failure to recover from proactive semantic interference (frPSI) has been shown to be more sensitive than traditional cognitive measures in different populations with preclinical Alzheimer's disease. The authors sought to characterize the structural and amyloid in vivo correlates of frPSI in cognitively normal offspring of patients with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (O-LOAD), compared with individuals without a family history of neurodegenerative disorders (CS). The authors evaluated the LASSI-L, a test tapping frPSI and other types of semantic interference and delayed recall on the RAVLT, along with 3-T MRI volumetry and positron emission tomography Pittsburgh compound B, in 27 O-LOAD and 18 CS with equivalent age, sex, years of education, ethnicity, premorbid intelligence, and mood symptoms. Recovery from proactive semantic interference (frPSI) and RAVLT delayed recall were lower in O-LOAD cases.Structural correlates of both cognitive dimensions were different in CS and O-LOAD, involving brain regions concerned with autonomic, motor, and motivational control in the former, and regions traditionally implicated in Alzheimer's disease in the latter. Better recovery from retroactive semantic interference was associated with less amyloid load in the left temporal lobe in O-LOAD but not CS. In middle-aged cognitively normal individuals with one parent affected with LOAD, frPSI was impaired compared with persons without a family history of LOAD. The neuroimaging correlates of such cognitive measure in those with one parent with LOAD involve Alzheimer's-relevant brain regions even at a relatively young age.

Introduction: There is increasing evidence that susceptibility to proactive semantic interference (PSI) and the failure to recover from PSI (frPSI) as evidenced by intrusion errors may be early cognitive markers of both preclinical and prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: One hundred forty‐five participants were administered extensive clinical and neuropsychological evaluations including the Loewenstein‐Acevedo Scales for Semantic Interference and Learning (LASSI‐L), a sensitive cognitive stress test measuring PSI and frPSI. Participants also underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and amyloid positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging. Results: PSI and frPSI errors were much more prevalent in the mild cognitive impairment (MCI)‐AD (amyloid positive) group than the other diagnostic groups. The number of intrusion errors observed across the other MCI groups without amyloid pathology and those with normal cognition were comparable. Discussion: Semantic intrusion errors on the LASSI‐L occur much less frequently in persons who have different types of non–AD‐related MCI and may be used as an early cognitive marker of prodromal AD.

Background Individuals with cognitive impairment and their families place a high value on receiving a dementia diagnosis, but clinician approaches vary. There is a need for research investigating experiences of giving and receiving dementia diagnoses. The current study aimed to investigate clinician approaches to giving dementia diagnoses as part of a larger study investigating patient, caregiver, and clinician experiences during the diagnosis encounter. Method Investigators conducted telephone interviews with Florida-based clinicians who give dementia diagnoses either rarely or commonly. Interviews employed a semi-structured interview guide querying communication practices used by clinicians when giving dementia diagnoses and how clinicians learned to give dementia diagnoses. Investigators used a descriptive qualitative design to conduct a thematic analysis of data. Results Fifteen Florida-based clinicians participated, representing diverse backgrounds related to gender, race/ethnicity, specialty, and practice setting. Participants reported using patient- and family-centered communication practices including checking patient understanding, communicating empathically, and involving family members. Some clinicians explicitly asked patients and/or family members about their preferences regarding diagnosis disclosure; many clinicians tailored their disclosure based on patient and family characteristics or reactions. Some clinicians reported using specific diagnoses, while others used general terms such as “memory disorder.” Clinicians reported positively framing information, including instilling hope, focusing on healthy behaviors, and discussing symptom management. Finally, clinicians provided patient/family education and arranged follow up. Clinicians reported learning approaches to dementia diagnosis disclosure through formal training and self-education. Conclusions Diverse Florida-based clinicians described dementia disclosure practices largely consistent with published guidance, but clinicians varied on approaches relating to soliciting patient disclosure preferences and terminology used. Clinicians caring for diverse populations described that cultural background affects the disclosure process, but more research is needed regarding this finding and best practices for individuals from different backgrounds.