MDedge Neurology

Crenezumab, an investigational medication designed to slow or prevent Alzheimer’s disease (AD), provides no cognitive benefit in patients at high genetic risk, new research suggests.

Top-line results for a phase 2 trial showed the novel drug, a monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize neurotoxic oligomers (a form of beta-amyloid), was not statistically superior to placebo in terms of cognitive ability or episodic memory function among cognitively unimpaired individuals with a genetic mutation for early-onset AD.

Genentech announced the negative results on June 16 together with Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix.

During a press briefing, company representatives and researchers expressed disappointment with the initial results – but stressed numerous ongoing analyses have yet to be completed.

“This is the beginning of the story, but by no means the end of it,” Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and one of the study leaders, said at the briefing.

API ADAD trial

The prospective, double-blind parallel-group Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease (ADAD) phase 2 trial enrolled 252 members of the world’s largest extended family with ADAD in Colombia. A total of 94% of the participants completed the study.

Two-thirds of participants carried the Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) E280A mutation, which virtually guarantees that carriers will develop AD at an average age of 44 years and dementia at an average age of 49 years.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive crenezumab or placebo over a period of 5-8 years. The dose of crenezumab was increased at different time points during the trial as knowledge about potential treatment approaches for AD evolved.

Dr. Tariot noted the maximum dose was not provided for the entire treatment period. “The longest people received the highest dose was about 2 years,” he added.

Coprimary endpoints were rate of change in cognitive abilities, as measured by the API ADAD composite cognitive score, or episodic memory function, measured by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test Cueing Index.

Results showed these outcomes were not statistically significant for those receiving the active medication.

In addition to a range of cognitive measures, researchers also assessed amyloid PET and, later in the study, tau PET. MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures were also examined.

The investigators did find small numerical differences favoring crenezumab across the coprimary and multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, but these were also not statistically significant.

Finally, no new safety issues were identified with crenezumab during the study.

Further analyses of data are ongoing and additional brain imaging and CSF biomarker results will be presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference on Aug. 2.

While the study was not positive, it demonstrated that prevention trials are possible, even in less-than-ideal circumstances and generated a wealth of useful data, the investigators note.

“There were some differences between the treated and untreated patients, and we still need to understand which patients were most likely to experience those differences,” Rachelle Doody, MD, PhD, global head of neurodegeneration at Roche and Genentech, told briefing attendees.

“We need to understand the biomarkers involved and what [they’re] telling us about the disease and the timing of the intervention,” Dr. Doody said.

Prevention “needs to be one of our targeted therapeutic approaches but probably not our only one,” she added.

Beyond amyloid?

Commenting on the negative results, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said they demonstrate the need to focus beyond amyloid and more on the biology of aging.

“This broader approach coupled with advances in novel biomarkers is bringing us closer to the day when physicians will be able to zero in on the root causes of each patient’s Alzheimer’s – and tailor combinations of drug therapies to provide precision medicine,” Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research, said in statement.

Genentech is also evaluating the potential of gantenerumab for ADAD and for the prevention of sporadic AD and treatment of early Alzheimer’s in late-stage clinical trials. Results from the phase 3 GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab in early AD are expected by the end of the year.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, contributions to Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Crenezumab, an investigational medication designed to slow or prevent Alzheimer’s disease (AD), provides no cognitive benefit in patients at high genetic risk, new research suggests.

Top-line results for a phase 2 trial showed the novel drug, a monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize neurotoxic oligomers (a form of beta-amyloid), was not statistically superior to placebo in terms of cognitive ability or episodic memory function among cognitively unimpaired individuals with a genetic mutation for early-onset AD.

Genentech announced the negative results on June 16 together with Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix.

During a press briefing, company representatives and researchers expressed disappointment with the initial results – but stressed numerous ongoing analyses have yet to be completed.

“This is the beginning of the story, but by no means the end of it,” Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and one of the study leaders, said at the briefing.

API ADAD trial

The prospective, double-blind parallel-group Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease (ADAD) phase 2 trial enrolled 252 members of the world’s largest extended family with ADAD in Colombia. A total of 94% of the participants completed the study.

Two-thirds of participants carried the Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) E280A mutation, which virtually guarantees that carriers will develop AD at an average age of 44 years and dementia at an average age of 49 years.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive crenezumab or placebo over a period of 5-8 years. The dose of crenezumab was increased at different time points during the trial as knowledge about potential treatment approaches for AD evolved.

Dr. Tariot noted the maximum dose was not provided for the entire treatment period. “The longest people received the highest dose was about 2 years,” he added.

Coprimary endpoints were rate of change in cognitive abilities, as measured by the API ADAD composite cognitive score, or episodic memory function, measured by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test Cueing Index.

Results showed these outcomes were not statistically significant for those receiving the active medication.

In addition to a range of cognitive measures, researchers also assessed amyloid PET and, later in the study, tau PET. MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures were also examined.

The investigators did find small numerical differences favoring crenezumab across the coprimary and multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, but these were also not statistically significant.

Finally, no new safety issues were identified with crenezumab during the study.

Further analyses of data are ongoing and additional brain imaging and CSF biomarker results will be presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference on Aug. 2.

While the study was not positive, it demonstrated that prevention trials are possible, even in less-than-ideal circumstances and generated a wealth of useful data, the investigators note.

“There were some differences between the treated and untreated patients, and we still need to understand which patients were most likely to experience those differences,” Rachelle Doody, MD, PhD, global head of neurodegeneration at Roche and Genentech, told briefing attendees.

“We need to understand the biomarkers involved and what [they’re] telling us about the disease and the timing of the intervention,” Dr. Doody said.

Prevention “needs to be one of our targeted therapeutic approaches but probably not our only one,” she added.

Beyond amyloid?

Commenting on the negative results, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said they demonstrate the need to focus beyond amyloid and more on the biology of aging.

“This broader approach coupled with advances in novel biomarkers is bringing us closer to the day when physicians will be able to zero in on the root causes of each patient’s Alzheimer’s – and tailor combinations of drug therapies to provide precision medicine,” Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research, said in statement.

Genentech is also evaluating the potential of gantenerumab for ADAD and for the prevention of sporadic AD and treatment of early Alzheimer’s in late-stage clinical trials. Results from the phase 3 GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab in early AD are expected by the end of the year.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, contributions to Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Crenezumab, an investigational medication designed to slow or prevent Alzheimer’s disease (AD), provides no cognitive benefit in patients at high genetic risk, new research suggests.

Top-line results for a phase 2 trial showed the novel drug, a monoclonal antibody designed to neutralize neurotoxic oligomers (a form of beta-amyloid), was not statistically superior to placebo in terms of cognitive ability or episodic memory function among cognitively unimpaired individuals with a genetic mutation for early-onset AD.

Genentech announced the negative results on June 16 together with Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, Phoenix.

During a press briefing, company representatives and researchers expressed disappointment with the initial results – but stressed numerous ongoing analyses have yet to be completed.

“This is the beginning of the story, but by no means the end of it,” Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute, and one of the study leaders, said at the briefing.

API ADAD trial

The prospective, double-blind parallel-group Alzheimer’s Prevention Initiative (API) Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer’s Disease (ADAD) phase 2 trial enrolled 252 members of the world’s largest extended family with ADAD in Colombia. A total of 94% of the participants completed the study.

Two-thirds of participants carried the Presenilin 1 (PSEN1) E280A mutation, which virtually guarantees that carriers will develop AD at an average age of 44 years and dementia at an average age of 49 years.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive crenezumab or placebo over a period of 5-8 years. The dose of crenezumab was increased at different time points during the trial as knowledge about potential treatment approaches for AD evolved.

Dr. Tariot noted the maximum dose was not provided for the entire treatment period. “The longest people received the highest dose was about 2 years,” he added.

Coprimary endpoints were rate of change in cognitive abilities, as measured by the API ADAD composite cognitive score, or episodic memory function, measured by the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test Cueing Index.

Results showed these outcomes were not statistically significant for those receiving the active medication.

In addition to a range of cognitive measures, researchers also assessed amyloid PET and, later in the study, tau PET. MRI and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures were also examined.

The investigators did find small numerical differences favoring crenezumab across the coprimary and multiple secondary and exploratory endpoints, but these were also not statistically significant.

Finally, no new safety issues were identified with crenezumab during the study.

Further analyses of data are ongoing and additional brain imaging and CSF biomarker results will be presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference on Aug. 2.

While the study was not positive, it demonstrated that prevention trials are possible, even in less-than-ideal circumstances and generated a wealth of useful data, the investigators note.

“There were some differences between the treated and untreated patients, and we still need to understand which patients were most likely to experience those differences,” Rachelle Doody, MD, PhD, global head of neurodegeneration at Roche and Genentech, told briefing attendees.

“We need to understand the biomarkers involved and what [they’re] telling us about the disease and the timing of the intervention,” Dr. Doody said.

Prevention “needs to be one of our targeted therapeutic approaches but probably not our only one,” she added.

Beyond amyloid?

Commenting on the negative results, Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said they demonstrate the need to focus beyond amyloid and more on the biology of aging.

“This broader approach coupled with advances in novel biomarkers is bringing us closer to the day when physicians will be able to zero in on the root causes of each patient’s Alzheimer’s – and tailor combinations of drug therapies to provide precision medicine,” Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research, said in statement.

Genentech is also evaluating the potential of gantenerumab for ADAD and for the prevention of sporadic AD and treatment of early Alzheimer’s in late-stage clinical trials. Results from the phase 3 GRADUATE studies of gantenerumab in early AD are expected by the end of the year.

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, contributions to Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, and Genentech.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who snore frequently, even those who don’t have sleep apnea, may be less physically active during the day, new research shows.

“People who snore are also likely to have sleep apnea, but those who snore and don’t have sleep apnea are a largely understudied group,” senior author Michael Grandner, PhD, told this news organization.

“We found that even just snoring alone can impact health and well-being,” said Dr. Grandner, director of the sleep and health research program at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

A viscous cycle

Frequent snoring can signal sleep-disordered breathing, which is associated with a myriad of comorbidities, including increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

Prior studies have shown that sleep-disordered breathing is associated with less physical activity, but few studies have examined this at the population level or in relation to primary snoring.

Dr. Grandner and colleagues evaluated the relationship between snoring frequency and minutes of sedentary activity using 3 years’ worth of data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Participants reported snoring frequency and sedentary activity.

After adjusting for sex, age, race, education level, and marital status, adults who were frequent snorers (5+ nights per week) spent about 36 more minutes per day sedentary, compared with peers who reported never snoring.

In addition, those individuals who were determined to be at increased risk of having sleep apnea had about 54 more minutes per day of sedentary time in the adjusted model.

“Snoring is very common, and it doesn’t just affect the nighttime,” said Dr. Grandner.

Snoring can lead to “more tiredness and less energy, which can impact everything from mood to stress to – as we saw – activity level,” he noted.

Commenting on the results for this news organization, Raman Malhotra, MD, of the Washington University Sleep Center in St. Louis, said this study clearly demonstrates how people who snore and people who are at risk for sleep apnea are more sedentary.

This could explain the “vicious cycle” that these patients suffer from, inasmuch as having obesity can lead to sleep apnea, and having sleep apnea can lead to further sedentary lifestyle and weight gain, owing to lack of energy and feeling tired, Dr. Malhotra told this news organization.

“It is important to intervene and treat the sleep disorder to hopefully make people more active,” he added.

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Grandner and Dr. Malhotra disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Your gut microbiome will thank you later

A healthy gut seems like the new catch-all to better overall health these days. Nutrition and diet culture has us drinking kombucha and ginger tea and coffee, but what if we told you that going to happy hour might also help?

In a recent double-blind study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 19 men were divided into two groups and asked to drink 11 ounces of alcoholic lager (5.2% by volume) or nonalcoholic lager with dinner for 4 weeks.

Beer? Yes. Beer.

Engin Akyurt/Pixabay

We humans have trillions of microorganisms running rampant through our digestive tracts. When they’re happy, we have a lower chance of developing heart disease and diabetes. You know what else has millions of happy microorganisms from fermentation? Beer. It also has polyphenols that can help the body’s tissues fight cancers, as well as heart disease and inflammation. So beer is looking a little more healthy now, isn’t it?

In the study, the researchers found that both the alcoholic- and nonalcoholic-lager groups had a boost in bacterial diversity in the gut and higher fecal alkaline phosphatase levels, which showed improved intestinal health. They acknowledged, however, that the nonalcoholic route would be safer and healthier for overall health.

So add a lager to the list of gut-healthy foods that you should be consuming. It may give the phrase “beer gut” a whole new meaning.
 

We’ve lost our minds, but at least we know how fast they’re going

The phrase “quantum consciousness” sounds like something out of a particularly cheesy episode of Star Trek: “Oh no, Captain, the quantum consciousness has invaded our computer, and the only way to drive it out is to reverse the polarity of a focused tachyon beam.”

Massimiliano De Deo, LNGS-INFN

When it comes to understanding such basic existential issues as the origin of consciousness, however, quantum mechanics wasn’t off the table. The theory of the quantum origin of consciousness dates back to the 1990s (thanks in part to noted physician Roger Penrose), and goes something like this: There are microtubules within neurons in the brain that are small enough and isolated enough from the warm, wet, and chaotic brain environment where quantum effects can briefly come into play. We’re talking miniscule fractions of a second here, but still, long enough for quantum calculations to take place in the form of system wavefunction collapse, courtesy of gravity.

To plunge even deeper into the rabbit hole of quantum mechanics, the reason Schrödinger’s cat doesn’t occur in real life is wavefunction collapse; the more massive a quantum system is, the more likely it is to collapse into one state or another (alive or dead, in the cat’s case). The quantum origin of consciousness, or Orch OR theory, holds that human consciousness arises from electrical oscillations within the neuronal microtubules caused by the computations stemming from the collapse of small quantum systems.

That is an awful lot of overly simplified explanation, especially considering the study that just came out essentially disproved it. Oops. The research, published in Physics of Life Reviews, is pretty simple. The researchers went to a lab deep underground to avoid interference from cosmic rays, and sat around for months, observing a chunk of germanium for signs of spontaneous radiation, attributable to the same sort of wavefunction collapse that is supposedly occurring in our brains. They found nothing out of the ordinary, pretty definitively disproving most of Orch OR theory.

The researchers were unwilling to completely dismiss the idea (this is quantum mechanics, after all, uncertainty kind of goes with the territory), but it does seem like we’ll have to search elsewhere for sources of human consciousness. Personally, we’re big fans of the cymbal-playing monkey.
 

Missing links: A real fish story

Dear LOTME:

Ear’s a question that’s been keeping me up at night. Is the human middle ear the result of top-secret government experiments involving alien technology, Abraham Lincoln, and the Illuminati?

Restless in Roswell

Dear Restless:

The paleoanthropologic community has been sorting through this mystery for decades, and fossils discovered in China over the past 20 years finally provide a much less conspiratorially satisfying answer.

IVPP

For some time now, experts in the field have believed that the bones of the human middle ear evolved from the spiracular gill of a fish. The spiracle is a small hole behind each eye that opens to the mouth in some fishes and was used to breathe air in the earliest, most primitive species. But how did we get from spiracle to ear?

The missing links come in the form of the cranial anatomy of Shuyu, a 438-million-year-old, fingernail-sized skull of a jawless fish, and the 419-million-year-old fossil of a completely preserved fish with gill filaments in the first branchial chamber.

“These fossils provided the first anatomical and fossil evidence for a vertebrate spiracle originating from fish gills,” senior author Gai Zhikun, PhD, of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Beijing, said in a written statement.

In many ways, it seems, we are fish: “Many important structures of human beings can be traced back to our fish ancestors, such as our teeth, jaws, middle ears, etc,” added Zhu Min, PhD, also of the institute.

So, Restless, the next time you hear the soothing sounds of an angry mob storming the Capitol or you chew on a slab, slice, or chunk of mutant, laboratory-produced chicken in your favorite fast-food restaurant, be sure to thank Shuyu.
 

Can you lend me an ear?

If you thought locusts were only a nuisance, think again. They have their uses. If you take a locust’s ear and put it inside a robot, the robot will be able to hear and receive signals. Who knew?

850977/Pixabay

Researchers from Tel Aviv University in Israel showed the robot’s hearing abilities by giving clap signals that told the robot what to do: One clap means go forward, two claps mean move back. What do you think the robot would do if it heard the clap break from Cha Cha Slide?

“Our task was to replace the robot’s electronic microphone with a dead insect’s ear, use the ear’s ability to detect the electrical signals from the environment, in this case vibrations in the air, and, using a special chip, convert the insect input to that of the robot,” Ben M. Maoz, PhD, said in a statement from the university.

And how does a dead locust ear work in a robot? Well, Dr. Maoz explained: “My laboratory has developed a special device – Ear-on-a-Chip – that allows the ear to be kept alive throughout the experiment by supplying oxygen and food to the organ while allowing the electrical signals to be taken out of the locust’s ear and amplified and transmitted to the robot.”

The research won’t stop at hearing, he said, as the other four senses also will be taken into consideration. This could help us sense dangers in the future, such as earthquakes or diseases. We said it before and we’ll say it again: We’re rooting for you, science!

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleep time may be a modifiable risk factor for cancer, according to a recent study from Japan.

The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer. 

The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”

Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.

The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer. 

The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.

A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.

To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.

In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.

In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).

Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).

The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.

Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.

It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.

Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”

The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – What may be the largest case-based study of patients with migraine and sleep-disordered breathing to date has found that, counter to prevailing thought, they may not be at higher risk of having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than nonmigraine patients, although further prospective studies are needed to validate that finding.

“This in no way for me changes the fact that, for patients that complain of headaches, sleep apnea remains to be something that should be considered as possible cause of their headaches,” neurologist and Cleveland Clinic postdoctoral fellow Eric Gruenthal, MD, said in an interview after he presented his results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The study suggested that patients with migraine may have an OSA risk that “may be a little lower” than their nonmigraine counterparts, Dr. Gruenthal said. “But we have really yet to determine whether that’s true or not.”
 

Large case-based study

The retrospective case study included 4,783 migraine cases from the Cleveland Clinic electronic health record database who were case matched on a 1:3 basis with 14,287 controls. Patients with migraine had an average age of 47.5 years (±13.3) and body mass index of 33.7 kg/m² (±8.6), and 76.4% were White. All patients had polysomnography (PSG) at a Cleveland Clinic facility from 1998 to 2021.

The analysis evaluated the collected data in two domains: sleep architecture, consisting of arousal index (AI), total sleep time (TST) and percentage of sleep stage time; and sleep-disordered breathing, including apnea hypopnea index (AHI) and mean oxygen saturation. The key findings of the migraine patients versus controls include:

• Lower AI, 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 12.8-30.9) versus 22.6 (95% CI, 14.7-34.9; P < .001).
• Shorter TST, 359 (95% CI, 307-421) versus 363 (95% CI, 306-432.5) minutes (P = .01).
• With regard to sleep stage, the percentage of N2 sleep was higher, 67.8% (95% CI, 59.6%-75.6%) versus 67% (95% CI, 58.4%-74.8%; P < .001); but the percentage of REM was lower at 16.7% (95% CI, 10%-22%) versus 17% (95% CI, 11.1%-22.2%; P = .012).
• Lower AHI, 7.4 (95% CI, 2.6-17) versus 9.5 (95% CI, 3.7-22.1, P < .001).
• Higher mean oxygen saturation, 93.7 (±2.4) versus 93.3% (±2.6; P < .001).

“Also,” Dr. Gruenthal added, “we found that the percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation below 90% was lower among patients with migraine, at 1.3% versus 2.4%” (P < .001).
 

A unique profile?

The goal of the study was to determine whether migraine patients would have a unique PSG profile, Dr. Gruenthal said. “We were trying to overcome some of the limitations of previous studies, most notably those that use small sample sizes, and in some cases a lack of controls.”

The findings that migraine patients would have higher AI and elevated AHI ran counter to the study’s hypotheses, but fell in line with the expectation that they would have reduced TST, Dr. Gruenthal said.

Patients with migraine “may, in fact, exhibit a lower burden of sleep-disordered breathing, and that’s based on our findings such as the lower AHI and decreased burden of hypoxemia,” he said. “We theorized that this may be related to patients with migraine having a unique CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] and serotonin physiology.” He noted that previously published research has shown that sleep CGRP and serotonin have a central role in causing arousal in response to rising CO₂ levels during sleep, which can occur during apneas and hypopneas.

Dr. Gruenthal noted that the researchers are still analyzing the findings. “We theorized that possible indication bias may be present in our study,” he said. “It may be the case that patients with migraine are more likely to get their PSG done because of their headache and not for things like snoring and witnessed apneas, which may be more predictive of significant sleep apnea.” They’re also evaluating the “question of medicine confounding.”

Dr. Gruenthal added that “the big unanswered question out there is, if you have a patient with migraine who also has sleep apnea, by treating the sleep apnea will that improve their migraine?”
 

More questions than answers

Commenting on the study, Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center, Atlanta, said the study findings shouldn’t change how clinicians approach migraine in relation to sleep.

“It’s a case series, it’s retrospective,” said Dr. Bliwise, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the largest study that I know of that has ever looked at the diagnosis of migraine in relation to polysomnographic measures of sleep, but it’s imprecise to the extent that migraine is a clinical diagnosis, so not everyone that carries the diagnosis of migraine has the diagnosis made by a neurologist.”

The study raises more questions than it answers, he said, “but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think we need more prospective studies.” Those studies should be more granular in how they analyze sleep in migraine patients “Since migraine is an intermittent event, and sleep quality and length, and percentage of REM sleep and even sleep apnea can vary from night to night, it would be fascinating to look at headaches over a month in relation to sleep over a month.”

Dr. Gruenthal and Dr. Bliwise have no disclosures. The Association of Migraine Disorders provided funding for the study.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – What may be the largest case-based study of patients with migraine and sleep-disordered breathing to date has found that, counter to prevailing thought, they may not be at higher risk of having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than nonmigraine patients, although further prospective studies are needed to validate that finding.

“This in no way for me changes the fact that, for patients that complain of headaches, sleep apnea remains to be something that should be considered as possible cause of their headaches,” neurologist and Cleveland Clinic postdoctoral fellow Eric Gruenthal, MD, said in an interview after he presented his results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The study suggested that patients with migraine may have an OSA risk that “may be a little lower” than their nonmigraine counterparts, Dr. Gruenthal said. “But we have really yet to determine whether that’s true or not.”
 

Large case-based study

The retrospective case study included 4,783 migraine cases from the Cleveland Clinic electronic health record database who were case matched on a 1:3 basis with 14,287 controls. Patients with migraine had an average age of 47.5 years (±13.3) and body mass index of 33.7 kg/m² (±8.6), and 76.4% were White. All patients had polysomnography (PSG) at a Cleveland Clinic facility from 1998 to 2021.

The analysis evaluated the collected data in two domains: sleep architecture, consisting of arousal index (AI), total sleep time (TST) and percentage of sleep stage time; and sleep-disordered breathing, including apnea hypopnea index (AHI) and mean oxygen saturation. The key findings of the migraine patients versus controls include:

• Lower AI, 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 12.8-30.9) versus 22.6 (95% CI, 14.7-34.9; P < .001).
• Shorter TST, 359 (95% CI, 307-421) versus 363 (95% CI, 306-432.5) minutes (P = .01).
• With regard to sleep stage, the percentage of N2 sleep was higher, 67.8% (95% CI, 59.6%-75.6%) versus 67% (95% CI, 58.4%-74.8%; P < .001); but the percentage of REM was lower at 16.7% (95% CI, 10%-22%) versus 17% (95% CI, 11.1%-22.2%; P = .012).
• Lower AHI, 7.4 (95% CI, 2.6-17) versus 9.5 (95% CI, 3.7-22.1, P < .001).
• Higher mean oxygen saturation, 93.7 (±2.4) versus 93.3% (±2.6; P < .001).

“Also,” Dr. Gruenthal added, “we found that the percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation below 90% was lower among patients with migraine, at 1.3% versus 2.4%” (P < .001).
 

A unique profile?

The goal of the study was to determine whether migraine patients would have a unique PSG profile, Dr. Gruenthal said. “We were trying to overcome some of the limitations of previous studies, most notably those that use small sample sizes, and in some cases a lack of controls.”

The findings that migraine patients would have higher AI and elevated AHI ran counter to the study’s hypotheses, but fell in line with the expectation that they would have reduced TST, Dr. Gruenthal said.

Patients with migraine “may, in fact, exhibit a lower burden of sleep-disordered breathing, and that’s based on our findings such as the lower AHI and decreased burden of hypoxemia,” he said. “We theorized that this may be related to patients with migraine having a unique CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] and serotonin physiology.” He noted that previously published research has shown that sleep CGRP and serotonin have a central role in causing arousal in response to rising CO₂ levels during sleep, which can occur during apneas and hypopneas.

Dr. Gruenthal noted that the researchers are still analyzing the findings. “We theorized that possible indication bias may be present in our study,” he said. “It may be the case that patients with migraine are more likely to get their PSG done because of their headache and not for things like snoring and witnessed apneas, which may be more predictive of significant sleep apnea.” They’re also evaluating the “question of medicine confounding.”

Dr. Gruenthal added that “the big unanswered question out there is, if you have a patient with migraine who also has sleep apnea, by treating the sleep apnea will that improve their migraine?”
 

More questions than answers

Commenting on the study, Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center, Atlanta, said the study findings shouldn’t change how clinicians approach migraine in relation to sleep.

“It’s a case series, it’s retrospective,” said Dr. Bliwise, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the largest study that I know of that has ever looked at the diagnosis of migraine in relation to polysomnographic measures of sleep, but it’s imprecise to the extent that migraine is a clinical diagnosis, so not everyone that carries the diagnosis of migraine has the diagnosis made by a neurologist.”

The study raises more questions than it answers, he said, “but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think we need more prospective studies.” Those studies should be more granular in how they analyze sleep in migraine patients “Since migraine is an intermittent event, and sleep quality and length, and percentage of REM sleep and even sleep apnea can vary from night to night, it would be fascinating to look at headaches over a month in relation to sleep over a month.”

Dr. Gruenthal and Dr. Bliwise have no disclosures. The Association of Migraine Disorders provided funding for the study.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – What may be the largest case-based study of patients with migraine and sleep-disordered breathing to date has found that, counter to prevailing thought, they may not be at higher risk of having obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) than nonmigraine patients, although further prospective studies are needed to validate that finding.

“This in no way for me changes the fact that, for patients that complain of headaches, sleep apnea remains to be something that should be considered as possible cause of their headaches,” neurologist and Cleveland Clinic postdoctoral fellow Eric Gruenthal, MD, said in an interview after he presented his results at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The study suggested that patients with migraine may have an OSA risk that “may be a little lower” than their nonmigraine counterparts, Dr. Gruenthal said. “But we have really yet to determine whether that’s true or not.”
 

Large case-based study

The retrospective case study included 4,783 migraine cases from the Cleveland Clinic electronic health record database who were case matched on a 1:3 basis with 14,287 controls. Patients with migraine had an average age of 47.5 years (±13.3) and body mass index of 33.7 kg/m² (±8.6), and 76.4% were White. All patients had polysomnography (PSG) at a Cleveland Clinic facility from 1998 to 2021.

The analysis evaluated the collected data in two domains: sleep architecture, consisting of arousal index (AI), total sleep time (TST) and percentage of sleep stage time; and sleep-disordered breathing, including apnea hypopnea index (AHI) and mean oxygen saturation. The key findings of the migraine patients versus controls include:

• Lower AI, 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 12.8-30.9) versus 22.6 (95% CI, 14.7-34.9; P < .001).
• Shorter TST, 359 (95% CI, 307-421) versus 363 (95% CI, 306-432.5) minutes (P = .01).
• With regard to sleep stage, the percentage of N2 sleep was higher, 67.8% (95% CI, 59.6%-75.6%) versus 67% (95% CI, 58.4%-74.8%; P < .001); but the percentage of REM was lower at 16.7% (95% CI, 10%-22%) versus 17% (95% CI, 11.1%-22.2%; P = .012).
• Lower AHI, 7.4 (95% CI, 2.6-17) versus 9.5 (95% CI, 3.7-22.1, P < .001).
• Higher mean oxygen saturation, 93.7 (±2.4) versus 93.3% (±2.6; P < .001).

“Also,” Dr. Gruenthal added, “we found that the percentage of sleep time with oxygen saturation below 90% was lower among patients with migraine, at 1.3% versus 2.4%” (P < .001).
 

A unique profile?

The goal of the study was to determine whether migraine patients would have a unique PSG profile, Dr. Gruenthal said. “We were trying to overcome some of the limitations of previous studies, most notably those that use small sample sizes, and in some cases a lack of controls.”

The findings that migraine patients would have higher AI and elevated AHI ran counter to the study’s hypotheses, but fell in line with the expectation that they would have reduced TST, Dr. Gruenthal said.

Patients with migraine “may, in fact, exhibit a lower burden of sleep-disordered breathing, and that’s based on our findings such as the lower AHI and decreased burden of hypoxemia,” he said. “We theorized that this may be related to patients with migraine having a unique CGRP [calcitonin gene-related peptide] and serotonin physiology.” He noted that previously published research has shown that sleep CGRP and serotonin have a central role in causing arousal in response to rising CO₂ levels during sleep, which can occur during apneas and hypopneas.

Dr. Gruenthal noted that the researchers are still analyzing the findings. “We theorized that possible indication bias may be present in our study,” he said. “It may be the case that patients with migraine are more likely to get their PSG done because of their headache and not for things like snoring and witnessed apneas, which may be more predictive of significant sleep apnea.” They’re also evaluating the “question of medicine confounding.”

Dr. Gruenthal added that “the big unanswered question out there is, if you have a patient with migraine who also has sleep apnea, by treating the sleep apnea will that improve their migraine?”
 

More questions than answers

Commenting on the study, Donald Bliwise, PhD, professor of neurology at Emory Sleep Center, Atlanta, said the study findings shouldn’t change how clinicians approach migraine in relation to sleep.

“It’s a case series, it’s retrospective,” said Dr. Bliwise, who was not involved in the study. “It’s the largest study that I know of that has ever looked at the diagnosis of migraine in relation to polysomnographic measures of sleep, but it’s imprecise to the extent that migraine is a clinical diagnosis, so not everyone that carries the diagnosis of migraine has the diagnosis made by a neurologist.”

The study raises more questions than it answers, he said, “but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think we need more prospective studies.” Those studies should be more granular in how they analyze sleep in migraine patients “Since migraine is an intermittent event, and sleep quality and length, and percentage of REM sleep and even sleep apnea can vary from night to night, it would be fascinating to look at headaches over a month in relation to sleep over a month.”

Dr. Gruenthal and Dr. Bliwise have no disclosures. The Association of Migraine Disorders provided funding for the study.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Erratic sleep patterns over years or even decades, along with a patient’s age and history of depression, may be harbingers of cognitive impairment later in life, an analysis of decades of data from a large sleep study has found.

“What we were a little surprised to find in this model was that sleep duration, whether short, long or average, was not significant, but the sleep variability – the change in sleep across those time measurements—was significantly impacting the incidence of cognitive impairment,” Samantha Keil, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, reported at the at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The researchers analyzed sleep and cognition data collected over decades on 1,104 adults who participated in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Study participants ranged from age 55 to over 100, with almost 80% of the study cohort aged 65 and older.

The Seattle Longitudinal Study first started gathering data in the 1950s. Participants in the study cohort underwent an extensive cognitive battery, which was added to the study in 1984 and gathered every 5-7 years, and completed a health behavioral questionnaire (HBQ), which was added in 1993 and administered every 3-5 years, Dr. Keil said. The HBQ included a question on average nightly sleep duration.

The study used a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model to evaluate the overall effect of average sleep duration and changes in sleep duration over time on cognitive impairment. Covariates used in the model included apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) genotype, gender, years of education, ethnicity, and depression.

Dr. Keil said the model found, as expected, that the  demographic variables of education, APOE status, and depression were significantly associated with cognitive impairment (hazard ratios of 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.21; P = .01; and 2.08; 95% CI, 1.31-3.31; P < .005; and 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P < .005, respectively). Importantly, when evaluating the duration, change and variability of sleep, the researchers found that increased sleep variability was significantly associated with cognitive impairment (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.69-5.87; P < .005).  

Under this analysis, “sleep variability over time and not median sleep duration was associated with cognitive impairment,” she said. When sleep variability was added into the model, it improved the concordance score – a value that reflects the ability of a model to predict an outcome better than random chance – from .63 to .73 (a value of .5 indicates the model is no better at predicting an outcome than a random chance model; a value of .7 or greater indicates a good model).

Identification of sleep variability as a sleep pattern of interest in longitudinal studies is important, Dr. Keil said, because simply evaluating mean or median sleep duration across time might not account for a subject’s variable sleep phenotype. Most importantly, further evaluation of sleep variability with a linear regression prediction analysis (F statistic 8.796, P < .0001, adjusted R-squared .235) found that increased age, depression, and sleep variability significantly predicted cognitive impairment 10 years downstream. “Longitudinal sleep variability is perhaps for the first time being reported as significantly associated with the development of downstream cognitive impairment,” Dr. Keil said.

What makes this study unique, Dr. Keil said in an interview, is that it used self-reported longitudinal data gathered at 3- to 5-year intervals for up to 25 years, allowing for the assessment of variation of sleep duration across this entire time frame. “If you could use that shift in sleep duration as a point of therapeutic intervention, that would be really exciting,” she said.

Future research will evaluate how sleep variability and cognitive function are impacted by other variables gathered in the Seattle Longitudinal Study over the years, including factors such as diabetes and hypertension status, diet, alcohol and tobacco use, and marital and family status. Follow-up studies will be investigating the impact of sleep variability on neuropathologic disease progression and lymphatic system impairment, Dr. Keil said.
 

A newer approach

By linking sleep variability and daytime functioning, the study employs a “newer approach,” said Joseph M. Dzierzewski, PhD, director of behavioral medicine concentration in the department of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “While some previous work has examined night-to-night fluctuation in various sleep characteristics and cognitive functioning, what differentiates the present study from these previous works is the duration of the investigation,” he said. The “richness of data” in the Seattle Longitudinal Study and how it tracks sleep and cognition over years make it “quite unique and novel.”

Future studies, he said, should be deliberate in how they evaluate sleep and neurocognitive function across years. “Disentangling short-term moment-to-moment and day-to-day fluctuation, which may be more reversible in nature, from long-term, enduring month-to-month or year-to-year fluctuation, which may be more permanent, will be important for continuing to advance our understanding of these complex phenomena,” Dr. Dzierzewski said. “An additional important area of future investigation would be to continue the hunt for a common biological factor underpinning both sleep variability and Alzheimer’s disease.” That, he said, may help identify potential intervention targets.

Dr. Keil and Dr. Dzierzewski have no relevant disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Erratic sleep patterns over years or even decades, along with a patient’s age and history of depression, may be harbingers of cognitive impairment later in life, an analysis of decades of data from a large sleep study has found.

“What we were a little surprised to find in this model was that sleep duration, whether short, long or average, was not significant, but the sleep variability – the change in sleep across those time measurements—was significantly impacting the incidence of cognitive impairment,” Samantha Keil, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, reported at the at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The researchers analyzed sleep and cognition data collected over decades on 1,104 adults who participated in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Study participants ranged from age 55 to over 100, with almost 80% of the study cohort aged 65 and older.

The Seattle Longitudinal Study first started gathering data in the 1950s. Participants in the study cohort underwent an extensive cognitive battery, which was added to the study in 1984 and gathered every 5-7 years, and completed a health behavioral questionnaire (HBQ), which was added in 1993 and administered every 3-5 years, Dr. Keil said. The HBQ included a question on average nightly sleep duration.

The study used a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model to evaluate the overall effect of average sleep duration and changes in sleep duration over time on cognitive impairment. Covariates used in the model included apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) genotype, gender, years of education, ethnicity, and depression.

Dr. Keil said the model found, as expected, that the  demographic variables of education, APOE status, and depression were significantly associated with cognitive impairment (hazard ratios of 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.21; P = .01; and 2.08; 95% CI, 1.31-3.31; P < .005; and 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P < .005, respectively). Importantly, when evaluating the duration, change and variability of sleep, the researchers found that increased sleep variability was significantly associated with cognitive impairment (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.69-5.87; P < .005).  

Under this analysis, “sleep variability over time and not median sleep duration was associated with cognitive impairment,” she said. When sleep variability was added into the model, it improved the concordance score – a value that reflects the ability of a model to predict an outcome better than random chance – from .63 to .73 (a value of .5 indicates the model is no better at predicting an outcome than a random chance model; a value of .7 or greater indicates a good model).

Identification of sleep variability as a sleep pattern of interest in longitudinal studies is important, Dr. Keil said, because simply evaluating mean or median sleep duration across time might not account for a subject’s variable sleep phenotype. Most importantly, further evaluation of sleep variability with a linear regression prediction analysis (F statistic 8.796, P < .0001, adjusted R-squared .235) found that increased age, depression, and sleep variability significantly predicted cognitive impairment 10 years downstream. “Longitudinal sleep variability is perhaps for the first time being reported as significantly associated with the development of downstream cognitive impairment,” Dr. Keil said.

What makes this study unique, Dr. Keil said in an interview, is that it used self-reported longitudinal data gathered at 3- to 5-year intervals for up to 25 years, allowing for the assessment of variation of sleep duration across this entire time frame. “If you could use that shift in sleep duration as a point of therapeutic intervention, that would be really exciting,” she said.

Future research will evaluate how sleep variability and cognitive function are impacted by other variables gathered in the Seattle Longitudinal Study over the years, including factors such as diabetes and hypertension status, diet, alcohol and tobacco use, and marital and family status. Follow-up studies will be investigating the impact of sleep variability on neuropathologic disease progression and lymphatic system impairment, Dr. Keil said.
 

A newer approach

By linking sleep variability and daytime functioning, the study employs a “newer approach,” said Joseph M. Dzierzewski, PhD, director of behavioral medicine concentration in the department of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “While some previous work has examined night-to-night fluctuation in various sleep characteristics and cognitive functioning, what differentiates the present study from these previous works is the duration of the investigation,” he said. The “richness of data” in the Seattle Longitudinal Study and how it tracks sleep and cognition over years make it “quite unique and novel.”

Future studies, he said, should be deliberate in how they evaluate sleep and neurocognitive function across years. “Disentangling short-term moment-to-moment and day-to-day fluctuation, which may be more reversible in nature, from long-term, enduring month-to-month or year-to-year fluctuation, which may be more permanent, will be important for continuing to advance our understanding of these complex phenomena,” Dr. Dzierzewski said. “An additional important area of future investigation would be to continue the hunt for a common biological factor underpinning both sleep variability and Alzheimer’s disease.” That, he said, may help identify potential intervention targets.

Dr. Keil and Dr. Dzierzewski have no relevant disclosures.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Erratic sleep patterns over years or even decades, along with a patient’s age and history of depression, may be harbingers of cognitive impairment later in life, an analysis of decades of data from a large sleep study has found.

“What we were a little surprised to find in this model was that sleep duration, whether short, long or average, was not significant, but the sleep variability – the change in sleep across those time measurements—was significantly impacting the incidence of cognitive impairment,” Samantha Keil, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Washington, Seattle, reported at the at the annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.

The researchers analyzed sleep and cognition data collected over decades on 1,104 adults who participated in the Seattle Longitudinal Study. Study participants ranged from age 55 to over 100, with almost 80% of the study cohort aged 65 and older.

The Seattle Longitudinal Study first started gathering data in the 1950s. Participants in the study cohort underwent an extensive cognitive battery, which was added to the study in 1984 and gathered every 5-7 years, and completed a health behavioral questionnaire (HBQ), which was added in 1993 and administered every 3-5 years, Dr. Keil said. The HBQ included a question on average nightly sleep duration.

The study used a multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model to evaluate the overall effect of average sleep duration and changes in sleep duration over time on cognitive impairment. Covariates used in the model included apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) genotype, gender, years of education, ethnicity, and depression.

Dr. Keil said the model found, as expected, that the  demographic variables of education, APOE status, and depression were significantly associated with cognitive impairment (hazard ratios of 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.21; P = .01; and 2.08; 95% CI, 1.31-3.31; P < .005; and 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.13; P < .005, respectively). Importantly, when evaluating the duration, change and variability of sleep, the researchers found that increased sleep variability was significantly associated with cognitive impairment (HR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.69-5.87; P < .005).  

Under this analysis, “sleep variability over time and not median sleep duration was associated with cognitive impairment,” she said. When sleep variability was added into the model, it improved the concordance score – a value that reflects the ability of a model to predict an outcome better than random chance – from .63 to .73 (a value of .5 indicates the model is no better at predicting an outcome than a random chance model; a value of .7 or greater indicates a good model).

Identification of sleep variability as a sleep pattern of interest in longitudinal studies is important, Dr. Keil said, because simply evaluating mean or median sleep duration across time might not account for a subject’s variable sleep phenotype. Most importantly, further evaluation of sleep variability with a linear regression prediction analysis (F statistic 8.796, P < .0001, adjusted R-squared .235) found that increased age, depression, and sleep variability significantly predicted cognitive impairment 10 years downstream. “Longitudinal sleep variability is perhaps for the first time being reported as significantly associated with the development of downstream cognitive impairment,” Dr. Keil said.

What makes this study unique, Dr. Keil said in an interview, is that it used self-reported longitudinal data gathered at 3- to 5-year intervals for up to 25 years, allowing for the assessment of variation of sleep duration across this entire time frame. “If you could use that shift in sleep duration as a point of therapeutic intervention, that would be really exciting,” she said.

Future research will evaluate how sleep variability and cognitive function are impacted by other variables gathered in the Seattle Longitudinal Study over the years, including factors such as diabetes and hypertension status, diet, alcohol and tobacco use, and marital and family status. Follow-up studies will be investigating the impact of sleep variability on neuropathologic disease progression and lymphatic system impairment, Dr. Keil said.
 

A newer approach

By linking sleep variability and daytime functioning, the study employs a “newer approach,” said Joseph M. Dzierzewski, PhD, director of behavioral medicine concentration in the department of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. “While some previous work has examined night-to-night fluctuation in various sleep characteristics and cognitive functioning, what differentiates the present study from these previous works is the duration of the investigation,” he said. The “richness of data” in the Seattle Longitudinal Study and how it tracks sleep and cognition over years make it “quite unique and novel.”

Future studies, he said, should be deliberate in how they evaluate sleep and neurocognitive function across years. “Disentangling short-term moment-to-moment and day-to-day fluctuation, which may be more reversible in nature, from long-term, enduring month-to-month or year-to-year fluctuation, which may be more permanent, will be important for continuing to advance our understanding of these complex phenomena,” Dr. Dzierzewski said. “An additional important area of future investigation would be to continue the hunt for a common biological factor underpinning both sleep variability and Alzheimer’s disease.” That, he said, may help identify potential intervention targets.

Dr. Keil and Dr. Dzierzewski have no relevant disclosures.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

This past weekend, because of a series of unfortunate events, I had to move a lot of furniture. This included the bookshelves in my home office. I began by taking books off the shelves to make the bookcase easier to move.

After blowing away a few pounds of dust, I found myself staring at tomes that were once the center of my life: Robbin’s “Pathological Basis of Disease,” Cecil’s “Essentials of Medicine,” Stryer’s “Biochemistry, Grant’s Method of Anatomy,” Stedman’s “Medical Dictionary,” and a few others. All of them more than 30 years old.

I piled the books up on a table as I moved the bookcase, thinking about them. I hadn’t opened any of them in at least 20 years, probably more.

When it was time to put them back, I stared at the pile. They’re big and heavy, qualities that we assume are good things in textbooks. Especially in medical school.

Books have heft. Their knowledge and supposed wisdom are measured by weight and size as you slowly turn the pages under a desk lamp. Not like today, where all the libraries of the world are accessible from a single lightweight iPad.

I remember carrying those books around, stuffed in a backpack draped over my left shoulder. In retrospect it’s amazing I didn’t develop a long thoracic nerve palsy during those years.

They were expensive. I mean, in 1989 dollars, they were all between $50 and $100. I long ago shredded my credit card statements from that era, but my spending for books was pretty high. Fortunately my dad stood behind me for a big chunk of this, and told me to get whatever I needed. Believe me, I know how lucky I am.

I looked at the books. We’d been through a lot together. Long nights at my apartment across the street from Creighton, reading and rereading them. The pages still marked with the yellow highlighter pen that never left my side back then. A younger version of myself traced these pages, committing things to memory that I now have no recollection of. (If you can still draw the Krebs cycle from memory you’re way ahead of me.)

Realistically, though, there was no reason to hold onto them anymore. I’m about two-thirds of the way through my career. If I haven’t opened my old medical textbooks in 20-25 years, the odds are that I’m not going to now.

Plus, they’re out of date. Basic anatomy knowledge hasn’t changed much, but most everything else has. I started med school in 1989, and if I’d been looking things up in 1959 textbooks then, I probably wouldn’t have gotten very far. When I need to look things up these days I go to UpToDate, or Epocrates, or other online sources or apps.

I carried the majority of the books out to the recycling can. (It took a few trips.)

Facing some now-empty space on my bookshelf, I put my next challenge there: A pile of 33-RPM records that I still can’t bring myself to get rid of.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – How often do patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) end up taking drugs that could dangerously interact with other medications they’re taking? A new German study provides a disturbing hint, a pharmacist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers told colleagues: Out of 627 patients who took an average of 5.3 drugs each, about 1 in 25 faced a potentially severe interaction, and nearly two-thirds had at least one potentially risky interaction.

It’s crucial to “work on identifying those interactions,” said Jenelle H. Montgomery, PharmD, of Duke University Hospital, Durham, N.C., and to understand the risks. As she noted, interactions don’t just put patients at risk of adverse effects and hospitalization. They can also lead to secondary comorbidities and therapeutic failures.
 

Newer versus older drugs

Drug interactions in MS have become more common as disease-modifying therapies have evolved, she said. Some older drugs – such as glatiramer acetate, beta-interferons, and fumarates – have low interaction profiles. But newer drugs have more drug interactions caused in part by their side-effect profiles, oral routes of administration, and immunosuppressive instead of immunomodulatory effects, she said. Teriflunomide, for example, interacts with rosuvastatin and warfarin.

S1P modulators are especially complex on the interaction front, Dr. Montgomery said. Cardiology consults are recommended for patients taking siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod, and there are a number of potential interactions between these drugs and other medications.

In regard to other MS drugs, other medications can disrupt the metabolism of cladribine, she said, and the manufacturer recommends separating any other oral drug doses by 3 hours. Even MS-related drugs can interact: carbamazepine, used to treat MS-related neuropathic pain, interacts with drugs such as siponimod.
 

Who is most at risk?

How can medical professionals prevent harmful drug interactions in MS? One strategy could be to focus on patients who may be more susceptible. Dr. Montgomery highlighted the kinds of patients who were most at risk of polypharmacy, per the 2022 German study: older people, those with lower education levels, and those with more disability. And she pointed out that 77% of all drug interactions were between prescription drugs. Another 19% were between prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications, and 4% were between OTC drugs.

She also emphasized the importance of asking about everything that a patient is taking, including herbal supplements, as nearly 60% of people aged 20 and over take them, and about 75% of those over 60. A quarter of people over age 60 take at least four supplements.

Information about interactions with supplements isn’t always available, she said, but she did mention concerns about St. John’s wort interactions with siponimod and cladribine.

Dr. Montgomery also offered several tips: Periodically ask patients to bring in medication bottles or pillboxes; encourage annual checkups with primary physicians; and use drug resources such as Facts and Comparisons, Lexicomp, Clinical Pharmacology, Micromedex, and Natural Medicines.

Disclosures for Dr. Montgomery were not available.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Treatment guidelines are helpful in treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), a neurologist told colleagues, but they’re only useful to an extent. Consider his 40-year-old female patient who’s averse to vaccines, often misses appointments, and seems to be unable to take blood pressure drugs as prescribed. In this case, the best strategy may not be the drug with the highest efficacy.

“There’s no pharmaceutical insert that’s going to tell you what to do with all of this information,” John R. Rinker II, MD, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers. “It’s important to not only know about the disease and the specifics of the pharmaceuticals, but also about the patient’s personal circumstances, their comorbidities, their social situation, and how it all ties together.”

Fortunately, he said, there are about two dozen medication options now available for RRMS. Noting that his scale is at best “a crude approximation of reality,” he said their efficacy runs the gamut from low (glatiramer acetate and beta-interferons) to high (cladribine, alemtuzumab). He places sphingosine-1 phosphate (SIP1) modulators in the mid-range in terms of efficacy and B cell-depleting agents and natalizumab toward the high side.
 

Why go low?

Why put someone on a low-efficacy drug? One reason is because they’re the safest options, he said, while the two highest-efficacy drugs – cladribine and alemtuzumab – are the least safe. But even the older, safer drugs can cause problems: Beta interferons can cause flu-like symptoms early on along with depression and miscarriage, and glatiramer acetate can spur injection site reactions and acute post injection syndrome “that can feel like a panic attack or even a heart attack.”

Dimethyl fumarate “is probably the easiest of the oral agents to initiate because there’s no extra doctor’s appointments. And there’s no concerns really about hair loss, liver failure, or birth defects,” he said. “But it’s one of the oral agents that has the most side effects associated with it.” Flushing is almost universal but “rarely a cause of discontinuation,” while gastrointestinal symptoms can lead to discontinuation.

Alemtuzumab, a high-efficacy drug that’s administered in two annual cycles, he said, is especially convenient but monthly labs are required for years to check for problems due to its dampening of the immune system. Patients on ocrelizumab must be closely monitored for the same reason.

There are other factors to consider. Lower-efficacy drugs tend to be better options in younger patients – “they’re more resilient, and they tend to recover a little bit better after their early relapses,” Dr. Rinker said.

The drugs are especially helpful in patients who recover well after their initial episodes and who have sensory instead of motor symptoms, he said.
 

The case for high efficacy

Higher-efficacy drugs are best for older patients and those with heavy disease burden.

What about the 40-year-old patient? She’s female (women get less sick from MS) and has low disease burden, suggesting that a lower-efficacy drug may be appropriate, he said. “On the other hand, she has an incomplete recovery, and she’s got spinal cord disease and motor symptoms, so the tendency is going to be more towards the higher-efficacy end of the [drug] spectrum.”

But which drug? S1P modulators aren’t a good option since they require redosing or titration if doses are missed: “It’s important that you don’t prescribe them to patients where you have concerns about compliance.”

Also, he said, “we don’t think we’re to the point that we’re willing to put her at risk of severe medical complications by putting her on medicines with a high monitoring burden like cladribine or alemtuzumab.”

The best option may be teriflunomide, a once-daily pill, he said. It’s forgiving if a patient misses a dose since the medication stays in the body for a long time.

“There’s no single right answer,” Dr. Rinker said. “But there are ways to eliminate a lot of the choices based upon what we know about the medications and what we know about the patient. Then we can tailor a specific range of medications for a specific patient.”

Dr. Rinker disclosed research support from GW Pharmaceuticals.

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Herpes zoster does not appear to increase dementia risk – on the contrary, the viral infection may offer some protection, a large population-based study suggests.

“We were surprised by these results [and] the reasons for the decreased risk are unclear,” study author Sigrun Alba Johannesdottir Schmidt, MD, PhD, with Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

Herpes zoster (HZ) is an acute, cutaneous viral infection caused by the reactivation of varicella-zoster virus (VZV). Previous population-based studies have reported both decreased and increased risks of dementia after having HZ.

It’s thought that HZ may contribute to the development of dementia through neuroinflammation, cerebral vasculopathy, or direct neural damage, but epidemiologic evidence is limited.

To investigate further, Dr. Schmidt and colleagues used Danish medical registries to identify 247,305 people who had visited a hospital for HZ or were prescribed antiviral medication for HZ over a 20-year period and matched them to 1,235,890 people who did not have HZ. For both cohorts, the median age was 64 years, and 61% were women.

Dementia was diagnosed in 9.7% of zoster patients and 10.3% of matched control persons during up to 21 years of follow-up.

Contrary to the researchers’ expectation, HZ was associated with a small (7%) decreased relative risk of all-cause dementia during follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.95).

There was no increased long-term risk of dementia in subgroup analyses, except possibly among those with HZ that involved the central nervous system (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.78-4.80), which has been shown before.

However, the population attributable fraction of dementia caused by this rare complication is low (< 1%), suggesting that universal vaccination against VZV in the elderly has limited potential to reduce dementia risk, the investigators noted.

Nonetheless, Dr. Schmidt said shingles vaccination should be encouraged in older people because it can prevent complications from the disease.

The research team admitted that the slightly decreased long-term risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease, was “unexpected.” The reasons for this decreased risk are unclear, they say, and could be explained by missed diagnoses of shingles in people with undiagnosed dementia.

They were not able to examine whether antiviral treatment modifies the association between HZ and dementia and said that this topic merits further research.

The study was supported by the Edel and Wilhelm Daubenmerkls Charitable Foundation. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.