User login
Common gut bacteria linked to Parkinson’s disease
, a small study suggests.
Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.
“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Screen and treat?
It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.
Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.
In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.
They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.
In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).
Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.
“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.
The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
No clinical implications
In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.
“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.
“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.
“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.
The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a small study suggests.
Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.
“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Screen and treat?
It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.
Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.
In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.
They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.
In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).
Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.
“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.
The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
No clinical implications
In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.
“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.
“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.
“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.
The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a small study suggests.
Environmental factors as well as genetics are also suspected to play a role in PD etiology, although the exact cause remains unknown.
“Our findings indicate that specific strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are likely to cause Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Per Erik Saris, PhD, from the University of Helsinki, Finland, says in a news release.
The study was published online in Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.
Screen and treat?
It builds on earlier work by the researchers that showed that Desulfovibrio bacteria were more prevalent and more abundant in quantity in patients with PD, especially patients with more severe disease, than in healthy individuals.
Desulfovibrio is a genus of gram-negative bacteria commonly found in aquatic environments in which levels of organic material are elevated, as well as in waterlogged soils.
In their latest study, Dr. Saris and colleagues looked for Desulfovibrio species in fecal samples from 10 patients with PD and their healthy spouses. Isolated Desulfovibrio strains were fed to a strain of Caenorhabditis elegans roundworms that expressed human alpha-syn fused with yellow fluorescent protein.
They found that worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from patients with PD harbored significantly more (P < .001) and larger alpha-syn aggregates (P < .001) than worms fed Desulfovibrio bacteria from healthy individuals or worms fed Escherichia coli strains.
In addition, worms fed Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD died in significantly higher quantities than worms fed E. coli bacteria (P < .01).
Desulfovibrio strains isolated from patients with PD and strains isolated from healthy individuals appear to have different traits. Comparative genomics studies are needed to identify genetic differences and pathogenic genes from Desulfovibrio strains from patients with PD, the researchers note.
“Taking into account that aggregation of alpha-syn is a hallmark of PD, the ability of Desulfovibrio bacteria to induce alpha-syn aggregation in large numbers and sizes, as demonstrated in the present study, provides further evidence for the pathogenic role of Desulfovibrio bacteria in PD, as previously suggested,” they add.
The findings highlight the potential for screening and targeted removal of harmful Desulfovibrio bacteria, Dr. Saris suggests in the news release.
No clinical implications
In a comment, James Beck, PhD, chief scientific officer at the Parkinson’s Foundation, cautioned that “this research is in a very early stage, uses a nonvertebrate animal model, and the number of participants is small.
“Understanding the role of the gut microbiome in influencing PD is in its infancy. These are important steps to determining what – if any – link may be between gut bacteria and PD,” Dr. Beck said.
“Right now, there are no implications for the screening/treatment of carriers,” Dr. Beck said.
“It seems that a lot of people, whether with PD or not, harbor Desulfovibrio bacteria in their gut. More research is needed to understand what is different between the Desulfovibrio bacteria of people with PD vs. those who do not have PD,” Dr. Beck added.
The study was supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation and the Jane and Aatos Erkko Foundation. Dr. Saris and Dr. Beck have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR AND INFECTION MICROBIOLOGY
CGM completes picture of A1c in type 2 diabetes
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a post hoc analysis of the SWITCH PRO clinical trial.
TIR was inversely related to A1c, with the strongest correlation following treatment intensification.
However, “there was a wide scatter of data, indicating that TIR (and other metrics) provides information about glycemic control that cannot be discerned from A1c alone, and which at least complements it,” Ronald M. Goldenberg, MD, from LMC Diabetes & Endocrinology in Thornhill, Ont., and colleagues write in their article published in Diabetes Therapy.
Other work has shown that more than a third of people with type 2 diabetes are not achieving the internationally recommended A1c target of < 7% to 8.5%, they note.
When used with A1c, CGM data – such as TIR, time below range (TBR), and time above range (TAR) – “provide a more complete picture of glucose levels throughout the day and night,” they write.
“This may help empower people with diabetes to better manage their condition, giving them practical insights into the factors driving daily fluctuations in glucose levels, such as diet, exercise, insulin dosage, and insulin timing,” they add. “These metrics may also be used to inform treatment decisions by health care professionals.”
“Ultimately,” the researchers conclude, “it is hoped that the use of these new metrics should lead to an improved quality of glycemic control and, in turn, to a reduction in the number of diabetes-related complications.”
‘Important study’
Invited to comment, Celeste C. Thomas, MD, who was not involved with the research, said: “This study is important because it is consistent with previous analyses that found a correlation between TIR and A1c.”
But, “I was surprised by the scatter plots which identified participants with TIR of 70% that also had A1c > 9%,” she added. “This highlights the importance of using multiple glycemic metrics to understand an individual’s risk for diabetes complications and to be aware of the limitations of the metrics.”
Dr. Thomas, from the University of Chicago, also noted that CGM is used in endocrinology clinics and increasingly in primary care clinics, “often to determine glycemic patterns to optimize therapeutic management but also to review TIR and, importantly, time below range to reduce the incidence of hypoglycemia.”
And people with type 2 diabetes are using CGM, Dr. Thomas noted, to understand their individual responses to medications, food choices, sleep quality and duration, exercise, and other day-to-day variables that affect glucose levels. “In my clinical practice, the information provided by personal CGM is empowering,” she said.
Effective April 4, 2023, Medicare “allows for the coverage of CGM in patients [with type 2 diabetes] treated with one injection of insulin daily and those not taking insulin but with a history of hypoglycemia,” Dr. Thomas noted, whereas “previously, patients needed to be prescribed at least three injections of insulin daily. Other insurers will hopefully soon follow.”
“I foresee CGM and TIR being widely used in clinical practice for people living with type 2 diabetes,” she said, “especially those who have ever had an A1c over 8%, those with a history of hypoglycemia, and those treated with medications that are known to cause hypoglycemia.”
How does TIR compare with A1c?
Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues set out to better understand how the emerging TIR metric compares with the traditional A1c value.
They performed a post-hoc analysis of data from the phase 4 SWITCH PRO study of basal insulin–treated patients with type 2 diabetes with at least one risk factor for hypoglycemia.
The patients were treated with insulin degludec or glargine 100 during a 16-week titration and 2-week maintenance phase, and then crossed over to the other treatment for the same time periods.
Glycemic control was evaluated using a blinded professional CGM (Abbott Freestyle Libro Pro). The primary outcome was TIR, which was defined as the percentage of time spent in the blood glucose range of 70-180 mg/dL.
There were 419 participants in the full analysis. Patients were a mean age of 63 and 48% were men. They had a mean body mass index of 32 kg/m2 and had diabetes for a mean of 15 years.
There was a moderate inverse linear correlation between TIR and A1c at baseline, which became stronger following treatment intensification during the maintenance periods in the full cohort, and in a subgroup of patients with median A1c ≥ 7.5% (212 patients).
This correlation between TIR and A1c was poorer in the subgroup of patients with baseline median A1c < 7.5% (307 patients).
The data were widely scattered, “supporting the premise that A1c and TIR can be relatively crude surrogates of each other when it comes to individual patients,” Dr. Goldenberg and colleagues note.
Where individual patients have both low A1c and low TIR values, this might indicate frequent episodes of hypoglycemia.
A few individual patients had TIR > 70% but A1c approaching 9%. These patients may have different red blood cell physiology whereby A1c does not reflect average glycemic values, the researchers suggest.
The study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk and several authors are Novo Nordisk employees. The complete author disclosures are listed with the article. Dr. Thomas has reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DIABETES THERAPY
One in five brain injury trials shows errors, signs of spin
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
LOS ANGELES –
“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”
Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
Defining spin
In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”
Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”
For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).
Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.
According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”
For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.
As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.
The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.
The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.
The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.
Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”
They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).
At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.
A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
Appropriate methodology
Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.
It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”
Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”
Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.
“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”
What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”
No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AANS 2023
Hearing aids are a ‘powerful’ tool for reducing dementia risk
, new research confirms. A large observational study from the United Kingdom showed a 42% increased risk for dementia in people with hearing loss compared with their peers with no hearing trouble. In addition, there was no increased risk in those with hearing loss who used hearing aids.
“The evidence is building that hearing loss may be the most impactful modifiable risk factor for dementia in mid-life, but the effectiveness of hearing aid use on reducing the risk of dementia in the real world has remained unclear,” Dongshan Zhu, PhD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, said in a news release.
“Our study provides the best evidence to date to suggest that hearing aids could be a minimally invasive, cost-effective treatment to mitigate the potential impact of hearing loss on dementia,” Dr. Zhu said.
The study, which was published online in Lancet Public Health, comes on the heels of the 2020 Lancet Commission report on dementia, which suggested hearing loss may be linked to approximately 8% of worldwide dementia cases.
‘Compelling’ evidence
For the study, investigators analyzed longitudinal data on 437,704 individuals, most of whom were White, from the UK Biobank (54% female; mean age at baseline, 56 years). Roughly three quarters of the cohort had no hearing loss and one quarter had some level of hearing loss, with 12% of these individuals using hearing aids.
After the researchers controlled for relevant cofactors, compared with people without hearing loss, those with hearing loss who were not using hearing aids had an increased risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.56).
No increased risk was seen in people with hearing loss who were using hearing aids (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.10).
The positive association of hearing aid use was observed in all-cause dementia and cause-specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and non–Alzheimer’s disease nonvascular dementia.
The data also suggest that the protection against dementia conferred by hearing aid use most likely stems from direct effects from hearing aids rather than indirect mediators, such as social isolation, loneliness, and low mood.
Dr. Zhu said the findings highlight the “urgent need” for the early use of hearing aids when an individual starts having trouble hearing.
“A group effort from across society is necessary, including raising awareness of hearing loss and the potential links with dementia; increasing accessibility to hearing aids by reducing cost; and more support for primary care workers to screen for hearing impairment, raise awareness, and deliver treatment such as fitting hearing aids,” Dr. Zhu said.
Writing in a linked comment, Gill Livingston, MD, and Sergi Costafreda, MD, PhD, with University College London, noted that with addition of this study, “the evidence that hearing aids are a powerful tool to reduce the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss, is as good as possible without randomized controlled trials, which might not be practically possible or ethical because people with hearing loss should not be stopped from using effective treatments.”
“The evidence is compelling that treating hearing loss is a promising way of reducing dementia risk. This is the time to increase awareness of and detection of hearing loss, as well as the acceptability and usability of hearing aids,” Dr. Livingston and Dr. Costafreda added.
High-quality evidence – with caveats
Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study. Charles Marshall, MRCP, PhD, with Queen Mary University of London, said that the study provides “high-quality evidence” that those with hearing loss who use hearing aids are at lower risk for dementia than are those with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids.
“This raises the possibility that a proportion of dementia cases could be prevented by using hearing aids to correct hearing loss. However, the observational nature of this study makes it difficult to be sure that hearing aids are actually causing the reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Marshall added.
“Hearing aids produce slightly distorted sound, and the brain has to adapt to this in order for hearing aids to be helpful,” he said. “People who are at risk of developing dementia in the future may have early changes in their brain that impair this adaptation, and this may lead to them choosing to not use hearing aids. This would confound the association, creating the appearance that hearing aids were reducing dementia risk, when actually their use was just identifying people with relatively healthy brains,” Dr. Marshall added.
Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, with the University of Edinburgh, said this “well-conducted” study confirms previous similar studies showing an association between hearing loss and dementia risk.
Echoing Dr. Marshall, Dr. Spires-Jones noted that this type of study cannot prove conclusively that hearing loss causes dementia.
“For example,” she said, “it is possible that people who are already in the very early stages of disease are less likely to seek help for hearing loss. However, on balance, this study and the rest of the data in the field indicate that keeping your brain healthy and engaged reduces dementia risk.”
Dr. Spires-Jones said that she agrees with the investigators that it’s “important to help people with hearing loss to get effective hearing aids to help keep their brains engaged through allowing richer social interactions.”
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Shandong Province, Taishan Scholars Project, China Medical Board, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. Dr. Zhu, Dr. Livingston, Dr. Costafreda, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Spires-Jones have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research confirms. A large observational study from the United Kingdom showed a 42% increased risk for dementia in people with hearing loss compared with their peers with no hearing trouble. In addition, there was no increased risk in those with hearing loss who used hearing aids.
“The evidence is building that hearing loss may be the most impactful modifiable risk factor for dementia in mid-life, but the effectiveness of hearing aid use on reducing the risk of dementia in the real world has remained unclear,” Dongshan Zhu, PhD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, said in a news release.
“Our study provides the best evidence to date to suggest that hearing aids could be a minimally invasive, cost-effective treatment to mitigate the potential impact of hearing loss on dementia,” Dr. Zhu said.
The study, which was published online in Lancet Public Health, comes on the heels of the 2020 Lancet Commission report on dementia, which suggested hearing loss may be linked to approximately 8% of worldwide dementia cases.
‘Compelling’ evidence
For the study, investigators analyzed longitudinal data on 437,704 individuals, most of whom were White, from the UK Biobank (54% female; mean age at baseline, 56 years). Roughly three quarters of the cohort had no hearing loss and one quarter had some level of hearing loss, with 12% of these individuals using hearing aids.
After the researchers controlled for relevant cofactors, compared with people without hearing loss, those with hearing loss who were not using hearing aids had an increased risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.56).
No increased risk was seen in people with hearing loss who were using hearing aids (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.10).
The positive association of hearing aid use was observed in all-cause dementia and cause-specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and non–Alzheimer’s disease nonvascular dementia.
The data also suggest that the protection against dementia conferred by hearing aid use most likely stems from direct effects from hearing aids rather than indirect mediators, such as social isolation, loneliness, and low mood.
Dr. Zhu said the findings highlight the “urgent need” for the early use of hearing aids when an individual starts having trouble hearing.
“A group effort from across society is necessary, including raising awareness of hearing loss and the potential links with dementia; increasing accessibility to hearing aids by reducing cost; and more support for primary care workers to screen for hearing impairment, raise awareness, and deliver treatment such as fitting hearing aids,” Dr. Zhu said.
Writing in a linked comment, Gill Livingston, MD, and Sergi Costafreda, MD, PhD, with University College London, noted that with addition of this study, “the evidence that hearing aids are a powerful tool to reduce the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss, is as good as possible without randomized controlled trials, which might not be practically possible or ethical because people with hearing loss should not be stopped from using effective treatments.”
“The evidence is compelling that treating hearing loss is a promising way of reducing dementia risk. This is the time to increase awareness of and detection of hearing loss, as well as the acceptability and usability of hearing aids,” Dr. Livingston and Dr. Costafreda added.
High-quality evidence – with caveats
Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study. Charles Marshall, MRCP, PhD, with Queen Mary University of London, said that the study provides “high-quality evidence” that those with hearing loss who use hearing aids are at lower risk for dementia than are those with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids.
“This raises the possibility that a proportion of dementia cases could be prevented by using hearing aids to correct hearing loss. However, the observational nature of this study makes it difficult to be sure that hearing aids are actually causing the reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Marshall added.
“Hearing aids produce slightly distorted sound, and the brain has to adapt to this in order for hearing aids to be helpful,” he said. “People who are at risk of developing dementia in the future may have early changes in their brain that impair this adaptation, and this may lead to them choosing to not use hearing aids. This would confound the association, creating the appearance that hearing aids were reducing dementia risk, when actually their use was just identifying people with relatively healthy brains,” Dr. Marshall added.
Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, with the University of Edinburgh, said this “well-conducted” study confirms previous similar studies showing an association between hearing loss and dementia risk.
Echoing Dr. Marshall, Dr. Spires-Jones noted that this type of study cannot prove conclusively that hearing loss causes dementia.
“For example,” she said, “it is possible that people who are already in the very early stages of disease are less likely to seek help for hearing loss. However, on balance, this study and the rest of the data in the field indicate that keeping your brain healthy and engaged reduces dementia risk.”
Dr. Spires-Jones said that she agrees with the investigators that it’s “important to help people with hearing loss to get effective hearing aids to help keep their brains engaged through allowing richer social interactions.”
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Shandong Province, Taishan Scholars Project, China Medical Board, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. Dr. Zhu, Dr. Livingston, Dr. Costafreda, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Spires-Jones have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, new research confirms. A large observational study from the United Kingdom showed a 42% increased risk for dementia in people with hearing loss compared with their peers with no hearing trouble. In addition, there was no increased risk in those with hearing loss who used hearing aids.
“The evidence is building that hearing loss may be the most impactful modifiable risk factor for dementia in mid-life, but the effectiveness of hearing aid use on reducing the risk of dementia in the real world has remained unclear,” Dongshan Zhu, PhD, with Shandong University, Jinan, China, said in a news release.
“Our study provides the best evidence to date to suggest that hearing aids could be a minimally invasive, cost-effective treatment to mitigate the potential impact of hearing loss on dementia,” Dr. Zhu said.
The study, which was published online in Lancet Public Health, comes on the heels of the 2020 Lancet Commission report on dementia, which suggested hearing loss may be linked to approximately 8% of worldwide dementia cases.
‘Compelling’ evidence
For the study, investigators analyzed longitudinal data on 437,704 individuals, most of whom were White, from the UK Biobank (54% female; mean age at baseline, 56 years). Roughly three quarters of the cohort had no hearing loss and one quarter had some level of hearing loss, with 12% of these individuals using hearing aids.
After the researchers controlled for relevant cofactors, compared with people without hearing loss, those with hearing loss who were not using hearing aids had an increased risk for all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29-1.56).
No increased risk was seen in people with hearing loss who were using hearing aids (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.98-1.10).
The positive association of hearing aid use was observed in all-cause dementia and cause-specific dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, and non–Alzheimer’s disease nonvascular dementia.
The data also suggest that the protection against dementia conferred by hearing aid use most likely stems from direct effects from hearing aids rather than indirect mediators, such as social isolation, loneliness, and low mood.
Dr. Zhu said the findings highlight the “urgent need” for the early use of hearing aids when an individual starts having trouble hearing.
“A group effort from across society is necessary, including raising awareness of hearing loss and the potential links with dementia; increasing accessibility to hearing aids by reducing cost; and more support for primary care workers to screen for hearing impairment, raise awareness, and deliver treatment such as fitting hearing aids,” Dr. Zhu said.
Writing in a linked comment, Gill Livingston, MD, and Sergi Costafreda, MD, PhD, with University College London, noted that with addition of this study, “the evidence that hearing aids are a powerful tool to reduce the risk of dementia in people with hearing loss, is as good as possible without randomized controlled trials, which might not be practically possible or ethical because people with hearing loss should not be stopped from using effective treatments.”
“The evidence is compelling that treating hearing loss is a promising way of reducing dementia risk. This is the time to increase awareness of and detection of hearing loss, as well as the acceptability and usability of hearing aids,” Dr. Livingston and Dr. Costafreda added.
High-quality evidence – with caveats
Several experts offered perspective on the analysis in a statement from the U.K.-based nonprofit Science Media Centre, which was not involved with the conduct of this study. Charles Marshall, MRCP, PhD, with Queen Mary University of London, said that the study provides “high-quality evidence” that those with hearing loss who use hearing aids are at lower risk for dementia than are those with hearing loss who do not use hearing aids.
“This raises the possibility that a proportion of dementia cases could be prevented by using hearing aids to correct hearing loss. However, the observational nature of this study makes it difficult to be sure that hearing aids are actually causing the reduced risk of dementia,” Dr. Marshall added.
“Hearing aids produce slightly distorted sound, and the brain has to adapt to this in order for hearing aids to be helpful,” he said. “People who are at risk of developing dementia in the future may have early changes in their brain that impair this adaptation, and this may lead to them choosing to not use hearing aids. This would confound the association, creating the appearance that hearing aids were reducing dementia risk, when actually their use was just identifying people with relatively healthy brains,” Dr. Marshall added.
Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, with the University of Edinburgh, said this “well-conducted” study confirms previous similar studies showing an association between hearing loss and dementia risk.
Echoing Dr. Marshall, Dr. Spires-Jones noted that this type of study cannot prove conclusively that hearing loss causes dementia.
“For example,” she said, “it is possible that people who are already in the very early stages of disease are less likely to seek help for hearing loss. However, on balance, this study and the rest of the data in the field indicate that keeping your brain healthy and engaged reduces dementia risk.”
Dr. Spires-Jones said that she agrees with the investigators that it’s “important to help people with hearing loss to get effective hearing aids to help keep their brains engaged through allowing richer social interactions.”
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Shandong Province, Taishan Scholars Project, China Medical Board, and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. Dr. Zhu, Dr. Livingston, Dr. Costafreda, Dr. Marshall, and Dr. Spires-Jones have no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
What are the healthiest drinks for patients with type 2 diabetes?
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The researchers examined data on almost 15,500 participants with type 2 diabetes from two major studies, finding that the highest level of consumption of SSBs was associated with a 20% increased risk of all-cause mortality and a 25% raised risk of cardiovascular disease, compared with consumption of the least amounts of these products.
The research, published in BMJ, also showed that drinking coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk reduced the risk of all-cause death and that switching from SSBs to the other beverages was linked to lower mortality.
“Overall, these results provide additional evidence that emphasizes the importance of beverage choices in maintaining overall health among adults with diabetes,” say senior author Le Ma, PhD, department of nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and colleagues.
“Collectively, these findings all point in the same direction. Lower consumption of SSBs and higher consumption of coffee, tea, plain water, or low-fat milk are optimal for better health outcomes in adults with type 2 diabetes,” Nita G. Forouhi, MD, PhD, emphasizes in an accompanying editorial.
Choice of drink matters
Dr. Forouhi, from the University of Cambridge (England), warned, however, that the findings “cannot be considered cause and effect,” despite the large-scale analysis.
Moreover, “questions remain,” such as the impact of beverage consumption on coronary heart disease and stroke risk, and cancer mortality, with the current study providing “inconclusive” data on the latter.
There was also no data on the addition of sugar to tea or coffee, “so the comparative health effects of unsweetened and sweetened hot beverages remain unclear,” Dr. Forouhi points out. Also unknown is whether the type of tea consumed has a differential effect.
Despite these and other reservations, she says that overall, “Choice of beverage clearly matters.”
“The case for avoiding sugar-sweetened beverages is compelling, and it is supported by various fiscal measures in more than 45 countries. It is reasonable to shift the focus to drinks that are most likely to have positive health impacts: coffee, tea, plain water, and low-fat milk,” she notes.
Dr. Forouhi ends by underlining that the current findings tally with those seen in the general population, so “one important message is that having diabetes does not have to be especially restrictive.”
Expanding the evidence
It was estimated that 537 million adults worldwide had type 2 diabetes in 2021, a figure set to increase to 783 million by 2045, say the authors.
Individuals with type 2 diabetes have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, among many other comorbidities, as well as premature death. Dietary interventions can play an important role in managing these risks.
Recommendations on the healthiest beverages to drink are largely based on evidence from the general population, and data are limited on the best options for adults with type 2 diabetes, who have altered metabolism, the researchers note.
To expand on this, they examined data from the Nurses’ Health Study, which enrolled female registered nurses aged 30-55 years and was initiated in 1976, and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, which included male health professionals aged 40-75 years and was initiated in 1996.
For the current analysis, 11,399 women and 4,087 men with type 2 diabetes were included from the two studies, of whom 2,715 were diagnosed before study entry.
Participants’ average daily beverage intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire administered every 2-4 years. SSBs included caffeinated and caffeine-free colas, other carbonated SSBs, and noncarbonated SSBs, such as fruit punches, lemonades, or other fruit drinks.
During 285,967 person-years of follow-up, there were 7,638 (49.3%) deaths, and 3,447 (22.3%) cases of incident cardiovascular disease were documented during 248,447 person-years of follow-up.
Fully adjusted multivariate analysis comparing the lowest and highest beverage intake indicated that SSBs were associated with a significant increase in all-cause mortality, at a pooled hazard ratio of 1.20, or 1.08 for each additional serving per day (P = .01).
In contrast, the associations between all-cause mortality and consumption of artificially sweetened beverages, fruit juice, and full-fat milk were not significant, whereas coffee (HR, 0.74), tea (HR, 0.79), plain water (HR, 0.77), and low-fat milk (HR, 0.88) were linked to a reduced risk.
The team reported that there were similar associations between beverage intake and cardiovascular disease incidence, at an HR of 1.25 for SSBs, as well as for cardiovascular disease mortality, at an HR of 1.29.
Participants who increased their tea, coffee, and low-fat milk consumption during the course of the study had lower all-cause mortality than those who did not. Switching from SSBs to other beverages was also associated with lower mortality.
The researchers note, however, that there are “several potential limitations” to their study, including that “individual beverage consumption may be correlated with other dietary and lifestyle risk factors for cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality among adults with [type 2] diabetes.”
The study was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Ma has reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors are listed with the article. Dr. Forouhi has declared receiving support from the U.K. Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
Obstructive sleep apnea linked to early cognitive decline
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
In a pilot study out of King’s College London, participants with severe OSA experienced worse executive functioning as well as social and emotional recognition versus healthy controls.
Major risk factors for OSA include obesity, high blood pressure, smoking, high cholesterol, and being middle-aged or older. Because some researchers have hypothesized that cognitive deficits could be driven by such comorbidities, the study investigators recruited middle-aged men with no medical comorbidities.
“Traditionally, we were more concerned with sleep apnea’s metabolic and cardiovascular comorbidities, and indeed, when cognitive deficits were demonstrated, most were attributed to them, and yet, our patients and their partners/families commonly tell us differently,” lead investigator Ivana Rosenzweig, MD, PhD, of King’s College London, who is also a consultant in sleep medicine and neuropsychiatry at Guy’s and St Thomas’ Hospital, London, said in an interview.
“Our findings provide a very important first step towards challenging the long-standing dogma that sleep apnea has little to do with the brain – apart from causing sleepiness – and that it is a predominantly nonneuro/psychiatric illness,” added Dr. Rosenzweig.
The findings were published online in Frontiers in Sleep.
Brain changes
The researchers wanted to understand how OSA may be linked to cognitive decline in the absence of cardiovascular and metabolic conditions.
To accomplish this, the investigators studied 27 men between the ages of 35 and 70 with a new diagnosis of mild to severe OSA without any comorbidities (16 with mild OSA and 11 with severe OSA). They also studied a control group of seven men matched for age, body mass index, and education level.
The team tested participants’ cognitive performance using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and found that the most significant deficits for the OSA group, compared with controls, were in areas of visual matching ability (P < .0001), short-term visual recognition memory, nonverbal patterns, executive functioning and attentional set-shifting (P < .001), psychomotor functioning, and social cognition and emotional recognition (P < .05).
On the latter two tests, impaired participants were less likely to accurately identify the emotion on computer-generated faces. Those with mild OSA performed better than those with severe OSA on these tasks, but rarely worse than controls.
Dr. Rosenzweig noted that the findings were one-of-a-kind because of the recruitment of patients with OSA who were otherwise healthy and nonobese, “something one rarely sees in the sleep clinic, where we commonly encounter patients with already developed comorbidities.
“In order to truly revolutionize the treatment for our patients, it is important to understand how much the accompanying comorbidities, such as systemic hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and other various serious cardiovascular and metabolic diseases and how much the illness itself may shape the demonstrated cognitive deficits,” she said.
She also said that “it is widely agreed that medical problems in middle age may predispose to increased prevalence of dementia in later years.
Moreover, the very link between sleep apnea and Alzheimer’s, vascular and mixed dementia is increasingly demonstrated,” said Dr. Rosenzweig.
Although women typically have a lower prevalence of OSA than men, Dr. Rosenzweig said women were not included in the study “because we are too complex. As a lifelong feminist it pains me to say this, but to get any authoritative answer on our physiology, we need decent funding in place so that we can take into account all the intricacies of the changes of our sleep, physiology, and metabolism.
“While there is always lots of noise about how important it is to answer these questions, there are only very limited funds available for the sleep research,” she added.
Dr. Rosenzweig’s future research will focus on the potential link between OSA and neuroinflammation.
In a comment, Liza Ashbrook, MD, associate professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, said the findings “add to the growing list of negative health consequences associated with sleep apnea.”
She said that, if the cognitive changes found in the study are, in fact, caused by OSA, it is unclear whether they are the beginning of long-term cognitive changes or a symptom of fragmented sleep that may be reversible.
Dr. Ashbrook said she would be interested in seeing research on understanding the effect of OSA treatment on the affected cognitive domains.
The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust. No relevant financial relationships were reported.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM FRONTIERS IN SLEEP
Intermittent fasting plus early eating may prevent type 2 diabetes
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
, indicate the results of a randomized controlled trial.
The study involved more than 200 individuals randomized to one of three groups: eat only in the morning (from 8:00 a.m. to noon) followed by 20 hours of fasting 3 days per week and eat as desired on the other days; daily calorie restriction to 70% of requirements; or standard weight loss advice.
The IF plus early time-restricted eating intervention was associated with a significant improvement in a key measure of glucose control versus calorie restriction at 6 months, while both interventions were linked to benefits in terms of cardiovascular risk markers and body composition, compared with the standard weight loss advice.
However, the research, published in Nature Medicine, showed that the additional benefit of IF plus early time-restricted eating did not persist, and less than half of participants were still following the plan at 18 months, compared with almost 80% of those in the calorie-restriction group.
“Following a time-restricted, IF diet could help lower the chances of developing type 2 diabetes,” senior author Leonie K. Heilbronn, PhD, University of Adelaide, South Australia, said in a press release.
This is “the largest study in the world to date, and the first powered to assess how the body processes and uses glucose after eating a meal,” with the latter being a better indicator of diabetes risk than a fasting glucose test, added first author Xiao Tong Teong, a PhD student, also at the University of Adelaide.
“The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence to indicate that meal timing and fasting advice extends the health benefits of a restricted-calorie diet, independently from weight loss, and this may be influential in clinical practice,” Ms. Teong added.
Adherence difficult to IF plus early time-restricted eating
Asked to comment, Krista Varady, PhD, said that the study design “would have been stronger if the time-restricted eating and IF interventions were separated” and compared.
“Time-restricted eating has been shown to naturally reduce calorie intake by 300-500 kcal/day,” she said in an interview, “so I’m not sure why the investigators chose to combine [it] with IF. It ... defeats the point of time-restricted eating.”
Dr. Varady, who recently coauthored a review of the clinical application of IF for weight loss, also doubted whether individuals would adhere to combined early time-restricted eating and IF. “In all honesty, I don’t think anyone would follow this diet for very long,” she said.
She added that the feasibility of this particular approach is “very questionable. In general, people don’t like diets that require them to skip dinner with family/friends on multiple days of the week,” explained Dr. Varady, professor of nutrition at the University of Illinois, Chicago. “These regimens make social eating very difficult, which results in high attrition.
“Indeed, evidence from a recent large-scale observational study of nearly 800,000 adults shows that Americans who engage in time-restricted eating placed their eating window in the afternoon or evening,” she noted.
Dr. Varady therefore suggested that future trials should test “more feasible time-restricted eating approaches,” such as those with later eating windows and without “vigilant calorie monitoring.”
“These types of diets are much easier to follow and are more likely to produce lasting weight and glycemic control in people with obesity and prediabetes,” she observed.
A novel way to cut calories?
The Australian authors say there is growing interest in extending the established health benefits of calorie restriction through new approaches such as timing of meals and prolonged fasting, with IF – defined as fasting interspersed with days of ad libitum eating – gaining in popularity as an alternative to simple calorie restriction.
Time-restricted eating, which emphasizes shorter daily eating windows in alignment with circadian rhythms, has also become popular in recent years, although the authors acknowledge that current evidence suggests any benefits over calorie restriction alone in terms of body composition, blood lipids, or glucose parameters are small.
To examine the combination of IF plus early time-restricted eating, in the DIRECT trial, the team recruited individuals aged 35-75 years who had a score of at least 12 on the Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool but did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and had stable weight for more than 6 months prior to study entry.
The participants were randomized to one of three groups:
- IF plus early time-restricted eating, which allowed consumption of 30% of calculated baseline energy requirements between 8:00 a.m. and midday, followed by a 20-hour fast from midday on 3 nonconsecutive days per week. They consumed their regular diet on nonfasting days.
- Calorie restriction, where they consumed 70% of daily calculated baseline energy requirements each day and were given rotating menu plans, but no specific mealtimes.
- Standard care, where they were given a booklet on current guidelines, with no counseling or meal replacement.
There were clinic visits every 2 weeks for the first 6 months of follow-up, and then monthly visits for 12 months. The two intervention groups had one-on-one diet counseling for the first 6 months. All groups were instructed to maintain their usual physical activity levels.
A total of 209 individuals were enrolled between Sept. 26, 2018, and May 4, 2020. Their mean age was 58 years, and 57% were women. Mean body mass index was 34.8 kg/m2.
In all, 40.7% of participants were allocated to IF plus early time-restricted eating, 39.7% to calorie restriction, and the remaining 19.6% to standard care.
The results showed that IF plus early time-restricted eating was associated with a significantly greater improvement in the primary outcome of postprandial glucose area under the curve (AUC) at month 6 compared with calorie restriction, at –10.1 mg/dL/min versus –3.6 mg/dL/min (P = .03).
“To our knowledge, no [prior] studies have been powered for postprandial assessments of glycemia, which are better indicators of diabetes risk than fasting assessment,” the authors underlined.
IF plus early time-restricted eating was also associated with greater reductions in postprandial insulin AUC versus calorie restriction at 6 months (P = .04). However, the differences between the IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction groups for postmeal insulin did not remain significant at 18 months of follow-up.
Both IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were associated with greater reductions in A1c levels at 6 months versus standard care, but there was no significant difference between the two active interventions (P = .46).
Both interventions were also associated with improvements in markers of cardiovascular risk versus standard care, such as systolic blood pressure at 2 months, diastolic blood pressure at 6 months, and fasting triglycerides at both time points, with no significant differences between the two intervention groups.
IF plus early time-restricted eating and calorie restriction were also both associated with greater reductions in BMI and fat mass in the first 6 months, as well as in waist circumference.
Calorie restriction easier to stick to, less likely to cause fatigue
When offered the chance to modify their diet plan at 6 months, 46% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they would maintain 3 days of restrictions per week, while 51% chose to reduce the restrictions to 2 days per week.
In contrast, 97% of those who completed the calorie-restriction plan indicated they would continue with their current diet plan.
At 18 months, 42% of participants in the IF plus early time-restricted eating group said they still undertook 2-3 days of restrictions per week, while 78% of those assigned to calorie restriction reported that they followed a calorie-restricted diet.
Fatigue was more common with IF plus early time-restricted eating, reported by 56% of participants versus 37% of those following calorie restriction, and 35% of those in the standard care group at 6 months. Headaches and constipation were more common in the intervention groups than with standard care.
The study was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant, an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship from the University of Adelaide, and a Diabetes Australia Research Program Grant.
No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
New assay hailed as a game changer for early Parkinson’s diagnosis
, and provides information on molecular subtypes, new research indicates.
“Identifying an effective biomarker for Parkinson’s disease pathology could have profound implications for the way we treat the condition, potentially making it possible to diagnose people earlier, identify the best treatments for different subsets of patients, and speed up clinical trials,” the study’s co-lead author Andrew Siderowf, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
“Our findings suggest that the αSyn-SAA technique is highly accurate at detecting the biomarker for Parkinson’s disease regardless of the clinical features, making it possible to accurately diagnose the disease in patients at early stages,” added co-lead author Luis Concha-Marambio, PhD, director of research and development at Amprion, San Diego, Calif.
The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
‘New era’ in Parkinson’s disease
The researchers assessed the usefulness of αSyn-SAA in a cross-sectional analysis of 1,123 participants in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort from 33 participating academic neurology outpatient practices in 12 countries.
The cohort included individuals with sporadic Parkinson’s disease from LRRK2 or GBA variants, healthy controls, individuals with clinical syndromes prodromal to Parkinson’s disease (rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder [RBD] or hyposmia), and nonmanifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA variants. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from each participant were analyzed using αSyn-SAA.
Overall, αSyn-SAA differentiated Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls with 87.7% sensitivity and 96.3% specificity.
Sensitivity of the assay varied across subgroups based on genetic and clinical features. Among genetic Parkinson’s disease subgroups, sensitivity was highest for GBA Parkinson’s disease (95.9%), followed by sporadic Parkinson’s disease (93.3%), and lowest for LRRK2 Parkinson’s disease (67.5%). Among clinical features, hyposmia was the most robust predictor of a positive assay result.
Among all Parkinson’s disease cases with hyposmia, the sensitivity of the assay was 97.2%, compared with 63.0% for Parkinson’s disease without olfactory dysfunction. Combining genetic and clinical features, the sensitivity of positive αSyn-SAA in sporadic Parkinson’s disease with olfactory deficit was 98.6%, compared with 78.3% in sporadic Parkinson’s disease without hyposmia. Most prodromal participants (86%) with RBD and hyposmia had positive αSyn-SAA results, indicating they had α-synuclein aggregates despite not yet being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
Among those recruited based on their loss of smell, 89% (16 of 18 participants) had positive αSyn-SAA results. Similarly, in those with RBD, positive αSyn-SAA results were present in 85% of cases (28 of 33). No other clinical features were associated with a positive αSyn-SAA result.
In participants who carried LRRK2 or GBA variants but had no Parkinson’s disease diagnosis or prodromal symptoms (nonmanifesting carriers), 9% (14 of 159) and 7% (11 of 151), respectively, had positive αSyn-SAA results.
To date, this is the largest analysis of α-Syn-SAA for the biochemical diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.
The results show that the assay classifies people with Parkinson’s disease with “high sensitivity and specificity, provides information about molecular heterogeneity, and detects prodromal individuals before diagnosis,” they wrote.
“These findings suggest a crucial role for the α-synuclein SAA in therapeutic development, both to identify pathologically defined subgroups of people with Parkinson’s disease and to establish biomarker-defined at-risk cohorts,” they added.
Amprion has commercialized the assay (SYNTap test), which can be ordered online.
‘Seminal development’
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted the study “lays the foundation for a biological diagnosis” of Parkinson’s disease. “We have entered a new era of biomarker and treatment development for Parkinson’s disease. The possibility of detecting a misfolded α-synuclein, the pathological hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, by employing an SSA, is a seminal development,” wrote Daniela Berg, MD, PhD, and Christine Klein, MD, with University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
“However, to fully leverage the enormous potential of the α-synuclein seed amplification, the test would have to be performed in blood rather than the CSF, a less invasive approach that has proven to be viable,” they added.
“Although the blood-based method needs to be further elaborated for scalability, α-synuclein SAA is a game changer in Parkinson’s disease diagnostics, research, and treatment trials,” they concluded.
The study was funded by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and a consortium of more than 40 private and philanthropic partners. Dr. Siderowf has declared consulting for Merck and Parkinson Study Group, and receiving honoraria from Bial. A full list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Berg and Dr. Klein have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, and provides information on molecular subtypes, new research indicates.
“Identifying an effective biomarker for Parkinson’s disease pathology could have profound implications for the way we treat the condition, potentially making it possible to diagnose people earlier, identify the best treatments for different subsets of patients, and speed up clinical trials,” the study’s co-lead author Andrew Siderowf, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
“Our findings suggest that the αSyn-SAA technique is highly accurate at detecting the biomarker for Parkinson’s disease regardless of the clinical features, making it possible to accurately diagnose the disease in patients at early stages,” added co-lead author Luis Concha-Marambio, PhD, director of research and development at Amprion, San Diego, Calif.
The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
‘New era’ in Parkinson’s disease
The researchers assessed the usefulness of αSyn-SAA in a cross-sectional analysis of 1,123 participants in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort from 33 participating academic neurology outpatient practices in 12 countries.
The cohort included individuals with sporadic Parkinson’s disease from LRRK2 or GBA variants, healthy controls, individuals with clinical syndromes prodromal to Parkinson’s disease (rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder [RBD] or hyposmia), and nonmanifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA variants. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from each participant were analyzed using αSyn-SAA.
Overall, αSyn-SAA differentiated Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls with 87.7% sensitivity and 96.3% specificity.
Sensitivity of the assay varied across subgroups based on genetic and clinical features. Among genetic Parkinson’s disease subgroups, sensitivity was highest for GBA Parkinson’s disease (95.9%), followed by sporadic Parkinson’s disease (93.3%), and lowest for LRRK2 Parkinson’s disease (67.5%). Among clinical features, hyposmia was the most robust predictor of a positive assay result.
Among all Parkinson’s disease cases with hyposmia, the sensitivity of the assay was 97.2%, compared with 63.0% for Parkinson’s disease without olfactory dysfunction. Combining genetic and clinical features, the sensitivity of positive αSyn-SAA in sporadic Parkinson’s disease with olfactory deficit was 98.6%, compared with 78.3% in sporadic Parkinson’s disease without hyposmia. Most prodromal participants (86%) with RBD and hyposmia had positive αSyn-SAA results, indicating they had α-synuclein aggregates despite not yet being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
Among those recruited based on their loss of smell, 89% (16 of 18 participants) had positive αSyn-SAA results. Similarly, in those with RBD, positive αSyn-SAA results were present in 85% of cases (28 of 33). No other clinical features were associated with a positive αSyn-SAA result.
In participants who carried LRRK2 or GBA variants but had no Parkinson’s disease diagnosis or prodromal symptoms (nonmanifesting carriers), 9% (14 of 159) and 7% (11 of 151), respectively, had positive αSyn-SAA results.
To date, this is the largest analysis of α-Syn-SAA for the biochemical diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.
The results show that the assay classifies people with Parkinson’s disease with “high sensitivity and specificity, provides information about molecular heterogeneity, and detects prodromal individuals before diagnosis,” they wrote.
“These findings suggest a crucial role for the α-synuclein SAA in therapeutic development, both to identify pathologically defined subgroups of people with Parkinson’s disease and to establish biomarker-defined at-risk cohorts,” they added.
Amprion has commercialized the assay (SYNTap test), which can be ordered online.
‘Seminal development’
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted the study “lays the foundation for a biological diagnosis” of Parkinson’s disease. “We have entered a new era of biomarker and treatment development for Parkinson’s disease. The possibility of detecting a misfolded α-synuclein, the pathological hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, by employing an SSA, is a seminal development,” wrote Daniela Berg, MD, PhD, and Christine Klein, MD, with University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
“However, to fully leverage the enormous potential of the α-synuclein seed amplification, the test would have to be performed in blood rather than the CSF, a less invasive approach that has proven to be viable,” they added.
“Although the blood-based method needs to be further elaborated for scalability, α-synuclein SAA is a game changer in Parkinson’s disease diagnostics, research, and treatment trials,” they concluded.
The study was funded by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and a consortium of more than 40 private and philanthropic partners. Dr. Siderowf has declared consulting for Merck and Parkinson Study Group, and receiving honoraria from Bial. A full list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Berg and Dr. Klein have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, and provides information on molecular subtypes, new research indicates.
“Identifying an effective biomarker for Parkinson’s disease pathology could have profound implications for the way we treat the condition, potentially making it possible to diagnose people earlier, identify the best treatments for different subsets of patients, and speed up clinical trials,” the study’s co-lead author Andrew Siderowf, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in a news release.
“Our findings suggest that the αSyn-SAA technique is highly accurate at detecting the biomarker for Parkinson’s disease regardless of the clinical features, making it possible to accurately diagnose the disease in patients at early stages,” added co-lead author Luis Concha-Marambio, PhD, director of research and development at Amprion, San Diego, Calif.
The study was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
‘New era’ in Parkinson’s disease
The researchers assessed the usefulness of αSyn-SAA in a cross-sectional analysis of 1,123 participants in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) cohort from 33 participating academic neurology outpatient practices in 12 countries.
The cohort included individuals with sporadic Parkinson’s disease from LRRK2 or GBA variants, healthy controls, individuals with clinical syndromes prodromal to Parkinson’s disease (rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder [RBD] or hyposmia), and nonmanifesting carriers of LRRK2 and GBA variants. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples from each participant were analyzed using αSyn-SAA.
Overall, αSyn-SAA differentiated Parkinson’s disease from healthy controls with 87.7% sensitivity and 96.3% specificity.
Sensitivity of the assay varied across subgroups based on genetic and clinical features. Among genetic Parkinson’s disease subgroups, sensitivity was highest for GBA Parkinson’s disease (95.9%), followed by sporadic Parkinson’s disease (93.3%), and lowest for LRRK2 Parkinson’s disease (67.5%). Among clinical features, hyposmia was the most robust predictor of a positive assay result.
Among all Parkinson’s disease cases with hyposmia, the sensitivity of the assay was 97.2%, compared with 63.0% for Parkinson’s disease without olfactory dysfunction. Combining genetic and clinical features, the sensitivity of positive αSyn-SAA in sporadic Parkinson’s disease with olfactory deficit was 98.6%, compared with 78.3% in sporadic Parkinson’s disease without hyposmia. Most prodromal participants (86%) with RBD and hyposmia had positive αSyn-SAA results, indicating they had α-synuclein aggregates despite not yet being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
Among those recruited based on their loss of smell, 89% (16 of 18 participants) had positive αSyn-SAA results. Similarly, in those with RBD, positive αSyn-SAA results were present in 85% of cases (28 of 33). No other clinical features were associated with a positive αSyn-SAA result.
In participants who carried LRRK2 or GBA variants but had no Parkinson’s disease diagnosis or prodromal symptoms (nonmanifesting carriers), 9% (14 of 159) and 7% (11 of 151), respectively, had positive αSyn-SAA results.
To date, this is the largest analysis of α-Syn-SAA for the biochemical diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, the researchers said.
The results show that the assay classifies people with Parkinson’s disease with “high sensitivity and specificity, provides information about molecular heterogeneity, and detects prodromal individuals before diagnosis,” they wrote.
“These findings suggest a crucial role for the α-synuclein SAA in therapeutic development, both to identify pathologically defined subgroups of people with Parkinson’s disease and to establish biomarker-defined at-risk cohorts,” they added.
Amprion has commercialized the assay (SYNTap test), which can be ordered online.
‘Seminal development’
The authors of an accompanying editorial noted the study “lays the foundation for a biological diagnosis” of Parkinson’s disease. “We have entered a new era of biomarker and treatment development for Parkinson’s disease. The possibility of detecting a misfolded α-synuclein, the pathological hallmark of Parkinson’s disease, by employing an SSA, is a seminal development,” wrote Daniela Berg, MD, PhD, and Christine Klein, MD, with University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Germany.
“However, to fully leverage the enormous potential of the α-synuclein seed amplification, the test would have to be performed in blood rather than the CSF, a less invasive approach that has proven to be viable,” they added.
“Although the blood-based method needs to be further elaborated for scalability, α-synuclein SAA is a game changer in Parkinson’s disease diagnostics, research, and treatment trials,” they concluded.
The study was funded by The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research and a consortium of more than 40 private and philanthropic partners. Dr. Siderowf has declared consulting for Merck and Parkinson Study Group, and receiving honoraria from Bial. A full list of author disclosures is available with the original article. Dr. Berg and Dr. Klein have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET NEUROLOGY
Phototherapy a safe, effective, inexpensive new option for dementia?
It may be “one of the most promising interventions for improving core symptoms” of the disease.
A new meta-analysis shows that patients with dementia who received phototherapy experienced significant cognitive improvement, compared with those who received usual treatment. However, there were no differences between study groups in terms of improved depression, agitation, or sleep problems.
“Our meta-analysis indicates that phototherapy improved cognitive function in patients with dementia. ... This suggests that phototherapy may be one of the most promising non-pharmacological interventions for improving core symptoms of dementia,” wrote the investigators, led by Xinlian Lu, Peking University, Beijing.
The study was published online in Brain and Behavior.
A new treatment option?
“As drug treatment for dementia has limitations such as medical contraindications, limited efficacy, and adverse effects, nonpharmacological therapy has been increasingly regarded as a critical part of comprehensive dementia care,” the investigators noted.
Phototherapy, which utilizes full-spectrum bright light (usually > 600 lux) or wavelength-specific light (for example, blue-enriched or blue-green), is a “promising nonpharmacological therapy” that is noninvasive, inexpensive, and safe.
Most studies of phototherapy have focused on sleep. Findings have shown “high heterogeneity” among the interventions and the populations in the studies, and results have been “inconsistent.” In addition, the effect of phototherapy on cognitive function and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) “still need to be clarified.”
In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the investigators examined the effects of phototherapy on cognitive function, BPSD, and sleep in older adults with dementia.
They searched several databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated phototherapy interventions for elderly patients. The primary outcome was cognitive function, which was assessed via the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Secondary outcomes included BPSD, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, as assessed by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and measures of sleep, including total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), and sleep disorders, as assessed by the Sleep Disorder Inventory (SDI).
To be included in the analysis, individual studies had to focus on elderly adults who had some form of dementia. In addition, a group receiving a phototherapy intervention had to be compared with a nonintervention group, and the study had to specify one of the above-defined outcomes.
The review included phototherapy interventions of all forms, frequencies, and durations, including use of bright light, LED light, and blue or blue-green light.
Regulating circadian rhythm
Twelve studies met the researchers’ criteria. They included a total of 766 patients with dementia – 426 in the intervention group and 340 in the control group. The mean ages ranged from 73.73 to 85.9 years, and there was a greater number of female than male participants.
Of the studies, seven employed routine daily light in the control group, while the others used either dim light (≤ 50 lux) or devices without light.
The researchers found “significant positive intervention effects” for global cognitive function. Improvements in postintervention MMSE scores differed significantly between the experimental groups and control groups (mean difference, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-3.98; I2 = 0%).
No significant differences were found in the effects of intervention on depression symptoms, as evidenced in CSDD scores (MD, −0.70; 95% CI, −3.10 to 1.70; I2 = 81%).
Among patients with higher CMAI scores, which indicate more severe agitation behaviors, there was a “trend of decreasing CMAI scores” after phototherapy (MD, −3.12; 95% CI, −8.05 to 1.82; I2 = 0%). No significant difference in NPI scores was observed between the two groups.
Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups in TST, SE, or SDI scores.
Adverse effects were infrequent and were not severe. Two of the 426 patients in the intervention group experienced mild ocular irritation, and one experienced slight transient redness of the forehead.
Light “may compensate for the reduction in the visual sensory input of patients with dementia and stimulate specific neurons in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus to regulate circadian rhythm,” the researchers suggested.
“As circadian rhythms are involved in optimal brain function, light supplementation may act on the synchronizing/phase-shifting effects of circadian rhythms to improve cognitive function,” they added.
They note that the light box is the “most commonly used device in phototherapy.” Light boxes provide full-spectrum bright light, usually greater than 2,500 lux. The duration is 30 minutes in the daytime, and treatment lasts 4-8 weeks.
The investigators cautioned that the light box should be placed 60 cm away from the patient or above the patient’s eye level. They said that a ceiling-mounted light is a “good choice” for providing whole-day phototherapy, since such lights do not interfere with the patient’s daily routine, reduce the demand on staff, and contribute to better adherence.
Phototherapy helmets and glasses are also available. These portable devices “allow for better control of light intensity and are ergonomic without interfering with patients’ normal activities.”
The researchers noted that “further well-designed studies are needed to explore the most effective clinical implementation conditions, including device type, duration, frequency, and time.”
Easy to use
Mariana Figueiro, PhD, professor and director of the Light and Health Research Center, department of population health medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said light is the “major stimulus for the circadian system, and a robust light-dark pattern daily (which can be given by light therapy during the day) improves sleep and behavior and reduces depression and agitation.”
Dr. Figueiro, who was not involved with the current study, noted that patients with dementia “have sleep issues, which can further affect their cognition; improvement in sleep leads to improvement in cognition,” and this may be an underlying mechanism associated with these results.
The clinical significance of the study “is that this is a nonpharmacological intervention and can be easily applied in the homes or controlled facilities, and it can be used with any other medication,” she pointed out.
“More importantly, sleep medications have negative side effects, so the use of nonpharmacological interventions improving sleep and cognition is great for clinical practice,” she added.
However, she took issue with the finding that phototherapy was not effective for depression and agitation, noting that there were “too few studies to say for sure that light therapy is ineffective at improving these outcomes.”
The research received no external funding. The authors and Dr. Figueiro disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It may be “one of the most promising interventions for improving core symptoms” of the disease.
A new meta-analysis shows that patients with dementia who received phototherapy experienced significant cognitive improvement, compared with those who received usual treatment. However, there were no differences between study groups in terms of improved depression, agitation, or sleep problems.
“Our meta-analysis indicates that phototherapy improved cognitive function in patients with dementia. ... This suggests that phototherapy may be one of the most promising non-pharmacological interventions for improving core symptoms of dementia,” wrote the investigators, led by Xinlian Lu, Peking University, Beijing.
The study was published online in Brain and Behavior.
A new treatment option?
“As drug treatment for dementia has limitations such as medical contraindications, limited efficacy, and adverse effects, nonpharmacological therapy has been increasingly regarded as a critical part of comprehensive dementia care,” the investigators noted.
Phototherapy, which utilizes full-spectrum bright light (usually > 600 lux) or wavelength-specific light (for example, blue-enriched or blue-green), is a “promising nonpharmacological therapy” that is noninvasive, inexpensive, and safe.
Most studies of phototherapy have focused on sleep. Findings have shown “high heterogeneity” among the interventions and the populations in the studies, and results have been “inconsistent.” In addition, the effect of phototherapy on cognitive function and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) “still need to be clarified.”
In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the investigators examined the effects of phototherapy on cognitive function, BPSD, and sleep in older adults with dementia.
They searched several databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated phototherapy interventions for elderly patients. The primary outcome was cognitive function, which was assessed via the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Secondary outcomes included BPSD, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, as assessed by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and measures of sleep, including total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), and sleep disorders, as assessed by the Sleep Disorder Inventory (SDI).
To be included in the analysis, individual studies had to focus on elderly adults who had some form of dementia. In addition, a group receiving a phototherapy intervention had to be compared with a nonintervention group, and the study had to specify one of the above-defined outcomes.
The review included phototherapy interventions of all forms, frequencies, and durations, including use of bright light, LED light, and blue or blue-green light.
Regulating circadian rhythm
Twelve studies met the researchers’ criteria. They included a total of 766 patients with dementia – 426 in the intervention group and 340 in the control group. The mean ages ranged from 73.73 to 85.9 years, and there was a greater number of female than male participants.
Of the studies, seven employed routine daily light in the control group, while the others used either dim light (≤ 50 lux) or devices without light.
The researchers found “significant positive intervention effects” for global cognitive function. Improvements in postintervention MMSE scores differed significantly between the experimental groups and control groups (mean difference, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-3.98; I2 = 0%).
No significant differences were found in the effects of intervention on depression symptoms, as evidenced in CSDD scores (MD, −0.70; 95% CI, −3.10 to 1.70; I2 = 81%).
Among patients with higher CMAI scores, which indicate more severe agitation behaviors, there was a “trend of decreasing CMAI scores” after phototherapy (MD, −3.12; 95% CI, −8.05 to 1.82; I2 = 0%). No significant difference in NPI scores was observed between the two groups.
Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups in TST, SE, or SDI scores.
Adverse effects were infrequent and were not severe. Two of the 426 patients in the intervention group experienced mild ocular irritation, and one experienced slight transient redness of the forehead.
Light “may compensate for the reduction in the visual sensory input of patients with dementia and stimulate specific neurons in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus to regulate circadian rhythm,” the researchers suggested.
“As circadian rhythms are involved in optimal brain function, light supplementation may act on the synchronizing/phase-shifting effects of circadian rhythms to improve cognitive function,” they added.
They note that the light box is the “most commonly used device in phototherapy.” Light boxes provide full-spectrum bright light, usually greater than 2,500 lux. The duration is 30 minutes in the daytime, and treatment lasts 4-8 weeks.
The investigators cautioned that the light box should be placed 60 cm away from the patient or above the patient’s eye level. They said that a ceiling-mounted light is a “good choice” for providing whole-day phototherapy, since such lights do not interfere with the patient’s daily routine, reduce the demand on staff, and contribute to better adherence.
Phototherapy helmets and glasses are also available. These portable devices “allow for better control of light intensity and are ergonomic without interfering with patients’ normal activities.”
The researchers noted that “further well-designed studies are needed to explore the most effective clinical implementation conditions, including device type, duration, frequency, and time.”
Easy to use
Mariana Figueiro, PhD, professor and director of the Light and Health Research Center, department of population health medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said light is the “major stimulus for the circadian system, and a robust light-dark pattern daily (which can be given by light therapy during the day) improves sleep and behavior and reduces depression and agitation.”
Dr. Figueiro, who was not involved with the current study, noted that patients with dementia “have sleep issues, which can further affect their cognition; improvement in sleep leads to improvement in cognition,” and this may be an underlying mechanism associated with these results.
The clinical significance of the study “is that this is a nonpharmacological intervention and can be easily applied in the homes or controlled facilities, and it can be used with any other medication,” she pointed out.
“More importantly, sleep medications have negative side effects, so the use of nonpharmacological interventions improving sleep and cognition is great for clinical practice,” she added.
However, she took issue with the finding that phototherapy was not effective for depression and agitation, noting that there were “too few studies to say for sure that light therapy is ineffective at improving these outcomes.”
The research received no external funding. The authors and Dr. Figueiro disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
It may be “one of the most promising interventions for improving core symptoms” of the disease.
A new meta-analysis shows that patients with dementia who received phototherapy experienced significant cognitive improvement, compared with those who received usual treatment. However, there were no differences between study groups in terms of improved depression, agitation, or sleep problems.
“Our meta-analysis indicates that phototherapy improved cognitive function in patients with dementia. ... This suggests that phototherapy may be one of the most promising non-pharmacological interventions for improving core symptoms of dementia,” wrote the investigators, led by Xinlian Lu, Peking University, Beijing.
The study was published online in Brain and Behavior.
A new treatment option?
“As drug treatment for dementia has limitations such as medical contraindications, limited efficacy, and adverse effects, nonpharmacological therapy has been increasingly regarded as a critical part of comprehensive dementia care,” the investigators noted.
Phototherapy, which utilizes full-spectrum bright light (usually > 600 lux) or wavelength-specific light (for example, blue-enriched or blue-green), is a “promising nonpharmacological therapy” that is noninvasive, inexpensive, and safe.
Most studies of phototherapy have focused on sleep. Findings have shown “high heterogeneity” among the interventions and the populations in the studies, and results have been “inconsistent.” In addition, the effect of phototherapy on cognitive function and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) “still need to be clarified.”
In the systematic review and meta-analysis, the investigators examined the effects of phototherapy on cognitive function, BPSD, and sleep in older adults with dementia.
They searched several databases for randomized controlled trials that investigated phototherapy interventions for elderly patients. The primary outcome was cognitive function, which was assessed via the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Secondary outcomes included BPSD, including agitation, anxiety, irritability, depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances, as assessed by the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), the Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), and measures of sleep, including total sleep time (TST), sleep efficiency (SE), and sleep disorders, as assessed by the Sleep Disorder Inventory (SDI).
To be included in the analysis, individual studies had to focus on elderly adults who had some form of dementia. In addition, a group receiving a phototherapy intervention had to be compared with a nonintervention group, and the study had to specify one of the above-defined outcomes.
The review included phototherapy interventions of all forms, frequencies, and durations, including use of bright light, LED light, and blue or blue-green light.
Regulating circadian rhythm
Twelve studies met the researchers’ criteria. They included a total of 766 patients with dementia – 426 in the intervention group and 340 in the control group. The mean ages ranged from 73.73 to 85.9 years, and there was a greater number of female than male participants.
Of the studies, seven employed routine daily light in the control group, while the others used either dim light (≤ 50 lux) or devices without light.
The researchers found “significant positive intervention effects” for global cognitive function. Improvements in postintervention MMSE scores differed significantly between the experimental groups and control groups (mean difference, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-3.98; I2 = 0%).
No significant differences were found in the effects of intervention on depression symptoms, as evidenced in CSDD scores (MD, −0.70; 95% CI, −3.10 to 1.70; I2 = 81%).
Among patients with higher CMAI scores, which indicate more severe agitation behaviors, there was a “trend of decreasing CMAI scores” after phototherapy (MD, −3.12; 95% CI, −8.05 to 1.82; I2 = 0%). No significant difference in NPI scores was observed between the two groups.
Similarly, no significant difference was found between the two groups in TST, SE, or SDI scores.
Adverse effects were infrequent and were not severe. Two of the 426 patients in the intervention group experienced mild ocular irritation, and one experienced slight transient redness of the forehead.
Light “may compensate for the reduction in the visual sensory input of patients with dementia and stimulate specific neurons in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus to regulate circadian rhythm,” the researchers suggested.
“As circadian rhythms are involved in optimal brain function, light supplementation may act on the synchronizing/phase-shifting effects of circadian rhythms to improve cognitive function,” they added.
They note that the light box is the “most commonly used device in phototherapy.” Light boxes provide full-spectrum bright light, usually greater than 2,500 lux. The duration is 30 minutes in the daytime, and treatment lasts 4-8 weeks.
The investigators cautioned that the light box should be placed 60 cm away from the patient or above the patient’s eye level. They said that a ceiling-mounted light is a “good choice” for providing whole-day phototherapy, since such lights do not interfere with the patient’s daily routine, reduce the demand on staff, and contribute to better adherence.
Phototherapy helmets and glasses are also available. These portable devices “allow for better control of light intensity and are ergonomic without interfering with patients’ normal activities.”
The researchers noted that “further well-designed studies are needed to explore the most effective clinical implementation conditions, including device type, duration, frequency, and time.”
Easy to use
Mariana Figueiro, PhD, professor and director of the Light and Health Research Center, department of population health medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said light is the “major stimulus for the circadian system, and a robust light-dark pattern daily (which can be given by light therapy during the day) improves sleep and behavior and reduces depression and agitation.”
Dr. Figueiro, who was not involved with the current study, noted that patients with dementia “have sleep issues, which can further affect their cognition; improvement in sleep leads to improvement in cognition,” and this may be an underlying mechanism associated with these results.
The clinical significance of the study “is that this is a nonpharmacological intervention and can be easily applied in the homes or controlled facilities, and it can be used with any other medication,” she pointed out.
“More importantly, sleep medications have negative side effects, so the use of nonpharmacological interventions improving sleep and cognition is great for clinical practice,” she added.
However, she took issue with the finding that phototherapy was not effective for depression and agitation, noting that there were “too few studies to say for sure that light therapy is ineffective at improving these outcomes.”
The research received no external funding. The authors and Dr. Figueiro disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR
Disordered sleep tied to a marked increase in stroke risk
Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.
The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.
Although the study data do not show a causal link between disordered sleep and stroke, the association between the two was strong.
“Given the association, sleep disturbance may represent a marker of somebody at increased risk of stroke, and further interventional studies are required to see if management can reduce this risk,” lead investigator Christine McCarthy, MD, PhD, a geriatric and stroke medicine physician and researcher with the University of Galway (Ireland), told this news organization. “In the interim, however, management of sleep disturbance may have a positive impact on a patient’s quality of life.”
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
More symptoms, more risk
Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.
“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.
For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.
Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.
Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.
Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).
Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).
“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.
“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
A marker of stroke risk
Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.
“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.
Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.
One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.
“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.
The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.
The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.
Although the study data do not show a causal link between disordered sleep and stroke, the association between the two was strong.
“Given the association, sleep disturbance may represent a marker of somebody at increased risk of stroke, and further interventional studies are required to see if management can reduce this risk,” lead investigator Christine McCarthy, MD, PhD, a geriatric and stroke medicine physician and researcher with the University of Galway (Ireland), told this news organization. “In the interim, however, management of sleep disturbance may have a positive impact on a patient’s quality of life.”
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
More symptoms, more risk
Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.
“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.
For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.
Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.
Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.
Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).
Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).
“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.
“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
A marker of stroke risk
Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.
“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.
Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.
One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.
“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.
The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large international study show stroke risk was more than three times higher in those who slept too little, more than twice as high in those who sleep too much, and two to three times higher in those with symptoms of severe obstructive sleep apnea.
The study also showed that the greater the number of sleep disorder symptoms, the greater the stroke risk. The 11% of study participants with five or more symptoms of disordered sleep had a fivefold increased risk for stroke.
Although the study data do not show a causal link between disordered sleep and stroke, the association between the two was strong.
“Given the association, sleep disturbance may represent a marker of somebody at increased risk of stroke, and further interventional studies are required to see if management can reduce this risk,” lead investigator Christine McCarthy, MD, PhD, a geriatric and stroke medicine physician and researcher with the University of Galway (Ireland), told this news organization. “In the interim, however, management of sleep disturbance may have a positive impact on a patient’s quality of life.”
The findings were published online in the journal Neurology.
More symptoms, more risk
Previous research shows severe OSA doubles the risk of stroke and increases the chance of recurrent stroke. A 2019 study showed that people with insomnia had a small increased risk of stroke.
“Both snoring and extremes of sleep duration have been previously associated with an increased risk of stroke in observational research, but less is known about other symptoms of sleep impairment, with less consistent findings,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Prior studies have also generally come from a single geographic region, which Dr. McCarthy noted could limit their generalizability.
For this effort, investigators used data from 4,496 participants in INTERSTROKE, an international case-control study of risk factors for a first acute stroke. About half of the participants had a history of stroke.
Using information collected from a survey of sleep habits, researchers found an elevated stroke risk in those who received less than 5 hours of sleep per night (odds ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-4.76) or more than 9 hours of sleep per night (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.89-3.78), compared with those who slept 7 hours a night.
Participants who took unplanned naps or naps lasting an hour or more (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.69-3.57) and participants who reported poor quality sleep (OR,1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.75) were also at an increased risk for stroke.
Symptoms of OSA were also strongly associated with increased stroke risk, including snoring (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62-2.24), snorting (OR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.17-3.20), and breathing cessation (OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28-2.60).
Stroke risk increased as the number of sleep disturbance symptoms rose, with the greatest risk in the 11% of participants who had five or more symptoms (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 4.03-7.18).
“This study finds an association between a broad range of sleep impairment symptoms and stroke, and a graded association with increasing symptoms, in an international setting,” Dr. McCarthy said.
Researchers aren’t sure what’s driving the higher stroke risk among people with sleep disturbances. Although the study did control for potential confounders, it wasn’t designed to get at what’s driving the association.
“Sleep disturbance may also have a bi-directional relationship with many stroke risk factors; for example, sleep disturbance may be a symptom of disease and exacerbate disease,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Future interventional studies are required to determine the true direction of the relationship.”
A marker of stroke risk
Daniel Lackland, DrPH, professor of neurology at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, said the findings provide additional evidence of the link between sleep and stroke risk.
“The results confirm sleep disorders as a potential marker and part of the risk profile,” he said.
Collecting information about sleep using a validated assessment tool is an important piece of clinical care, Dr. Lackland said, especially among patients with other stroke risk factors.
One limitation of the study was that data on sleep was collected only at one point, and participants were not followed over time to see if changes in sleep affected stroke risk.
“This is an important point and should be a focus for future studies, as it is critical in the design of interventions,” Dr. Lackland said.
The INTERSTROKE study is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Swedish Research Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra Götaland, Astra Zeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada), Pfizer (Canada), MERCK, Sharp and Dohme, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, U.K. Chest, and U.K. Heart and Stroke. Dr. McCarthy and Lackland report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEUROLOGY