Alzheimer's & Cognition

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

In the October 2022 issue of JAMA Neurology was a research article and accompanying editorial on the ATN (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) framework for diagnosing and treating Alzheimer’s disease.

There are valid concerns with any system centered on early dementia diagnosis. If the new generation of Alzheimer’s treatments can reverse pathology before the symptoms are apparent, it certainly makes sense to treat people as early as possible. In a terrible disease with only partially effective treatments now, this is encouraging news.

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

In the October 2022 issue of JAMA Neurology was a research article and accompanying editorial on the ATN (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) framework for diagnosing and treating Alzheimer’s disease.

There are valid concerns with any system centered on early dementia diagnosis. If the new generation of Alzheimer’s treatments can reverse pathology before the symptoms are apparent, it certainly makes sense to treat people as early as possible. In a terrible disease with only partially effective treatments now, this is encouraging news.

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

In the October 2022 issue of JAMA Neurology was a research article and accompanying editorial on the ATN (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) framework for diagnosing and treating Alzheimer’s disease.

There are valid concerns with any system centered on early dementia diagnosis. If the new generation of Alzheimer’s treatments can reverse pathology before the symptoms are apparent, it certainly makes sense to treat people as early as possible. In a terrible disease with only partially effective treatments now, this is encouraging news.

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

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

Brain indicators of motor impairment were distinct among children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), those with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and controls, in a new study.

Previous research suggests that individuals with ASD overlap in motor impairment with those with DCD. But these two conditions may differ significantly in some areas, as children with ASD tend to show weaker skills in social motor tasks such as imitation, wrote Emil Kilroy, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The neurobiological basis of autism remains unknown, despite many research efforts, in part because of the heterogeneity of the disease, said corresponding author Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, PhD, also of the University of Southern California, in an interview.

Comorbidity with other disorders is a strong contributing factor to heterogeneity, and approximately 80% of autistic individuals have motor impairments and meet criteria for a diagnosis of DCD, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Controlling for other comorbidities, such as developmental coordination disorder, when trying to understand the neural basis of autism is important, so that we can understand which neural circuits are related to [core symptoms of autism] and which ones are related to motor impairments that are comorbid with autism, but not necessarily part of the core symptomology,” she explained. “We focused on white matter pathways here because many researchers now think the underlying basis of autism, besides genetics, is brain connectivity differences.”

In their study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers reviewed data from whole-brain correlational tractography for 22 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 16 with developmental coordination disorder, and 21 normally developing individuals, who served as the control group. The mean age of the participants was approximately 11 years; the age range was 8-17 years.

Overall, patterns of brain diffusion (movement of fluid, mainly water molecules, in the brain) were significantly different in ASD children, compared with typically developing children.

The ASD group showed significantly reduced diffusivity in the bilateral fronto-parietal cingulum and the left parolfactory cingulum. This finding reflects previous studies suggesting an association between brain patterns in the cingulum area and ASD. But the current study is “the first to identify the fronto-parietal and the parolfactory portions of the cingulum as well as the anterior caudal u-fibers as specific to core ASD symptomatology and not related to motor-related comorbidity,” the researchers wrote.

Differences in brain diffusivity were associated with worse performance on motor skills and behavioral measures for children with ASD and children with DCD, compared with controls.

Motor development was assessed using the Total Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) and the Florida Apraxia Battery modified for children (FAB-M). The MABC-2 is among the most common tools for measuring motor skills and identifying clinically relevant motor deficits in children and teens aged 3-16 years. The test includes three subtest scores (manual dexterity, gross-motor aiming and catching, and balance) and a total score. Scores are based on a child’s best performance on each component, and higher scores indicate better functioning. In the new study, The MABC-2 total scores averaged 10.57 for controls, compared with 5.76 in the ASD group, and 4.31 in the DCD group.

Children with ASD differed from the other groups in social measures. Social skills were measured using several tools, including the Social Responsivity Scale (SRS Total), which is a parent-completed survey that includes a total score designed to reflect the severity of social deficits in ASD. It is divided into five subscales for parents to assess a child’s social skill impairment: social awareness, social cognition, social communication, social motivation, and mannerisms. Scores for the SRS are calculated in T-scores, in which a score of 50 represents the mean. T-scores of 59 and below are generally not associated with ASD, and patients with these scores are considered to have low to no symptomatology. Scores on the SRS Total in the new study were 45.95, 77.45, and 55.81 for the controls, ASD group, and DCD group, respectively.
 

Results should raise awareness

“The results were largely predicted in our hypotheses – that we would find specific white matter pathways in autism that would differ from [what we saw in typically developing patients and those with DCD], and that diffusivity in ASD would be related to socioemotional differences,” Dr. Aziz-Zadeh said, in an interview.

“What was surprising was that some pathways that had previously been thought to be different in autism were also compromised in DCD, indicating that they were common to motor deficits which both groups shared, not to core autism symptomology,” she noted.

A message for clinicians from the study is that a dual diagnosis of DCD is often missing in ASD practice, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Given that approximately 80% of children with ASD have DCD, testing for DCD and addressing potential motor issues should be more common practice,” she said.

Dr. Aziz-Zadeh and colleagues are now investigating relationships between the brain, behavior, and the gut microbiome. “We think that understanding autism from a full-body perspective, examining interactions between the brain and the body, will be an important step in this field,” she emphasized.

The study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size, the use of only right-handed participants, and the use of self-reports by children and parents, the researchers noted. Additionally, they noted that white matter develops at different rates in different age groups, and future studies might consider age as a factor, as well as further behavioral assessments, they said.
 

Small sample size limits conclusions

“Understanding the neuroanatomic differences that may contribute to the core symptoms of ASD is a very important goal for the field, particularly how they relate to other comorbid symptoms and neurodevelopmental disorders,” said Michael Gandal, MD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a member of the Lifespan Brain Institute at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an interview.

“While this study provides some clues into how structural connectivity may relate to motor coordination in ASD, it will be important to replicate these findings in a much larger sample before we can really appreciate how robust these findings are and how well they generalize to the broader ASD population,” Dr. Gandal emphasized.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gandal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Brain indicators of motor impairment were distinct among children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), those with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and controls, in a new study.

Previous research suggests that individuals with ASD overlap in motor impairment with those with DCD. But these two conditions may differ significantly in some areas, as children with ASD tend to show weaker skills in social motor tasks such as imitation, wrote Emil Kilroy, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The neurobiological basis of autism remains unknown, despite many research efforts, in part because of the heterogeneity of the disease, said corresponding author Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, PhD, also of the University of Southern California, in an interview.

Comorbidity with other disorders is a strong contributing factor to heterogeneity, and approximately 80% of autistic individuals have motor impairments and meet criteria for a diagnosis of DCD, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Controlling for other comorbidities, such as developmental coordination disorder, when trying to understand the neural basis of autism is important, so that we can understand which neural circuits are related to [core symptoms of autism] and which ones are related to motor impairments that are comorbid with autism, but not necessarily part of the core symptomology,” she explained. “We focused on white matter pathways here because many researchers now think the underlying basis of autism, besides genetics, is brain connectivity differences.”

In their study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers reviewed data from whole-brain correlational tractography for 22 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 16 with developmental coordination disorder, and 21 normally developing individuals, who served as the control group. The mean age of the participants was approximately 11 years; the age range was 8-17 years.

Overall, patterns of brain diffusion (movement of fluid, mainly water molecules, in the brain) were significantly different in ASD children, compared with typically developing children.

The ASD group showed significantly reduced diffusivity in the bilateral fronto-parietal cingulum and the left parolfactory cingulum. This finding reflects previous studies suggesting an association between brain patterns in the cingulum area and ASD. But the current study is “the first to identify the fronto-parietal and the parolfactory portions of the cingulum as well as the anterior caudal u-fibers as specific to core ASD symptomatology and not related to motor-related comorbidity,” the researchers wrote.

Differences in brain diffusivity were associated with worse performance on motor skills and behavioral measures for children with ASD and children with DCD, compared with controls.

Motor development was assessed using the Total Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) and the Florida Apraxia Battery modified for children (FAB-M). The MABC-2 is among the most common tools for measuring motor skills and identifying clinically relevant motor deficits in children and teens aged 3-16 years. The test includes three subtest scores (manual dexterity, gross-motor aiming and catching, and balance) and a total score. Scores are based on a child’s best performance on each component, and higher scores indicate better functioning. In the new study, The MABC-2 total scores averaged 10.57 for controls, compared with 5.76 in the ASD group, and 4.31 in the DCD group.

Children with ASD differed from the other groups in social measures. Social skills were measured using several tools, including the Social Responsivity Scale (SRS Total), which is a parent-completed survey that includes a total score designed to reflect the severity of social deficits in ASD. It is divided into five subscales for parents to assess a child’s social skill impairment: social awareness, social cognition, social communication, social motivation, and mannerisms. Scores for the SRS are calculated in T-scores, in which a score of 50 represents the mean. T-scores of 59 and below are generally not associated with ASD, and patients with these scores are considered to have low to no symptomatology. Scores on the SRS Total in the new study were 45.95, 77.45, and 55.81 for the controls, ASD group, and DCD group, respectively.
 

Results should raise awareness

“The results were largely predicted in our hypotheses – that we would find specific white matter pathways in autism that would differ from [what we saw in typically developing patients and those with DCD], and that diffusivity in ASD would be related to socioemotional differences,” Dr. Aziz-Zadeh said, in an interview.

“What was surprising was that some pathways that had previously been thought to be different in autism were also compromised in DCD, indicating that they were common to motor deficits which both groups shared, not to core autism symptomology,” she noted.

A message for clinicians from the study is that a dual diagnosis of DCD is often missing in ASD practice, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Given that approximately 80% of children with ASD have DCD, testing for DCD and addressing potential motor issues should be more common practice,” she said.

Dr. Aziz-Zadeh and colleagues are now investigating relationships between the brain, behavior, and the gut microbiome. “We think that understanding autism from a full-body perspective, examining interactions between the brain and the body, will be an important step in this field,” she emphasized.

The study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size, the use of only right-handed participants, and the use of self-reports by children and parents, the researchers noted. Additionally, they noted that white matter develops at different rates in different age groups, and future studies might consider age as a factor, as well as further behavioral assessments, they said.
 

Small sample size limits conclusions

“Understanding the neuroanatomic differences that may contribute to the core symptoms of ASD is a very important goal for the field, particularly how they relate to other comorbid symptoms and neurodevelopmental disorders,” said Michael Gandal, MD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a member of the Lifespan Brain Institute at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an interview.

“While this study provides some clues into how structural connectivity may relate to motor coordination in ASD, it will be important to replicate these findings in a much larger sample before we can really appreciate how robust these findings are and how well they generalize to the broader ASD population,” Dr. Gandal emphasized.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gandal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Brain indicators of motor impairment were distinct among children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), those with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and controls, in a new study.

Previous research suggests that individuals with ASD overlap in motor impairment with those with DCD. But these two conditions may differ significantly in some areas, as children with ASD tend to show weaker skills in social motor tasks such as imitation, wrote Emil Kilroy, PhD, of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and colleagues.

The neurobiological basis of autism remains unknown, despite many research efforts, in part because of the heterogeneity of the disease, said corresponding author Lisa Aziz-Zadeh, PhD, also of the University of Southern California, in an interview.

Comorbidity with other disorders is a strong contributing factor to heterogeneity, and approximately 80% of autistic individuals have motor impairments and meet criteria for a diagnosis of DCD, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Controlling for other comorbidities, such as developmental coordination disorder, when trying to understand the neural basis of autism is important, so that we can understand which neural circuits are related to [core symptoms of autism] and which ones are related to motor impairments that are comorbid with autism, but not necessarily part of the core symptomology,” she explained. “We focused on white matter pathways here because many researchers now think the underlying basis of autism, besides genetics, is brain connectivity differences.”

In their study published in Scientific Reports, the researchers reviewed data from whole-brain correlational tractography for 22 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 16 with developmental coordination disorder, and 21 normally developing individuals, who served as the control group. The mean age of the participants was approximately 11 years; the age range was 8-17 years.

Overall, patterns of brain diffusion (movement of fluid, mainly water molecules, in the brain) were significantly different in ASD children, compared with typically developing children.

The ASD group showed significantly reduced diffusivity in the bilateral fronto-parietal cingulum and the left parolfactory cingulum. This finding reflects previous studies suggesting an association between brain patterns in the cingulum area and ASD. But the current study is “the first to identify the fronto-parietal and the parolfactory portions of the cingulum as well as the anterior caudal u-fibers as specific to core ASD symptomatology and not related to motor-related comorbidity,” the researchers wrote.

Differences in brain diffusivity were associated with worse performance on motor skills and behavioral measures for children with ASD and children with DCD, compared with controls.

Motor development was assessed using the Total Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2) and the Florida Apraxia Battery modified for children (FAB-M). The MABC-2 is among the most common tools for measuring motor skills and identifying clinically relevant motor deficits in children and teens aged 3-16 years. The test includes three subtest scores (manual dexterity, gross-motor aiming and catching, and balance) and a total score. Scores are based on a child’s best performance on each component, and higher scores indicate better functioning. In the new study, The MABC-2 total scores averaged 10.57 for controls, compared with 5.76 in the ASD group, and 4.31 in the DCD group.

Children with ASD differed from the other groups in social measures. Social skills were measured using several tools, including the Social Responsivity Scale (SRS Total), which is a parent-completed survey that includes a total score designed to reflect the severity of social deficits in ASD. It is divided into five subscales for parents to assess a child’s social skill impairment: social awareness, social cognition, social communication, social motivation, and mannerisms. Scores for the SRS are calculated in T-scores, in which a score of 50 represents the mean. T-scores of 59 and below are generally not associated with ASD, and patients with these scores are considered to have low to no symptomatology. Scores on the SRS Total in the new study were 45.95, 77.45, and 55.81 for the controls, ASD group, and DCD group, respectively.
 

Results should raise awareness

“The results were largely predicted in our hypotheses – that we would find specific white matter pathways in autism that would differ from [what we saw in typically developing patients and those with DCD], and that diffusivity in ASD would be related to socioemotional differences,” Dr. Aziz-Zadeh said, in an interview.

“What was surprising was that some pathways that had previously been thought to be different in autism were also compromised in DCD, indicating that they were common to motor deficits which both groups shared, not to core autism symptomology,” she noted.

A message for clinicians from the study is that a dual diagnosis of DCD is often missing in ASD practice, said Dr. Aziz-Zadeh. “Given that approximately 80% of children with ASD have DCD, testing for DCD and addressing potential motor issues should be more common practice,” she said.

Dr. Aziz-Zadeh and colleagues are now investigating relationships between the brain, behavior, and the gut microbiome. “We think that understanding autism from a full-body perspective, examining interactions between the brain and the body, will be an important step in this field,” she emphasized.

The study was limited by several factors, including the small sample size, the use of only right-handed participants, and the use of self-reports by children and parents, the researchers noted. Additionally, they noted that white matter develops at different rates in different age groups, and future studies might consider age as a factor, as well as further behavioral assessments, they said.
 

Small sample size limits conclusions

“Understanding the neuroanatomic differences that may contribute to the core symptoms of ASD is a very important goal for the field, particularly how they relate to other comorbid symptoms and neurodevelopmental disorders,” said Michael Gandal, MD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a member of the Lifespan Brain Institute at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in an interview.

“While this study provides some clues into how structural connectivity may relate to motor coordination in ASD, it will be important to replicate these findings in a much larger sample before we can really appreciate how robust these findings are and how well they generalize to the broader ASD population,” Dr. Gandal emphasized.

The study was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Gandal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Roughly 7% of all adult Americans may currently have had long COVID, with symptoms that have lasted 3 months or longer, according to the latest U.S. government survey done in October. More than a quarter say their condition is severe enough to significantly limit their day-to-day activities – yet the problem is only barely starting to get the attention of employers, the health care system, and policymakers.

With no cure or treatment in sight, long COVID is already burdening not only the health care system, but also the economy – and that burden is set to grow. Many experts worry about the possible long-term ripple effects, from increased spending on medical care costs to lost wages due to not being able to work, as well as the policy implications that come with addressing these issues.

“At this point, anyone who’s looking at this seriously would say this is a huge deal,” says senior Brookings Institution fellow Katie Bach, the author of a study that analyzed long COVID’s impact on the labor market.

“We need a real concerted focus on treating these people, which means both research and the clinical side, and figuring out how to build a labor market that is more inclusive of people with disabilities,” she said.

It’s not only that many people are affected. It’s that they are often affected for months and possibly even years.

The U.S. government figures suggest more than 18 million people could have symptoms of long COVID right now. The latest Household Pulse Survey by the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics takes data from 41,415 people.

A preprint of a study by researchers from City University of New York, posted on medRxiv in September and based on a similar population survey done between June 30 and July 2, drew comparable results. The study has not been peer reviewed.

More than 7% of all those who answered said they had long COVID at the time of the survey, which the researchers said corresponded to approximately 18.5 million U.S. adults. The same study found that a quarter of those, or an estimated 4.7 million adults, said their daily activities were impacted “a lot.”

This can translate into pain not only for the patients, but for governments and employers, too.

In high-income countries around the world, government surveys and other studies are shedding light on the extent to which post-COVID-19 symptoms – commonly known as long COVID – are affecting populations. While results vary, they generally fall within similar ranges.

The World Health Organization estimates that between 10% and 20% of those with COVID-19 go on to have an array of medium- to long-term post-COVID-19 symptoms that range from mild to debilitating. The U.S. Government Accountability Office puts that estimate at 10% to 30%; one of the latest studies published at the end of October in The Journal of the American Medical Association found that 15% of U.S. adults who had tested positive for COVID-19 reported current long COVID symptoms. Elsewhere, a study from the Netherlands published in The Lancet in August found that one in eight COVID-19 cases, or 12.7%, were likely to become long COVID.

“It’s very clear that the condition is devastating people’s lives and livelihoods,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus wrote in an article for The Guardian newspaper in October.

“The world has already lost a significant number of the workforce to illness, death, fatigue, unplanned retirement due to an increase in long-term disability, which not only impacts the health system, but is a hit to the overarching economy … the impact of long COVID for all countries is very serious and needs immediate and sustained action equivalent to its scale.”
 

Global snapshot: Lasting symptoms, impact on activities

Patients describe a spectrum of persistent issues, with extreme fatigue, brain fog or cognitive problems, and shortness of breath among the most common complaints. Many also have manageable symptoms that worsen significantly after even mild physical or mental exertion.

Women appear almost twice as likely as men to get long COVID. Many patients have other medical conditions and disabilities that make them more vulnerable to the condition. Those who face greater obstacles accessing health care due to discrimination or socioeconomic inequity are at higher risk as well. 

While many are older, a large number are also in their prime working age. The Census Bureau data show that people ages 40-49 are more likely than any other group to get long COVID, which has broader implications for labor markets and the global economy. Already, experts have estimated that long COVID is likely to cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and affect multiple industries.

“Whether they’re in the financial world, the medical system, lawyers, they’re telling me they’re sitting at the computer screen and they’re unable to process the data,” said Zachary Schwartz, MD, medical director for Vancouver General Hospital’s Post-COVID-19 Recovery Clinic.

“That is what’s most distressing for people, in that they’re not working, they’re not making money, and they don’t know when, or if, they’re going to get better.”

Nearly a third of respondents in the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey who said they have had COVID-19 reported symptoms that lasted 3 months or longer. People between the ages of 30 and 59 were the most affected, with about 32% reporting symptoms. Across the entire adult U.S. population, the survey found that 1 in 7 adults have had long COVID at some point during the pandemic, with about 1 in 18 saying it limited their activity to some degree, and 1 in 50 saying they have faced “a lot” of limits on their activities. Any way these numbers are dissected, long COVID has impacted a large swath of the population.

Yet research into the causes and possible treatments of long COVID is just getting underway.

“The amount of energy and time devoted to it is way, way less than it should, given how many people are likely affected,” said David Cutler, PhD, professor of economics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., who has written about the economic cost of long COVID. “We’re way, way underdoing it here. And I think that’s really a terrible thing.”

Population surveys and studies from around the world show that long COVID lives up to its name, with people reporting serious symptoms for months on end.

In October, Statistics Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada published early results from a questionnaire done between spring and summer 2022 that found just under 15% of adults who had a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 went on to have new or continuing symptoms 3 or more months later. Nearly half, or 47.3%, dealt with symptoms that lasted a year or more. More than one in five said their symptoms “often or always” limited their day-to-day activities, which included routine tasks such as preparing meals, doing errands and chores, and basic functions such as personal care and moving around in their homes.

Nearly three-quarters of workers or students said they missed an average of 20 days of work or school. 

“We haven’t yet been able to determine exactly when symptoms resolve,” said Rainu Kaushal, MD, the senior associate dean for clinical research at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York. She is co-leading a national study on long COVID in adults and children, funded by the National Institutes of Health RECOVER Initiative.

“But there does seem to be, for many of the milder symptoms, resolution at about 4-6 weeks. There seems to be a second point of resolution around 6 months for certain symptoms, and then some symptoms do seem to be permanent, and those tend to be patients who have underlying conditions,” she said.
 

Reducing the risk

Given all the data so far, experts recommend urgent policy changes to help people with long COVID.

“The population needs to be prepared, that understanding long COVID is going to be a very long and difficult process,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, associate professor and the lead principal investigator of the RECOVER adult cohort at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York. He said the government can do a great deal to help, including setting up a network of connected clinics treating long COVID, standardizing best practices, and sharing information.

“That would go a long way towards making sure that every person feels like they’re not too far away from a clinic where they can get treated for this particular condition,” he said.

But the only known way to prevent long COVID is to prevent COVID-19 infections in the first place, experts say. That means equitable access to tests, therapeutics, and vaccines.

“I will say that avoiding COVID remains the best treatment in the arsenal right now,” said Dr. Kaushal. This means masking, avoiding crowded places with poor ventilation and high exposure risk, and being up to date on vaccinations, she said.

A number of papers – including a large U.K. study published in May 2022, another one from July, and the JAMA study from October – all suggest that vaccinations can help reduce the risk of long COVID.

“I am absolutely of the belief that vaccination has reduced the incidence and overall amount of long COVID … [and is] still by far the best thing the public can do,” said Dr. Schwartz.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who took either a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) was significantly lower than the rate observed in patients who take only a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in a national database study.

The work builds on previous research indicating a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in people with RA. While joint pain and swelling are the cardinal symptoms of RA, its systemic inflammation leads to multiple systemic manifestations, offering biologically plausible links with cognitive decline. In addition, patients with RA have high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, disability, and physical inactivity, all of which are risk factors for dementia.

Chronic neuroinflammation secondary to either intrinsic or systemic stimuli is thought to play a key role in dementia development, especially Alzheimer’s dementia (AD). Research showing a role of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) in the development of dementia has piqued interest in a potential protective effect of TNF inhibitors. “TNF-alpha is thought to have an important role in different stages of the pathophysiology and disease progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” study first author Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the University of Pittsburgh Vasculitis Center, said in an interview. “Animal models have shown that TNF inhibition reduces microgliosis, neuronal loss, and tau phosphorylation. Cognitive improvement has been seen in two trials with Alzheimer’s disease patients, but were not in rheumatoid arthritis patients.”

In the newest study, published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, Dr. Sattui and colleagues suggest that a lower risk for dementia seen with bDMARDs and tsDMARDs may be attributable to an overall greater decrease in inflammation rather than any mechanism of action specific to these drugs.

In the study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims during 2006-2017 for 141,326 adult patients with RA, the crude incident rates were 2.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.1) for patients on csDMARDs and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for patients on any b/tsDMARD. There were 3,794 cases of incident dementia during follow-up among 233,271 initiations of any DMARD. The adjusted risk for dementia among users of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs was 19% lower than the adjusted risk for patients on csDMARDs (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87). No significant differences were found between classes of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Dr. Sattui and coauthors’ investigation included adults aged at least 40 years with two RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist more than 7 and less than 365 days apart. Those with prior dementia diagnoses were excluded. Their analysis found the risk of incident dementia to be comparable between patients receiving TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi bDMARDs (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARDs (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90), with csDMARDs as the referent. A second subgroup analysis looking at patients with prior methotrexate use who were taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs revealed similar decreases in risk of incident dementia, compared with patients taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs along with methotrexate at baseline.

“NSAIDs and glucocorticoids have been studied in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” Dr. Sattui said in the interview. “Despite initial observational data that showed some signal for improvement, no benefit was observed in either of the RCTs. Other agents with possible anti-inflammatory effects and more benign profiles, such as curcumin, are being studied. There are also ongoing trials looking into the use of JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors or [interleukin]-1 inhibition in dementia.”

He added: “There is a need to better study the association between cognition and disease activity, as well as treat-to-target strategies, prospectively in patients with RA. It is important to also acknowledge that any of these findings might be just specific for RA, so extrapolation to non-RA individuals might be limited.”

In commenting on the findings of the study, Rishi J. Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that “superior inflammation control with biologics or targeted DMARDs is an interesting hypothesis explaining the observed findings. It merits further investigation and replication in diverse populations.” He added: “It should be noted that a key challenge in evaluating this hypothesis using insurance claims data is unavailability of some important factors such as socioeconomic status and patient frailty. These may be driving treatment selection between conventional DMARDs, which are cheaper with more benign adverse-event profiles, and biologic or targeted DMARDs, which are more expensive with a less favorable adverse-event profile.”
 

Prior research

Several studies have investigated the effect of DMARDs, including bDMARDs like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, on incident dementia in patients with RA.

Among this research is a study by Dr. Desai and colleagues that looked at comparative risk of AD and related dementia in 22,569 Medicare beneficiaries receiving tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors in comparison with abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). No differentiating risk associations were found in this cohort study.

Other past studies include:

• A study comparing about 21,000 patients with RA and a non-RA cohort of about 62,000 found a 37% reduction in dementia development among RA patients receiving DMARDs. The effect was dose dependent, greater with high cumulative dosages, and was found in both men and women and in subgroups younger and older than 65 years.
• A retrospective study of electronic health records from 56 million adult patients identified a subset of patients with RA, psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease in whom systemic inflammation increased risk for AD through a mechanism involving TNF. The risk for AD in patients was lowered by treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, or methotrexate, with larger reductions observed in younger patients than in older patients receiving TNF blockers.
• A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort study in 2,510 U.S. veterans with RA found that use of a TNF inhibitor reduced the risk of dementia by 36%, compared with control patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80), and the effect was consistent over 5-20 years post RA diagnosis.
• In a retrospective, multinational, matched, case-control study of patients older than 50 years with RA, prior methotrexate use was associated with lower dementia risk (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98). Use of methotrexate longer than 4 years demonstrated the lowest dementia risk (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.79).

These past studies, Dr. Sattui and colleagues pointed out, have multiple shortcomings, including case-control design, different definitions of exposure or outcomes, and inadequate control of confounders, underscoring the need for more rigorous studies.

Several authors of the CMS claims study disclosed research support, grants, and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Desai disclosed that he has received funding from the National Institute on Aging for drug repurposing studies of dementia.

The incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who took either a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) was significantly lower than the rate observed in patients who take only a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in a national database study.

The work builds on previous research indicating a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in people with RA. While joint pain and swelling are the cardinal symptoms of RA, its systemic inflammation leads to multiple systemic manifestations, offering biologically plausible links with cognitive decline. In addition, patients with RA have high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, disability, and physical inactivity, all of which are risk factors for dementia.

Chronic neuroinflammation secondary to either intrinsic or systemic stimuli is thought to play a key role in dementia development, especially Alzheimer’s dementia (AD). Research showing a role of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) in the development of dementia has piqued interest in a potential protective effect of TNF inhibitors. “TNF-alpha is thought to have an important role in different stages of the pathophysiology and disease progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” study first author Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the University of Pittsburgh Vasculitis Center, said in an interview. “Animal models have shown that TNF inhibition reduces microgliosis, neuronal loss, and tau phosphorylation. Cognitive improvement has been seen in two trials with Alzheimer’s disease patients, but were not in rheumatoid arthritis patients.”

In the newest study, published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, Dr. Sattui and colleagues suggest that a lower risk for dementia seen with bDMARDs and tsDMARDs may be attributable to an overall greater decrease in inflammation rather than any mechanism of action specific to these drugs.

In the study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims during 2006-2017 for 141,326 adult patients with RA, the crude incident rates were 2.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.1) for patients on csDMARDs and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for patients on any b/tsDMARD. There were 3,794 cases of incident dementia during follow-up among 233,271 initiations of any DMARD. The adjusted risk for dementia among users of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs was 19% lower than the adjusted risk for patients on csDMARDs (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87). No significant differences were found between classes of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Dr. Sattui and coauthors’ investigation included adults aged at least 40 years with two RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist more than 7 and less than 365 days apart. Those with prior dementia diagnoses were excluded. Their analysis found the risk of incident dementia to be comparable between patients receiving TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi bDMARDs (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARDs (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90), with csDMARDs as the referent. A second subgroup analysis looking at patients with prior methotrexate use who were taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs revealed similar decreases in risk of incident dementia, compared with patients taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs along with methotrexate at baseline.

“NSAIDs and glucocorticoids have been studied in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” Dr. Sattui said in the interview. “Despite initial observational data that showed some signal for improvement, no benefit was observed in either of the RCTs. Other agents with possible anti-inflammatory effects and more benign profiles, such as curcumin, are being studied. There are also ongoing trials looking into the use of JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors or [interleukin]-1 inhibition in dementia.”

He added: “There is a need to better study the association between cognition and disease activity, as well as treat-to-target strategies, prospectively in patients with RA. It is important to also acknowledge that any of these findings might be just specific for RA, so extrapolation to non-RA individuals might be limited.”

In commenting on the findings of the study, Rishi J. Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that “superior inflammation control with biologics or targeted DMARDs is an interesting hypothesis explaining the observed findings. It merits further investigation and replication in diverse populations.” He added: “It should be noted that a key challenge in evaluating this hypothesis using insurance claims data is unavailability of some important factors such as socioeconomic status and patient frailty. These may be driving treatment selection between conventional DMARDs, which are cheaper with more benign adverse-event profiles, and biologic or targeted DMARDs, which are more expensive with a less favorable adverse-event profile.”
 

Prior research

Several studies have investigated the effect of DMARDs, including bDMARDs like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, on incident dementia in patients with RA.

Among this research is a study by Dr. Desai and colleagues that looked at comparative risk of AD and related dementia in 22,569 Medicare beneficiaries receiving tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors in comparison with abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). No differentiating risk associations were found in this cohort study.

Other past studies include:

• A study comparing about 21,000 patients with RA and a non-RA cohort of about 62,000 found a 37% reduction in dementia development among RA patients receiving DMARDs. The effect was dose dependent, greater with high cumulative dosages, and was found in both men and women and in subgroups younger and older than 65 years.
• A retrospective study of electronic health records from 56 million adult patients identified a subset of patients with RA, psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease in whom systemic inflammation increased risk for AD through a mechanism involving TNF. The risk for AD in patients was lowered by treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, or methotrexate, with larger reductions observed in younger patients than in older patients receiving TNF blockers.
• A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort study in 2,510 U.S. veterans with RA found that use of a TNF inhibitor reduced the risk of dementia by 36%, compared with control patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80), and the effect was consistent over 5-20 years post RA diagnosis.
• In a retrospective, multinational, matched, case-control study of patients older than 50 years with RA, prior methotrexate use was associated with lower dementia risk (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98). Use of methotrexate longer than 4 years demonstrated the lowest dementia risk (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.79).

These past studies, Dr. Sattui and colleagues pointed out, have multiple shortcomings, including case-control design, different definitions of exposure or outcomes, and inadequate control of confounders, underscoring the need for more rigorous studies.

Several authors of the CMS claims study disclosed research support, grants, and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Desai disclosed that he has received funding from the National Institute on Aging for drug repurposing studies of dementia.

The incidence of dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who took either a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) or targeted synthetic DMARD (tsDMARD) was significantly lower than the rate observed in patients who take only a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) in a national database study.

The work builds on previous research indicating a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias in people with RA. While joint pain and swelling are the cardinal symptoms of RA, its systemic inflammation leads to multiple systemic manifestations, offering biologically plausible links with cognitive decline. In addition, patients with RA have high prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, depression, disability, and physical inactivity, all of which are risk factors for dementia.

Chronic neuroinflammation secondary to either intrinsic or systemic stimuli is thought to play a key role in dementia development, especially Alzheimer’s dementia (AD). Research showing a role of tumor necrosis factor–alpha (TNF-alpha) in the development of dementia has piqued interest in a potential protective effect of TNF inhibitors. “TNF-alpha is thought to have an important role in different stages of the pathophysiology and disease progression of Alzheimer’s disease,” study first author Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and director of the University of Pittsburgh Vasculitis Center, said in an interview. “Animal models have shown that TNF inhibition reduces microgliosis, neuronal loss, and tau phosphorylation. Cognitive improvement has been seen in two trials with Alzheimer’s disease patients, but were not in rheumatoid arthritis patients.”

In the newest study, published online in Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism, Dr. Sattui and colleagues suggest that a lower risk for dementia seen with bDMARDs and tsDMARDs may be attributable to an overall greater decrease in inflammation rather than any mechanism of action specific to these drugs.

In the study of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims during 2006-2017 for 141,326 adult patients with RA, the crude incident rates were 2.0 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval, 1.9-2.1) for patients on csDMARDs and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2-1.4) for patients on any b/tsDMARD. There were 3,794 cases of incident dementia during follow-up among 233,271 initiations of any DMARD. The adjusted risk for dementia among users of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs was 19% lower than the adjusted risk for patients on csDMARDs (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.76-0.87). No significant differences were found between classes of bDMARDs or tsDMARDs.

Dr. Sattui and coauthors’ investigation included adults aged at least 40 years with two RA diagnoses by a rheumatologist more than 7 and less than 365 days apart. Those with prior dementia diagnoses were excluded. Their analysis found the risk of incident dementia to be comparable between patients receiving TNF inhibitors (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93), non-TNFi bDMARDs (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.70-0.83), and tsDMARDs (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90), with csDMARDs as the referent. A second subgroup analysis looking at patients with prior methotrexate use who were taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs revealed similar decreases in risk of incident dementia, compared with patients taking bDMARDs or tsDMARDs along with methotrexate at baseline.

“NSAIDs and glucocorticoids have been studied in RCTs [randomized, controlled trials],” Dr. Sattui said in the interview. “Despite initial observational data that showed some signal for improvement, no benefit was observed in either of the RCTs. Other agents with possible anti-inflammatory effects and more benign profiles, such as curcumin, are being studied. There are also ongoing trials looking into the use of JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors or [interleukin]-1 inhibition in dementia.”

He added: “There is a need to better study the association between cognition and disease activity, as well as treat-to-target strategies, prospectively in patients with RA. It is important to also acknowledge that any of these findings might be just specific for RA, so extrapolation to non-RA individuals might be limited.”

In commenting on the findings of the study, Rishi J. Desai, PhD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that “superior inflammation control with biologics or targeted DMARDs is an interesting hypothesis explaining the observed findings. It merits further investigation and replication in diverse populations.” He added: “It should be noted that a key challenge in evaluating this hypothesis using insurance claims data is unavailability of some important factors such as socioeconomic status and patient frailty. These may be driving treatment selection between conventional DMARDs, which are cheaper with more benign adverse-event profiles, and biologic or targeted DMARDs, which are more expensive with a less favorable adverse-event profile.”
 

Prior research

Several studies have investigated the effect of DMARDs, including bDMARDs like tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, on incident dementia in patients with RA.

Among this research is a study by Dr. Desai and colleagues that looked at comparative risk of AD and related dementia in 22,569 Medicare beneficiaries receiving tofacitinib (a JAK inhibitor), tocilizumab (an IL-6 inhibitor), or TNF inhibitors in comparison with abatacept (a T-cell activation inhibitor). No differentiating risk associations were found in this cohort study.

Other past studies include:

• A study comparing about 21,000 patients with RA and a non-RA cohort of about 62,000 found a 37% reduction in dementia development among RA patients receiving DMARDs. The effect was dose dependent, greater with high cumulative dosages, and was found in both men and women and in subgroups younger and older than 65 years.
• A retrospective study of electronic health records from 56 million adult patients identified a subset of patients with RA, psoriasis, ankylosing spondylitis, ulcerative colitis, or Crohn’s disease in whom systemic inflammation increased risk for AD through a mechanism involving TNF. The risk for AD in patients was lowered by treatment with etanercept, adalimumab, infliximab, or methotrexate, with larger reductions observed in younger patients than in older patients receiving TNF blockers.
• A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort study in 2,510 U.S. veterans with RA found that use of a TNF inhibitor reduced the risk of dementia by 36%, compared with control patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80), and the effect was consistent over 5-20 years post RA diagnosis.
• In a retrospective, multinational, matched, case-control study of patients older than 50 years with RA, prior methotrexate use was associated with lower dementia risk (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.98). Use of methotrexate longer than 4 years demonstrated the lowest dementia risk (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.79).

These past studies, Dr. Sattui and colleagues pointed out, have multiple shortcomings, including case-control design, different definitions of exposure or outcomes, and inadequate control of confounders, underscoring the need for more rigorous studies.

Several authors of the CMS claims study disclosed research support, grants, and consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies. The research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Desai disclosed that he has received funding from the National Institute on Aging for drug repurposing studies of dementia.