Alzheimer's & Cognition

It is generally understood that racism, whether structural or personal, harms the well-being of the individual who experiences it. It has harmful health effects, and it contributes to ethnic inequality. New evidence shows that the experience of racism is associated with worse cognitive function in later life.

That was the fundamental message behind two studies presented at a press conference at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“We know that there are communities like black African Americans and Hispanic Latinos who are at greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s or another dementia,” said Carl Hill, PhD, who served as a moderator during the press conference. He pointed out that the genetic and lifestyle factors linked to dementia tell only part of the story. “It’s important that the science also examines the unique experiences of those at greater risk for dementia in our society,” said Dr. Hill, who is Alzheimer’s Association Chief Diversity Equity and Inclusion Officer.
 

Racism, memory, and cognition in middle-aged patients

Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University, New York, presented a study of experience of racism and memory scores among a highly diverse, middle-aged cohort.

“There’s little understanding of how the multiple levels of racism – including intrapersonal, institutional, and structural racism – influence cognitive aging and dementia risk,” Dr. Manly said during the press conference.

Among 1,095 participants, 19.5% were non-Latinx White (61% female, mean age 57), 26.0% were non-Latinx Black (63% female, mean age 56), 32.3% were English-speaking Latinx (66% female, mean age 50), and 21.2% were Spanish-speaking Latinx (68% female, mean age 58).

The researchers used the Everyday Discrimination (ED) scale to measure experience of individual racism, the Major Discrimination (MD) scale to measure experience of institutional racism, and residential segregation of the census block group for an individual’s parents to measure residential segregation. Outcome measures included the Digit Span to assess attention and working memory, and the Selective Reminding Test to assess episodic memory.

The study found a clear association between racism and cognition. “The association of interpersonal racism to memory corresponds to 3 years of chronological age, and was driven by non-Hispanic black participants. Next, there was a reliable relationship between institutional racism and memory scores among non-Hispanic black participants, such that each reported civil rights violation corresponded to the effect of about 4.5 years of age on memory,” said Dr. Manly.

“The bottom line is that our results suggest that exposure to racism is a substantial driver of later life memory function, even in middle age, and especially for Black people,” Dr. Manly added.

The results should alert physicians to the complexities of racism and its impact. “Health providers need to be aware that many accumulated risks are historical and structural, and not controlled by the individual. Maybe more importantly, the medical system itself may perpetuate discriminatory experiences that contribute to worse health,” said Dr. Manly.
 

Latinx concerns

Also at the press conference, Adriana Perez, PhD, emphasized the challenges that Spanish-speaking Latinxs have with health care. Just 5%-7% of nurses are Latinx. “The same could be said for physicians, for clinical psychologists ... as you look at the really critical positions to address brain health equity, we are not represented there,” said Dr. Perez, an assistant professor and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing in Philadelphia.

She also pointed out that Latinx representation in clinical trials is very low, even though surveys performed by the Alzheimer’s Association show that this population values medical science and is willing to participate. In fact, 85% said they would participate if invited. The trouble is that many clinical trial announcements state that participants must speak English. Even the many Latinos who are bilingual may be put off by that wording: “That is a message that you’re not invited. That’s how it’s perceived,” said Dr. Perez.
 

Racism and cognition in the elderly

At the press conference, Kristen George, PhD, presented results from a study of individuals over age 90. “Racial disparities in dementia have been well characterized, particularly among those people who are aged 65 and older, but we don’t know very much about the oldest old individuals who are aged 90 and older. This group is one of the fastest growing segments of the population, and it’s becoming increasingly diverse,” said Dr. George, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis.

The group enrolled 445 Asian, Black, Latinx, White, and multiracial individuals who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, with a mean age of 92.7 years. They used the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale to assess discrimination.

The researchers divided them into three groups based on gender, race, and responses to the 10-item scale. Class 1 included largely White men who had reported workplace discrimination, with an average of two major discrimination experiences. Class 2 was made up of White women and non-Whites who reported little or no discrimination, with an average of 0 experiences. Class 3 included all non-White participants, and they reported a mean of four discrimination experiences.

Using class 2 as a reference, executive function was better among class 1 individuals (beta = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52) but there was no significant difference between class 3 and class 2. Class 1 had better baseline semantic memory than class 2 (beta = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and those in class 3 performed significantly worse than class 2 (beta = –0.24; 95% CI, –0.48 to –0.00). There were no between-group differences in baseline verbal or episodic memory.

Dr. Perez, Dr. Manly, Dr. George, and Dr. Hill have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is generally understood that racism, whether structural or personal, harms the well-being of the individual who experiences it. It has harmful health effects, and it contributes to ethnic inequality. New evidence shows that the experience of racism is associated with worse cognitive function in later life.

That was the fundamental message behind two studies presented at a press conference at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“We know that there are communities like black African Americans and Hispanic Latinos who are at greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s or another dementia,” said Carl Hill, PhD, who served as a moderator during the press conference. He pointed out that the genetic and lifestyle factors linked to dementia tell only part of the story. “It’s important that the science also examines the unique experiences of those at greater risk for dementia in our society,” said Dr. Hill, who is Alzheimer’s Association Chief Diversity Equity and Inclusion Officer.
 

Racism, memory, and cognition in middle-aged patients

Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University, New York, presented a study of experience of racism and memory scores among a highly diverse, middle-aged cohort.

“There’s little understanding of how the multiple levels of racism – including intrapersonal, institutional, and structural racism – influence cognitive aging and dementia risk,” Dr. Manly said during the press conference.

Among 1,095 participants, 19.5% were non-Latinx White (61% female, mean age 57), 26.0% were non-Latinx Black (63% female, mean age 56), 32.3% were English-speaking Latinx (66% female, mean age 50), and 21.2% were Spanish-speaking Latinx (68% female, mean age 58).

The researchers used the Everyday Discrimination (ED) scale to measure experience of individual racism, the Major Discrimination (MD) scale to measure experience of institutional racism, and residential segregation of the census block group for an individual’s parents to measure residential segregation. Outcome measures included the Digit Span to assess attention and working memory, and the Selective Reminding Test to assess episodic memory.

The study found a clear association between racism and cognition. “The association of interpersonal racism to memory corresponds to 3 years of chronological age, and was driven by non-Hispanic black participants. Next, there was a reliable relationship between institutional racism and memory scores among non-Hispanic black participants, such that each reported civil rights violation corresponded to the effect of about 4.5 years of age on memory,” said Dr. Manly.

“The bottom line is that our results suggest that exposure to racism is a substantial driver of later life memory function, even in middle age, and especially for Black people,” Dr. Manly added.

The results should alert physicians to the complexities of racism and its impact. “Health providers need to be aware that many accumulated risks are historical and structural, and not controlled by the individual. Maybe more importantly, the medical system itself may perpetuate discriminatory experiences that contribute to worse health,” said Dr. Manly.
 

Latinx concerns

Also at the press conference, Adriana Perez, PhD, emphasized the challenges that Spanish-speaking Latinxs have with health care. Just 5%-7% of nurses are Latinx. “The same could be said for physicians, for clinical psychologists ... as you look at the really critical positions to address brain health equity, we are not represented there,” said Dr. Perez, an assistant professor and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing in Philadelphia.

She also pointed out that Latinx representation in clinical trials is very low, even though surveys performed by the Alzheimer’s Association show that this population values medical science and is willing to participate. In fact, 85% said they would participate if invited. The trouble is that many clinical trial announcements state that participants must speak English. Even the many Latinos who are bilingual may be put off by that wording: “That is a message that you’re not invited. That’s how it’s perceived,” said Dr. Perez.
 

Racism and cognition in the elderly

At the press conference, Kristen George, PhD, presented results from a study of individuals over age 90. “Racial disparities in dementia have been well characterized, particularly among those people who are aged 65 and older, but we don’t know very much about the oldest old individuals who are aged 90 and older. This group is one of the fastest growing segments of the population, and it’s becoming increasingly diverse,” said Dr. George, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis.

The group enrolled 445 Asian, Black, Latinx, White, and multiracial individuals who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, with a mean age of 92.7 years. They used the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale to assess discrimination.

The researchers divided them into three groups based on gender, race, and responses to the 10-item scale. Class 1 included largely White men who had reported workplace discrimination, with an average of two major discrimination experiences. Class 2 was made up of White women and non-Whites who reported little or no discrimination, with an average of 0 experiences. Class 3 included all non-White participants, and they reported a mean of four discrimination experiences.

Using class 2 as a reference, executive function was better among class 1 individuals (beta = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52) but there was no significant difference between class 3 and class 2. Class 1 had better baseline semantic memory than class 2 (beta = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and those in class 3 performed significantly worse than class 2 (beta = –0.24; 95% CI, –0.48 to –0.00). There were no between-group differences in baseline verbal or episodic memory.

Dr. Perez, Dr. Manly, Dr. George, and Dr. Hill have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is generally understood that racism, whether structural or personal, harms the well-being of the individual who experiences it. It has harmful health effects, and it contributes to ethnic inequality. New evidence shows that the experience of racism is associated with worse cognitive function in later life.

That was the fundamental message behind two studies presented at a press conference at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“We know that there are communities like black African Americans and Hispanic Latinos who are at greater risk for developing Alzheimer’s or another dementia,” said Carl Hill, PhD, who served as a moderator during the press conference. He pointed out that the genetic and lifestyle factors linked to dementia tell only part of the story. “It’s important that the science also examines the unique experiences of those at greater risk for dementia in our society,” said Dr. Hill, who is Alzheimer’s Association Chief Diversity Equity and Inclusion Officer.
 

Racism, memory, and cognition in middle-aged patients

Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University, New York, presented a study of experience of racism and memory scores among a highly diverse, middle-aged cohort.

“There’s little understanding of how the multiple levels of racism – including intrapersonal, institutional, and structural racism – influence cognitive aging and dementia risk,” Dr. Manly said during the press conference.

Among 1,095 participants, 19.5% were non-Latinx White (61% female, mean age 57), 26.0% were non-Latinx Black (63% female, mean age 56), 32.3% were English-speaking Latinx (66% female, mean age 50), and 21.2% were Spanish-speaking Latinx (68% female, mean age 58).

The researchers used the Everyday Discrimination (ED) scale to measure experience of individual racism, the Major Discrimination (MD) scale to measure experience of institutional racism, and residential segregation of the census block group for an individual’s parents to measure residential segregation. Outcome measures included the Digit Span to assess attention and working memory, and the Selective Reminding Test to assess episodic memory.

The study found a clear association between racism and cognition. “The association of interpersonal racism to memory corresponds to 3 years of chronological age, and was driven by non-Hispanic black participants. Next, there was a reliable relationship between institutional racism and memory scores among non-Hispanic black participants, such that each reported civil rights violation corresponded to the effect of about 4.5 years of age on memory,” said Dr. Manly.

“The bottom line is that our results suggest that exposure to racism is a substantial driver of later life memory function, even in middle age, and especially for Black people,” Dr. Manly added.

The results should alert physicians to the complexities of racism and its impact. “Health providers need to be aware that many accumulated risks are historical and structural, and not controlled by the individual. Maybe more importantly, the medical system itself may perpetuate discriminatory experiences that contribute to worse health,” said Dr. Manly.
 

Latinx concerns

Also at the press conference, Adriana Perez, PhD, emphasized the challenges that Spanish-speaking Latinxs have with health care. Just 5%-7% of nurses are Latinx. “The same could be said for physicians, for clinical psychologists ... as you look at the really critical positions to address brain health equity, we are not represented there,” said Dr. Perez, an assistant professor and senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing in Philadelphia.

She also pointed out that Latinx representation in clinical trials is very low, even though surveys performed by the Alzheimer’s Association show that this population values medical science and is willing to participate. In fact, 85% said they would participate if invited. The trouble is that many clinical trial announcements state that participants must speak English. Even the many Latinos who are bilingual may be put off by that wording: “That is a message that you’re not invited. That’s how it’s perceived,” said Dr. Perez.
 

Racism and cognition in the elderly

At the press conference, Kristen George, PhD, presented results from a study of individuals over age 90. “Racial disparities in dementia have been well characterized, particularly among those people who are aged 65 and older, but we don’t know very much about the oldest old individuals who are aged 90 and older. This group is one of the fastest growing segments of the population, and it’s becoming increasingly diverse,” said Dr. George, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis.

The group enrolled 445 Asian, Black, Latinx, White, and multiracial individuals who were members of Kaiser Permanente Northern California, with a mean age of 92.7 years. They used the Major Experiences of Discrimination Scale to assess discrimination.

The researchers divided them into three groups based on gender, race, and responses to the 10-item scale. Class 1 included largely White men who had reported workplace discrimination, with an average of two major discrimination experiences. Class 2 was made up of White women and non-Whites who reported little or no discrimination, with an average of 0 experiences. Class 3 included all non-White participants, and they reported a mean of four discrimination experiences.

Using class 2 as a reference, executive function was better among class 1 individuals (beta = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52) but there was no significant difference between class 3 and class 2. Class 1 had better baseline semantic memory than class 2 (beta = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.07-0.58), and those in class 3 performed significantly worse than class 2 (beta = –0.24; 95% CI, –0.48 to –0.00). There were no between-group differences in baseline verbal or episodic memory.

Dr. Perez, Dr. Manly, Dr. George, and Dr. Hill have no relevant financial disclosures.

Loss of smell, not disease severity, predicts persistent cognitive impairment 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection, preliminary results of new research suggest.

The findings provide important insight into the long-term cognitive impact of COVID-19, said study investigator Gabriela Gonzalez-Alemán, PhD, professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires.

The more information that can be gathered on factors increasing risks for this cognitive impact, “the better we can track it and begin to develop methods to prevent it,” she said.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Memory, attention problems

COVID-19 has infected more than 570 million people worldwide. Related infections may result in long-term sequelae, including neuropsychiatric symptoms, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

In older adults, COVID-19 sequelae may resemble early Alzheimer’s disease, and the two conditions may share risk factors and blood biomarkers.

The new study highlighted 1-year results from a large, prospective cohort study from Argentina. Researchers used measures to evaluate long-term consequences of COVID-19 in older adults recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association Consortium on Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (CNS SC2).

Harmonizing definitions and methodologies for studying COVID-19’s impact on the brain allows consortium members to compare study results, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

The investigators used the health registry in the province of Jujuy, situated in the extreme northwestern part of Argentina. The registry includes all SARS-CoV-2 testing data for the entire region.

The investigators randomly invited adults aged 60 years and older from the registry to participate in the study. The current analysis included 766 adults aged 55-95 years (mean age 66.9 years; 57% female) with an average of 10.4 years of education. The education system in Argentina includes 12 years of school before university.

Investigators stratified subjects by polymerase chain reaction testing status. Of the total, 88.4% were infected with COVID and 11.6% were controls (subjects without COVID).

The neurocognitive assessment of participants included four cognitive domains: memory, attention, language, and executive function, and an olfactory test that determined degree of olfactory dysfunction. Cognitive impairment was defined as z scores below –2.

Researchers divided participants into groups according to cognitive performance. These included normal cognition, memory-only impairment (single domain; 11.7%), impairment in attention and executive function without memory impairment (two domains; 8.3%), and multiple domain impairment (11.6%).

“Our participants showed a predominance of memory impairment as would be seen in Alzheimer’s disease,” noted Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “And a large group showed a combination of memory and attention problems.”

About 40% of the study sample – but no controls – had olfactory dysfunction.

“All the subjects that had a severe cognitive impairment also had anosmia [loss of smell],” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “We established an association between olfactory dysfunction and cognitive performance and impairment.”

The analysis showed that severity of anosmia, but not clinical status, significantly predicted cognitive impairment. “So, anosmia could be a good predictor of cognitive impairment after COVID-19 infection,” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

For individuals older than 60 years, cognitive impairment can be persistent, as can be olfactory dysfunction, she added.

Results of a 1-year phone survey showed about 71.8% of subjects had received three vaccine doses and 24.9% two doses. About 12.5% of those with three doses were reinfected and 23.3% of those with two doses were reinfected.
 

Longest follow-up to date

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study is “the longest follow-up we’ve seen” looking at the connection between persistent loss of smell and cognitive changes after a COVID-19 infection.

The study included a “fairly large” sample size and was “unique” in that it was set up in a part of the country with centralized testing, said Dr. Snyder.

The Argentinian group is among the most advanced of those connected to the CNS SC2, said Dr. Snyder.

Members of this Alzheimer’s Association consortium, said Dr. Snyder, regularly share updates of ongoing studies, which are at different stages and looking at various neuropsychiatric impacts of COVID-19. It is important to bring these groups together to determine what those impacts are “because no one group will be able to do this on their own,” she said. “We saw pretty early on that some individuals had changes in the brain, or changes in cognition, and loss of sense of smell or taste, which indicates there’s a connection to the brain.”

However, she added, “there’s still a lot we don’t know” about this connection.

The study was funded by Alzheimer’s Association and FULTRA.

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

Loss of smell, not disease severity, predicts persistent cognitive impairment 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection, preliminary results of new research suggest.

The findings provide important insight into the long-term cognitive impact of COVID-19, said study investigator Gabriela Gonzalez-Alemán, PhD, professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires.

The more information that can be gathered on factors increasing risks for this cognitive impact, “the better we can track it and begin to develop methods to prevent it,” she said.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Memory, attention problems

COVID-19 has infected more than 570 million people worldwide. Related infections may result in long-term sequelae, including neuropsychiatric symptoms, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

In older adults, COVID-19 sequelae may resemble early Alzheimer’s disease, and the two conditions may share risk factors and blood biomarkers.

The new study highlighted 1-year results from a large, prospective cohort study from Argentina. Researchers used measures to evaluate long-term consequences of COVID-19 in older adults recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association Consortium on Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (CNS SC2).

Harmonizing definitions and methodologies for studying COVID-19’s impact on the brain allows consortium members to compare study results, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

The investigators used the health registry in the province of Jujuy, situated in the extreme northwestern part of Argentina. The registry includes all SARS-CoV-2 testing data for the entire region.

The investigators randomly invited adults aged 60 years and older from the registry to participate in the study. The current analysis included 766 adults aged 55-95 years (mean age 66.9 years; 57% female) with an average of 10.4 years of education. The education system in Argentina includes 12 years of school before university.

Investigators stratified subjects by polymerase chain reaction testing status. Of the total, 88.4% were infected with COVID and 11.6% were controls (subjects without COVID).

The neurocognitive assessment of participants included four cognitive domains: memory, attention, language, and executive function, and an olfactory test that determined degree of olfactory dysfunction. Cognitive impairment was defined as z scores below –2.

Researchers divided participants into groups according to cognitive performance. These included normal cognition, memory-only impairment (single domain; 11.7%), impairment in attention and executive function without memory impairment (two domains; 8.3%), and multiple domain impairment (11.6%).

“Our participants showed a predominance of memory impairment as would be seen in Alzheimer’s disease,” noted Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “And a large group showed a combination of memory and attention problems.”

About 40% of the study sample – but no controls – had olfactory dysfunction.

“All the subjects that had a severe cognitive impairment also had anosmia [loss of smell],” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “We established an association between olfactory dysfunction and cognitive performance and impairment.”

The analysis showed that severity of anosmia, but not clinical status, significantly predicted cognitive impairment. “So, anosmia could be a good predictor of cognitive impairment after COVID-19 infection,” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

For individuals older than 60 years, cognitive impairment can be persistent, as can be olfactory dysfunction, she added.

Results of a 1-year phone survey showed about 71.8% of subjects had received three vaccine doses and 24.9% two doses. About 12.5% of those with three doses were reinfected and 23.3% of those with two doses were reinfected.
 

Longest follow-up to date

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study is “the longest follow-up we’ve seen” looking at the connection between persistent loss of smell and cognitive changes after a COVID-19 infection.

The study included a “fairly large” sample size and was “unique” in that it was set up in a part of the country with centralized testing, said Dr. Snyder.

The Argentinian group is among the most advanced of those connected to the CNS SC2, said Dr. Snyder.

Members of this Alzheimer’s Association consortium, said Dr. Snyder, regularly share updates of ongoing studies, which are at different stages and looking at various neuropsychiatric impacts of COVID-19. It is important to bring these groups together to determine what those impacts are “because no one group will be able to do this on their own,” she said. “We saw pretty early on that some individuals had changes in the brain, or changes in cognition, and loss of sense of smell or taste, which indicates there’s a connection to the brain.”

However, she added, “there’s still a lot we don’t know” about this connection.

The study was funded by Alzheimer’s Association and FULTRA.

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

Loss of smell, not disease severity, predicts persistent cognitive impairment 1 year after SARS-CoV-2 infection, preliminary results of new research suggest.

The findings provide important insight into the long-term cognitive impact of COVID-19, said study investigator Gabriela Gonzalez-Alemán, PhD, professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Buenos Aires.

The more information that can be gathered on factors increasing risks for this cognitive impact, “the better we can track it and begin to develop methods to prevent it,” she said.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Memory, attention problems

COVID-19 has infected more than 570 million people worldwide. Related infections may result in long-term sequelae, including neuropsychiatric symptoms, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

In older adults, COVID-19 sequelae may resemble early Alzheimer’s disease, and the two conditions may share risk factors and blood biomarkers.

The new study highlighted 1-year results from a large, prospective cohort study from Argentina. Researchers used measures to evaluate long-term consequences of COVID-19 in older adults recommended by the Alzheimer’s Association Consortium on Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (CNS SC2).

Harmonizing definitions and methodologies for studying COVID-19’s impact on the brain allows consortium members to compare study results, said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

The investigators used the health registry in the province of Jujuy, situated in the extreme northwestern part of Argentina. The registry includes all SARS-CoV-2 testing data for the entire region.

The investigators randomly invited adults aged 60 years and older from the registry to participate in the study. The current analysis included 766 adults aged 55-95 years (mean age 66.9 years; 57% female) with an average of 10.4 years of education. The education system in Argentina includes 12 years of school before university.

Investigators stratified subjects by polymerase chain reaction testing status. Of the total, 88.4% were infected with COVID and 11.6% were controls (subjects without COVID).

The neurocognitive assessment of participants included four cognitive domains: memory, attention, language, and executive function, and an olfactory test that determined degree of olfactory dysfunction. Cognitive impairment was defined as z scores below –2.

Researchers divided participants into groups according to cognitive performance. These included normal cognition, memory-only impairment (single domain; 11.7%), impairment in attention and executive function without memory impairment (two domains; 8.3%), and multiple domain impairment (11.6%).

“Our participants showed a predominance of memory impairment as would be seen in Alzheimer’s disease,” noted Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “And a large group showed a combination of memory and attention problems.”

About 40% of the study sample – but no controls – had olfactory dysfunction.

“All the subjects that had a severe cognitive impairment also had anosmia [loss of smell],” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán. “We established an association between olfactory dysfunction and cognitive performance and impairment.”

The analysis showed that severity of anosmia, but not clinical status, significantly predicted cognitive impairment. “So, anosmia could be a good predictor of cognitive impairment after COVID-19 infection,” said Dr. Gonzalez-Alemán.

For individuals older than 60 years, cognitive impairment can be persistent, as can be olfactory dysfunction, she added.

Results of a 1-year phone survey showed about 71.8% of subjects had received three vaccine doses and 24.9% two doses. About 12.5% of those with three doses were reinfected and 23.3% of those with two doses were reinfected.
 

Longest follow-up to date

Commenting on the research, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president, medical and scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, noted the study is “the longest follow-up we’ve seen” looking at the connection between persistent loss of smell and cognitive changes after a COVID-19 infection.

The study included a “fairly large” sample size and was “unique” in that it was set up in a part of the country with centralized testing, said Dr. Snyder.

The Argentinian group is among the most advanced of those connected to the CNS SC2, said Dr. Snyder.

Members of this Alzheimer’s Association consortium, said Dr. Snyder, regularly share updates of ongoing studies, which are at different stages and looking at various neuropsychiatric impacts of COVID-19. It is important to bring these groups together to determine what those impacts are “because no one group will be able to do this on their own,” she said. “We saw pretty early on that some individuals had changes in the brain, or changes in cognition, and loss of sense of smell or taste, which indicates there’s a connection to the brain.”

However, she added, “there’s still a lot we don’t know” about this connection.

The study was funded by Alzheimer’s Association and FULTRA.

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

Rapid deterioration in sense of smell is a strong predictor of both Alzheimer’s-related cognitive impairment and loss of volume in specific brain regions linked to both Alzheimer’s disease and smell, according to new research findings.

Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.

Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”

Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
 

Smell and cognition over time

For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.

Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
 

Olfactory decline and brain volume

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.

Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.

Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
 

Not yet diagnostic

More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”

Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.

Rapid deterioration in sense of smell is a strong predictor of both Alzheimer’s-related cognitive impairment and loss of volume in specific brain regions linked to both Alzheimer’s disease and smell, according to new research findings.

Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.

Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”

Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
 

Smell and cognition over time

For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.

Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
 

Olfactory decline and brain volume

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.

Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.

Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
 

Not yet diagnostic

More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”

Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.

Rapid deterioration in sense of smell is a strong predictor of both Alzheimer’s-related cognitive impairment and loss of volume in specific brain regions linked to both Alzheimer’s disease and smell, according to new research findings.

Olfactory dysfunction is common in late life and well documented among people with Alzheimer’s disease. However, it was unknown whether faster olfactory decline predicts either onset of Alzheimer’s disease or structural brain changes associated with Alzheimer’s disease.

In a study published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia, Jayant M. Pinto, MD, and his colleagues at the University of Chicago Medical Center reported that among older adults with normal cognition at baseline, people who experienced rapid loss of sense of smell were more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, compared with those who did not.

Participants were recruited from Rush University’s Memory and Aging Project, a longitudinal cohort of older adults who undergo yearly cognitive and sensory exams, including a scratch test of 12 common smells to identify. The Rush study “was ahead of the curve in looking at smell,” Dr. Pinto said in an interview. “It gave us a very valuable resource with which to attack these questions.”

Dr. Pinto has long investigated links between smell and accelerated aging; in 2014 his group published the finding that olfactory dysfunction could predict death within 5 years in older adults, and in 2018 they reported that olfactory dysfunction could predict dementia.
 

Smell and cognition over time

For the current study, Dr. Pinto said, “we were able to look at the question not just using a single point in time, but a more granular trajectory of smell loss. Measuring change year by year showed that the faster people’s sense of smell declined, the more likely they were to be diagnosed with MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues evaluated results from 515 adults (mean age 76.6, 78% female, 94% White) with no cognitive impairment and at least 3 years of normal results on smell tests at baseline. The subjects were followed for a mean 8 years. One hundred subjects (19%) were diagnosed with MCI or dementia by the end of the study period. A subset of the cohort (n = 121) underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) between their final smell tests and the study’s end. Of these, most still had normal cognition; 17 individuals had MCI.

Patients’ individual trajectories of smell loss were mapped as slopes. After adjusting for expected differences in age and sex, the investigators found steeper decline associated with greater risk of incident MCI or dementia (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.90; P < .01). The risk was comparable to that of carrying an apo E ε4 allele, the key risk variant for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, but was independent of apo E status. The association was strongest among subjects younger than 76 years.
 

Olfactory decline and brain volume

Dr. Pinto and his colleagues, including lead author Rachel R. Pacyna, a 4th-year medical student at the University of Chicago, also sought to identify brain volume changes corresponding with olfactory decline and Alzheimer’s disease. The researchers hypothesized that certain brain regions not seen affected in Alzheimer’s disease would remain unchanged regardless of olfactory status, but that regions associated with smell and Alzheimer’s disease would see smaller volumes linked with olfactory decline.

Faster olfactory decline did predict lower gray matter volume in olfactory regions, even after controlling for apo E status and other known risk factors. Conversely, cognitively unimpaired patients undergoing MRI saw more gray matter volume in primary olfactory and temporal brain regions, compared with those with cognitive symptoms.

Taken together, the findings suggest that “change in sense of smell is better than looking at sense of smell at one time point,” Dr. Pinto commented. “There are other reasons people have impaired sense of smell: car accidents, COVID, other viruses and infections. But if you identify on a time course those who are starting to lose it faster, these are the people on whom we need to focus.”
 

Not yet diagnostic

More work needs to be done to establish thresholds for smell loss that could be useful in clinical or investigative settings as a marker of dementia risk, Dr. Pinto acknowledged. “Everyone gets their hearing tested; everyone gets their vision tested. It’s not as easy to get your sense of smell tested. But this study is telling people that if we were to start measuring it routinely, we could actually use it.”

Smell testing “could become a component of a diagnostic battery that includes things like genotyping and cerebrospinal fluid markers, but adds a little more information. It could be useful in clinical prevention trials to identify people at the highest risk, as smell loss presents quite a few years before MCI or Alzheimer’s disease.”

The investigators acknowledged that their findings need to be replicated in more diverse cohorts that better represent the Alzheimer’s population in the United States. Another limitation of their study, they said, was that the method used to calculate the rate of olfactory decline “was based on slope of measured time points assuming linearity, which may oversimplify the complexity of olfactory changes in normal aging and during the preclinical Alzheimer’s disease period.” The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pinto disclosed receiving consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron, Optinose, and Genentech not related to this work.

SAN DIEGO – For the first time, the Alzheimer’s Association has released recommendations for the use of blood-based biomarkers in clinical trials and certain clinical situations. The organization has previously published recommendations for use of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.

The recommendations were the subject of a presentation at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

During his presentation, Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, stressed that the document describes recommendations, not criteria, for use of blood-based biomarkers. He suggested that the recommendations will need to be updated within 9-12 months, and that criteria for blood-based biomarkers use could come within 2 years.

The new recommendations reflect the recent acceleration of progress in the field, according to Wiesje M. van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session. “It’s just growing so quickly. I think within 5 years the whole field will have transformed. By starting to use them in specialized memory clinics first, but then also local memory clinics, and then finally, I think that they may also transform primary care,” said Dr. van der Flier, who is a professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
 

Guidance for clinical trials and memory clinics

The guidelines were created in part because blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease have become increasingly available, and there has been a call from the community for guidance, according to Dr. Hansson. There is also a hazard that widespread adoption could interfere with the field itself, especially if physicians don’t understand how to interpret the results. That’s a particularly acute problem since Alzheimer’s disease pathology can precede symptoms. “It’s important to have some guidance about regulating their use so we don’t get the problem that they are misused and get a bad reputation,” said Dr. Hansson in an interview.

The current recommendations are for use in clinical trials to identify patients likely to have Alzheimer’s disease, as well as in memory clinics, though “we’re still a bit cautious. We still need to confirm it with other biomarkers. The reason for that is we still don’t know how these will perform in the clinical reality. So it’s a bit trying it out. You can start using these blood biomarkers to some degree,” said Dr. Hansson.

However, he offered the caveat that plasma-based biomarkers should only be used while confirming that the blood-based biomarkers agree with CSF tests, ideally more than 90% of the time. “If suddenly only 60% of the plasma biomarkers agree with CSF, you have a problem and you need to stop,” said Dr. Hansson.

The authors recommend that blood-based biomarkers be used in clinical trials to help select patients and identify healthy controls. Dr. Hansson said that there is not enough evidence that blood-based biomarkers have sufficient positive predictive value to be used as the sole criteria for clinical trial admission. However, they could also be used to inform decision-making in adaptive clinical trials.

Specifically, plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 and P-tau assays using established thresholds can be used in clinical studies first-screening step for clinical trials, though they should be confirmed by PET or CSF in those with abnormal blood biomarker levels. The biomarkers could also be used in non–Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials to exclude patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease copathology.

In memory clinics, the authors recommend that BBMs be used only in patients who are symptomatic and, when possible, should be confirmed by PET or CSF.
 

More work to be done

Dr. Hansson noted that 50%-70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease are misdiagnosed in primary care, showing a clear need for biomarkers that could improve diagnosis. However, he stressed that blood-based biomarkers are not yet ready for use in that setting.

Still, they could eventually become a boon. “The majority of patients now do not get any biomarker support to diagnosis. They do not have access to amyloid PET or [CSF] biomarkers, but when the blood-based biomarkers are good enough, that means that biomarker support for an Alzheimer’s diagnosis [will be] available to many patients … across the globe,” said Dr. van der Flier.

There are numerous research efforts underway to validate blood-based biomarkers in more diverse groups of patients. That’s because the retrospective studies typically used to identify and validate biomarkers tend to recruit carefully selected patients, with clearly defined cases and good CSF characterization, according to Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, who is also a coauthor of the guidelines and professor of neuropsychiatry at Amsterdam University Medical Center. “Now we want to go one step further to go real-life practice, and there are several initiatives,” she said.

Dr. Hansson, Dr. Tenuissen, and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – For the first time, the Alzheimer’s Association has released recommendations for the use of blood-based biomarkers in clinical trials and certain clinical situations. The organization has previously published recommendations for use of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.

The recommendations were the subject of a presentation at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

During his presentation, Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, stressed that the document describes recommendations, not criteria, for use of blood-based biomarkers. He suggested that the recommendations will need to be updated within 9-12 months, and that criteria for blood-based biomarkers use could come within 2 years.

The new recommendations reflect the recent acceleration of progress in the field, according to Wiesje M. van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session. “It’s just growing so quickly. I think within 5 years the whole field will have transformed. By starting to use them in specialized memory clinics first, but then also local memory clinics, and then finally, I think that they may also transform primary care,” said Dr. van der Flier, who is a professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
 

Guidance for clinical trials and memory clinics

The guidelines were created in part because blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease have become increasingly available, and there has been a call from the community for guidance, according to Dr. Hansson. There is also a hazard that widespread adoption could interfere with the field itself, especially if physicians don’t understand how to interpret the results. That’s a particularly acute problem since Alzheimer’s disease pathology can precede symptoms. “It’s important to have some guidance about regulating their use so we don’t get the problem that they are misused and get a bad reputation,” said Dr. Hansson in an interview.

The current recommendations are for use in clinical trials to identify patients likely to have Alzheimer’s disease, as well as in memory clinics, though “we’re still a bit cautious. We still need to confirm it with other biomarkers. The reason for that is we still don’t know how these will perform in the clinical reality. So it’s a bit trying it out. You can start using these blood biomarkers to some degree,” said Dr. Hansson.

However, he offered the caveat that plasma-based biomarkers should only be used while confirming that the blood-based biomarkers agree with CSF tests, ideally more than 90% of the time. “If suddenly only 60% of the plasma biomarkers agree with CSF, you have a problem and you need to stop,” said Dr. Hansson.

The authors recommend that blood-based biomarkers be used in clinical trials to help select patients and identify healthy controls. Dr. Hansson said that there is not enough evidence that blood-based biomarkers have sufficient positive predictive value to be used as the sole criteria for clinical trial admission. However, they could also be used to inform decision-making in adaptive clinical trials.

Specifically, plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 and P-tau assays using established thresholds can be used in clinical studies first-screening step for clinical trials, though they should be confirmed by PET or CSF in those with abnormal blood biomarker levels. The biomarkers could also be used in non–Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials to exclude patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease copathology.

In memory clinics, the authors recommend that BBMs be used only in patients who are symptomatic and, when possible, should be confirmed by PET or CSF.
 

More work to be done

Dr. Hansson noted that 50%-70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease are misdiagnosed in primary care, showing a clear need for biomarkers that could improve diagnosis. However, he stressed that blood-based biomarkers are not yet ready for use in that setting.

Still, they could eventually become a boon. “The majority of patients now do not get any biomarker support to diagnosis. They do not have access to amyloid PET or [CSF] biomarkers, but when the blood-based biomarkers are good enough, that means that biomarker support for an Alzheimer’s diagnosis [will be] available to many patients … across the globe,” said Dr. van der Flier.

There are numerous research efforts underway to validate blood-based biomarkers in more diverse groups of patients. That’s because the retrospective studies typically used to identify and validate biomarkers tend to recruit carefully selected patients, with clearly defined cases and good CSF characterization, according to Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, who is also a coauthor of the guidelines and professor of neuropsychiatry at Amsterdam University Medical Center. “Now we want to go one step further to go real-life practice, and there are several initiatives,” she said.

Dr. Hansson, Dr. Tenuissen, and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – For the first time, the Alzheimer’s Association has released recommendations for the use of blood-based biomarkers in clinical trials and certain clinical situations. The organization has previously published recommendations for use of amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease.

The recommendations were the subject of a presentation at the 2022 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

During his presentation, Oskar Hansson, MD, PhD, stressed that the document describes recommendations, not criteria, for use of blood-based biomarkers. He suggested that the recommendations will need to be updated within 9-12 months, and that criteria for blood-based biomarkers use could come within 2 years.

The new recommendations reflect the recent acceleration of progress in the field, according to Wiesje M. van der Flier, PhD, who moderated the session. “It’s just growing so quickly. I think within 5 years the whole field will have transformed. By starting to use them in specialized memory clinics first, but then also local memory clinics, and then finally, I think that they may also transform primary care,” said Dr. van der Flier, who is a professor of neurology at Amsterdam University Medical Center.
 

Guidance for clinical trials and memory clinics

The guidelines were created in part because blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease have become increasingly available, and there has been a call from the community for guidance, according to Dr. Hansson. There is also a hazard that widespread adoption could interfere with the field itself, especially if physicians don’t understand how to interpret the results. That’s a particularly acute problem since Alzheimer’s disease pathology can precede symptoms. “It’s important to have some guidance about regulating their use so we don’t get the problem that they are misused and get a bad reputation,” said Dr. Hansson in an interview.

The current recommendations are for use in clinical trials to identify patients likely to have Alzheimer’s disease, as well as in memory clinics, though “we’re still a bit cautious. We still need to confirm it with other biomarkers. The reason for that is we still don’t know how these will perform in the clinical reality. So it’s a bit trying it out. You can start using these blood biomarkers to some degree,” said Dr. Hansson.

However, he offered the caveat that plasma-based biomarkers should only be used while confirming that the blood-based biomarkers agree with CSF tests, ideally more than 90% of the time. “If suddenly only 60% of the plasma biomarkers agree with CSF, you have a problem and you need to stop,” said Dr. Hansson.

The authors recommend that blood-based biomarkers be used in clinical trials to help select patients and identify healthy controls. Dr. Hansson said that there is not enough evidence that blood-based biomarkers have sufficient positive predictive value to be used as the sole criteria for clinical trial admission. However, they could also be used to inform decision-making in adaptive clinical trials.

Specifically, plasma Abeta42/Abeta40 and P-tau assays using established thresholds can be used in clinical studies first-screening step for clinical trials, though they should be confirmed by PET or CSF in those with abnormal blood biomarker levels. The biomarkers could also be used in non–Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials to exclude patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease copathology.

In memory clinics, the authors recommend that BBMs be used only in patients who are symptomatic and, when possible, should be confirmed by PET or CSF.
 

More work to be done

Dr. Hansson noted that 50%-70% of patients with Alzheimer’s disease are misdiagnosed in primary care, showing a clear need for biomarkers that could improve diagnosis. However, he stressed that blood-based biomarkers are not yet ready for use in that setting.

Still, they could eventually become a boon. “The majority of patients now do not get any biomarker support to diagnosis. They do not have access to amyloid PET or [CSF] biomarkers, but when the blood-based biomarkers are good enough, that means that biomarker support for an Alzheimer’s diagnosis [will be] available to many patients … across the globe,” said Dr. van der Flier.

There are numerous research efforts underway to validate blood-based biomarkers in more diverse groups of patients. That’s because the retrospective studies typically used to identify and validate biomarkers tend to recruit carefully selected patients, with clearly defined cases and good CSF characterization, according to Charlotte Teunissen, PhD, who is also a coauthor of the guidelines and professor of neuropsychiatry at Amsterdam University Medical Center. “Now we want to go one step further to go real-life practice, and there are several initiatives,” she said.

Dr. Hansson, Dr. Tenuissen, and Dr. van der Flier have no relevant financial disclosures.

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults who have spent time in the intensive care unit have double the risk of developing dementia in later years, compared with older adults who have never stayed in the ICU, new research suggests.

“ICU hospitalization may be an underrecognized risk factor for dementia in older adults,” Bryan D. James, PhD, epidemiologist with Rush Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Chicago, said in an interview.

“Health care providers caring for older patients who have experienced a hospitalization for critical illness should be prepared to assess and monitor their patients’ cognitive status as part of their long-term care plan,” Dr. James added.

The findings were presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
 

Hidden risk factor?

ICU hospitalization as a result of critical illness has been linked to subsequent cognitive impairment in older patients. However, how ICU hospitalization relates to the long-term risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other age-related dementias is unknown.

“Given the high rate of ICU hospitalization in older persons, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is critical to explore this relationship, Dr. James said.

The Rush team assessed the impact of an ICU stay on dementia risk in 3,822 older adults (mean age, 77 years) without known dementia at baseline participating in five diverse epidemiologic cohorts.

Participants were checked annually for development of Alzheimer’s and all-type dementia using standardized cognitive assessments.

Over an average of 7.8 years, 1,991 (52%) adults had at least one ICU stay; 1,031 (27%) had an ICU stay before study enrollment; and 961 (25%) had an ICU stay during the study period.

In models adjusted for age, sex, education, and race, ICU hospitalization was associated with 63% higher risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-1.88) and 71% higher risk of all-type dementia (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.48-1.97).

In models further adjusted for other health factors such as vascular risk factors and disease, other chronic medical conditions and functional disabilities, the association was even stronger: ICU hospitalization was associated with roughly double the risk of Alzheimer’s dementia (HR 2.10; 95% CI, 1.66-2.65) and all-type dementia (HR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.75-2.77).

Dr. James said in an interview that it remains unclear why an ICU stay may raise the dementia risk.

“This study was not designed to assess the causes of the higher risk of dementia in persons who had ICU hospitalizations. However, researchers have looked into a number of factors that could account for this increased risk,” he explained.

One is critical illness itself that leads to hospitalization, which could result in damage to the brain; for example, severe COVID-19 has been shown to directly harm the brain, Dr. James said.

He also noted that specific events experienced during ICU stay have been shown to increase risk for cognitive impairment, including infection and severe sepsis, acute dialysis, neurologic dysfunction and delirium, and sedation.
 

Important work

Commenting on the study, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical & scientific relations at the Alzheimer’s Association, said what’s interesting about the study is that it looks at individuals in the ICU, regardless of the cause.

“The study shows that having some type of health issue that results in some type of ICU stay is associated with an increased risk of declining cognition,” Dr. Snyder said.

“That’s really important,” she said, “especially given the increase in individuals, particularly those 60 and older, who did experience an ICU stay over the last couple of years and understanding how that might impact their long-term risk related to Alzheimer’s and other changes in memory.”

“If an individual has been in the ICU, that should be part of the conversation with their physician or health care provider,” Dr. Snyder advised.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. James and Dr. Snyder disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The same genes that send people to the bathroom with an irritable bowel syndrome flare-up may be involved in future brain health, according to a new study. Researchers have found a genetic correlation between individuals with gastrointestinal tract (GIT) disorders and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Analyzing years of genetic data from AD studies and similar data from six GIT disorders, the scientists at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University in Australia found that many disease-specific genes shared the same loci, or chromosomal location, in each group.

The researchers say it is the first comprehensive look at the genetic relationship between these disorders. Prior to this, it was widely believed that there was a link between gastrointestinal disorders and AD. A 2020 longitudinal study noted that people with irritable bowel disease were six times more likely to suffer from AD. But the gut-brain axis had not yet been examined on a genetic basis.

“The study provides a novel insight into the genetics behind the observed co-occurrence of AD and gut disorders,” Emmanuel Adewuyi, PhD, MPH, said in an interview with EurekaAlert. Dr. Adewuyi, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University, led the study.

The authors say that understanding the underlying genetics of AD can provide clues about how the disease works, which is largely a mystery. Treatment of the disease is increasingly urgent in a world with growing life expectancy and incidence of AD. By 2030, over 82 million people will likely suffer from AD, according to the 2015 World Alzheimer’s Report.

The Australian study relied upon previously performed genome-wide association studies. They searched data for patients with AD, gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, gastritis-duodenitis, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulosis, and irritable bowel disorder.

The final cohort represented over 450,000 people. Of those analyzed, they found that all the GIT disorders except irritable bowel disorder were correlated with AD.

One of the biological factors that underscored this relationship was the amount of abnormal cholesterol in both sets studied. From the study, It appears that altered cholesterol was a risk factor for both AD and gut disorders. Therefore, the authors suggest that next steps should investigate the use of statins, such as atorvastatin or lovastatin, which lower cholesterol to see whether they help protect the gut and, in turn, the brain.

Although these results point toward a correlation, the researchers caution that a causal relationship cannot be established between these two sets of disorders. The data advance the idea of the gut-brain axis but don’t show that GI problems cause AD or vice versa. Nor do the findings mean that someone with AD will always have gut problems or that a person with gut problems will develop AD.

The authors suggest the role of diet in health maintenance. They specifically highlight the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in natural fats and vegetables.

The study was independently supported. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The same genes that send people to the bathroom with an irritable bowel syndrome flare-up may be involved in future brain health, according to a new study. Researchers have found a genetic correlation between individuals with gastrointestinal tract (GIT) disorders and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Analyzing years of genetic data from AD studies and similar data from six GIT disorders, the scientists at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University in Australia found that many disease-specific genes shared the same loci, or chromosomal location, in each group.

The researchers say it is the first comprehensive look at the genetic relationship between these disorders. Prior to this, it was widely believed that there was a link between gastrointestinal disorders and AD. A 2020 longitudinal study noted that people with irritable bowel disease were six times more likely to suffer from AD. But the gut-brain axis had not yet been examined on a genetic basis.

“The study provides a novel insight into the genetics behind the observed co-occurrence of AD and gut disorders,” Emmanuel Adewuyi, PhD, MPH, said in an interview with EurekaAlert. Dr. Adewuyi, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University, led the study.

The authors say that understanding the underlying genetics of AD can provide clues about how the disease works, which is largely a mystery. Treatment of the disease is increasingly urgent in a world with growing life expectancy and incidence of AD. By 2030, over 82 million people will likely suffer from AD, according to the 2015 World Alzheimer’s Report.

The Australian study relied upon previously performed genome-wide association studies. They searched data for patients with AD, gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, gastritis-duodenitis, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulosis, and irritable bowel disorder.

The final cohort represented over 450,000 people. Of those analyzed, they found that all the GIT disorders except irritable bowel disorder were correlated with AD.

One of the biological factors that underscored this relationship was the amount of abnormal cholesterol in both sets studied. From the study, It appears that altered cholesterol was a risk factor for both AD and gut disorders. Therefore, the authors suggest that next steps should investigate the use of statins, such as atorvastatin or lovastatin, which lower cholesterol to see whether they help protect the gut and, in turn, the brain.

Although these results point toward a correlation, the researchers caution that a causal relationship cannot be established between these two sets of disorders. The data advance the idea of the gut-brain axis but don’t show that GI problems cause AD or vice versa. Nor do the findings mean that someone with AD will always have gut problems or that a person with gut problems will develop AD.

The authors suggest the role of diet in health maintenance. They specifically highlight the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in natural fats and vegetables.

The study was independently supported. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The same genes that send people to the bathroom with an irritable bowel syndrome flare-up may be involved in future brain health, according to a new study. Researchers have found a genetic correlation between individuals with gastrointestinal tract (GIT) disorders and Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

Analyzing years of genetic data from AD studies and similar data from six GIT disorders, the scientists at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University in Australia found that many disease-specific genes shared the same loci, or chromosomal location, in each group.

The researchers say it is the first comprehensive look at the genetic relationship between these disorders. Prior to this, it was widely believed that there was a link between gastrointestinal disorders and AD. A 2020 longitudinal study noted that people with irritable bowel disease were six times more likely to suffer from AD. But the gut-brain axis had not yet been examined on a genetic basis.

“The study provides a novel insight into the genetics behind the observed co-occurrence of AD and gut disorders,” Emmanuel Adewuyi, PhD, MPH, said in an interview with EurekaAlert. Dr. Adewuyi, a postdoctoral research fellow at the Center for Precision Health at Edith Cowan University, led the study.

The authors say that understanding the underlying genetics of AD can provide clues about how the disease works, which is largely a mystery. Treatment of the disease is increasingly urgent in a world with growing life expectancy and incidence of AD. By 2030, over 82 million people will likely suffer from AD, according to the 2015 World Alzheimer’s Report.

The Australian study relied upon previously performed genome-wide association studies. They searched data for patients with AD, gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, gastritis-duodenitis, irritable bowel syndrome, diverticulosis, and irritable bowel disorder.

The final cohort represented over 450,000 people. Of those analyzed, they found that all the GIT disorders except irritable bowel disorder were correlated with AD.

One of the biological factors that underscored this relationship was the amount of abnormal cholesterol in both sets studied. From the study, It appears that altered cholesterol was a risk factor for both AD and gut disorders. Therefore, the authors suggest that next steps should investigate the use of statins, such as atorvastatin or lovastatin, which lower cholesterol to see whether they help protect the gut and, in turn, the brain.

Although these results point toward a correlation, the researchers caution that a causal relationship cannot be established between these two sets of disorders. The data advance the idea of the gut-brain axis but don’t show that GI problems cause AD or vice versa. Nor do the findings mean that someone with AD will always have gut problems or that a person with gut problems will develop AD.

The authors suggest the role of diet in health maintenance. They specifically highlight the Mediterranean diet, which is rich in natural fats and vegetables.

The study was independently supported. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health &amp; Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health &amp; Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

There’s little doubt that long COVID is real. Even as doctors and federal agencies struggle to define the syndrome, hospitals and health care systems are opening long COVID specialty treatment programs. As of July 25, there’s at least one long COVID center in almost every state – 48 out of 50, according to the patient advocacy group Survivor Corps.

Among the biggest challenges will be treating the mental health effects of long COVID. Well after people recover from acute COVID infections, they can still have a wide range of lingering symptoms, including depression, anxiety, brain fog, and PTSD.

courtesy Oregon Health &amp; Science University

Specialized centers will be tackling these problems even as the United States struggles to deal with mental health needs.

One study of COVID patients found more than one-third of them had symptoms of depression, anxiety, or PTSD 3-6 months after their initial infection. Another analysis of 30 previous studies of long COVID patients found roughly one in eight of them had severe depression – and that the risk was similar regardless of whether people were hospitalized for COVID-19.

“Many of these symptoms can emerge months into the course of long COVID illness,” said Jordan Anderson, DO, a neuropsychiatrist who sees patients at the Long COVID-19 Program at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. Psychological symptoms are often made worse by physical setbacks like extreme fatigue and by challenges of working, caring for children, and keeping up with daily routines, he said.

“This impact is not only severe, but also chronic for many,” he said.

Like dozens of hospitals around the country, Oregon Health & Science opened its center for long COVID as it became clear that more patients would need help for ongoing physical and mental health symptoms. Today, there’s at least one long COVID center – sometimes called post-COVID care centers or clinics – in every state but Kansas and South Dakota, Survivor Corps said.

Many long COVID care centers aim to tackle both physical and mental health symptoms, said Tracy Vannorsdall, PhD, a neuropsychologist with the Johns Hopkins Post-Acute COVID-19 Team program. One goal at Hopkins is to identify patients with psychological issues that might otherwise get overlooked.

A sizable minority of patients at the Johns Hopkins center – up to about 35% – report mental health problems that they didn’t have until after they got COVID-19, Dr. Vannorsdall says. The most common mental health issues providers see are depression, anxiety, and trauma-related distress.

“Routine assessment is key,” Dr. Vannorsdall said. “If patients are not asked about their mental health symptoms, they may not spontaneously report them to their provider due to fear of stigma or simply not appreciating that there are effective treatments available for these issues.”

Fear that doctors won’t take symptoms seriously is common, says Heather Murray MD, a senior instructor in psychiatry at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“Many patients worry their physicians, loved ones, and society will not believe them or will minimize their symptoms and suffering,” said Dr. Murray, who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

Diagnostic tests in long COVID patients often don’t have conclusive results, which can lead doctors and patients themselves to question whether symptoms are truly “physical versus psychosomatic,” she said. “It is important that providers believe their patients and treat their symptoms, even when diagnostic tests are unrevealing.”
 

Growing mental health crisis

Patients often find their way to academic treatment centers after surviving severe COVID-19 infections. But a growing number of long COVID patients show up at these centers after milder cases. These patients were never hospitalized for COVID-19 but still have persistent symptoms like fatigue, thinking problems, and mood disorders.

Among the major challenges is a shortage of mental health care providers to meet the surging need for care since the start of the pandemic. Around the world, anxiety and depression surged 25% during the first year of the pandemic, according to the World Health Organization.

In the United States, 40% of adults report feelings of anxiety and depression, and one in three high school students have feelings of sadness and hopelessness, according to a March 2022 statement from the White House.

Despite this surging need for care, almost half of Americans live in areas with a severe shortage of mental health care providers, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. As of 2019, the United States had a shortage of about 6,790 mental health providers. Since then, the shortage has worsened; it’s now about 7,500 providers.

“One of the biggest challenges for hospitals and clinics in treating mental health disorders in long COVID is the limited resources and long wait times to get in for evaluations and treatment,” said Nyaz Didehbani, PhD, a neuropsychologist who treats long COVID patients at the COVID Recover program at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

These delays can lead to worse outcomes, Dr. Didehbani said. “Additionally, patients do not feel that they are being heard, as many providers are not aware of the mental health impact and relationship with physical and cognitive symptoms.” .

Even when doctors recognize that psychological challenges are common with long COVID, they still have to think creatively to come up with treatments that meet the unique needs of these patients, said Thida Thant, MD, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Colorado who treats patients at the UCHealth Post-COVID Clinic.

“There are at least two major factors that make treating psychological issues in long COVID more complex: The fact that the pandemic is still ongoing and still so divisive throughout society, and the fact that we don’t know a single best way to treat all symptoms of long COVID,” she said.

Some common treatments for anxiety and depression, like psychotherapy and medication, can be used for long COVID patients with these conditions. But another intervention that can work wonders for many people with mood disorders – exercise – doesn’t always work for long COVID patients. That’s because many of them struggle with physical challenges like chronic fatigue and what’s known as postexertional malaise, or a worsening of symptoms after even limited physical effort.

“While we normally encourage patients to be active, have a daily routine, and to engage in physical activity as part of their mental health treatment, some long COVID patients find that their symptoms worsen after increased activity,” Dr. Vannorsdall said.

Patients who are able to reach long COVID care centers are much more apt to get mental health problems diagnosed and treated, doctors at many programs around the country agree. But many patients hardest hit by the pandemic – the poor and racial and ethnic minorities – are also less likely to have ready access to hospitals that offer these programs, said Dr. Anderson.

“Affluent, predominantly White populations are showing up in these clinics, while we know that non-White populations have disproportionally high rates of acute infection, hospitalization, and death related to the virus,” he said.

Clinics are also concentrated in academic medical centers and in urban areas, limiting options for people in rural communities who may have to drive for hours to access care, Dr. Anderson said.

“Even before long COVID, we already knew that many people live in areas where there simply aren’t enough mental health services available,” said John Zulueta, MD, an assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago who provides mental health evaluations at the UI Health Post-COVID Clinic.

“As more patients develop mental health issues associated with long COVID, it’s going to put more stress on an already stressed system,” he said.

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

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

The more components of metabolic syndrome a person has in midlife seems to raise their risk of dementia, although that relationship seems to go away after age 70, a post hoc analysis of data from a major European cohort study has found.

A team of European researchers reported online in the journal Diabetes Care that the follow-up of the Whitehall II cohort study, a study of more than 10,000 civil servants in London that was established in the late 1980s, also found that cardiovascular disease (CVD) may only partially contribute to the risk of dementia in study participants.

They found that each additional metabolic syndrome component before age 60 years was linked to a 13% rise in the risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.23) and, from age 60 to 70, the risk rose 8% (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16). However, in people aged 70 years and older, the relationship wasn’t statistically significant (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13]).

The study used “the latest harmonized definition” of metabolic syndrome; that is, participants were classified as having metabolic syndrome if they had three or more of the five components. As lead author Marcos D. Machado-Fragua, PhD, noted in an email interview, those components are abdominal obesity, high triglycerides, low HDL cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and high fasting glucose.

“Our research question was on the association between metabolic syndrome and late-life dementia. We found that the presence of one metabolic syndrome component and the presence of metabolic risk before age 60, but not after, is associated with higher risk of dementia,” said Dr. Machado-Fragua, a post-doctoral researcher at the French Institute for Health and Medical Research in Paris.

The study cohort consisted of 10,308 London-based civil servants aged 35-55 years. Every 4-5 years after enrollment, from 1991 through 2016, they completed a questionnaire and had a clinical examination. The U.K. National Health Service electronic health record system tracked outcomes for all but 10 participants through March 2019.

The study identified the individual metabolic syndrome components that posed the highest risk for dementia in these three age groups:

• Age < 60 years: elevated waist circumference (HR 1.39 [95% CI 1.07, 1.81]), low HDL-C, (HR 1.30 [95% CI 1.02, 1.66]), and elevated blood pressure (HR 1.34 [95% CI 1.09, 1.63]).
• Age 60-70 years: low HDL-C (HR 1.26 [95% CI 1.02, 1.57]) and elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.40 [95% CI 1.12, 1.74]).
• Age >70 years: elevated fasting glucose (HR 1.38 [95% CI 1.07, 1.79]).

The study found that the dementia risk was significantly high in study participants under age 60 who had at least one (HR 1.99 [95% CI 1.08, 3.66]) or two (HR 1.69 [95% CI 1.12, 2.56]) metabolic syndrome components even when they didn’t have CVD.

“The present study adds to the understanding of the association between metabolic syndrome and dementia due to three novel features,” Dr. Machado-Fragua said. “First, we tested alternative thresholds to define ‘high metabolic risk,’ and findings show increased risk of dementia to start with the presence of one metabolic syndrome component. Second, assessment of metabolic syndrome components in midlife and later life allowed the examination of the role of age at prevalence of metabolic risk for incident dementia at older ages. Third, our findings showed high dementia risk in those free of cardiovascular disease during follow-up, suggesting that the association between high metabolic risk and incident dementia is not fully explained by cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Machado-Fragua added, “For now, a cure for dementia remains elusive, making it important to think of prevention strategies. Our findings support targeting the components of the metabolic syndrome in midlife, even in those who have fewer than three of the metabolic syndrome components.”

Applicability ‘confusing’

In an interview, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, questioned the applicability of the study findings in the clinic. “Metabolic syndrome is a clinical manifestation of insulin resistance,” he said. “The more metabolic syndrome criteria a person has, the more insulin resistant that person will be. There is literature that is [suggesting] that insulin resistance is an important cause of dementia.”

The finding of a higher dementia risk before age 70, compared to afterward, makes the applicability “even more confusing,” he said. The results are even more muddled for U.S. physicians, who have moved away from the term metabolic syndrome in favor of cardiometabolic syndrome, said Dr. Handelsman, medical director and principal investigator at the Metabolic Institute of America and president of the Diabetes CardioRenal & Metabolism Institute, both in Tarzana, Calif.

Confusion also surrounds one of the components of metabolic syndrome: Waist circumference, per the harmonized definition the study used, and body mass index, which the more traditional definition uses.

Nonetheless, metabolic syndrome can be used as “kind of a risk calculator” for CVD, diabetes, and dementia, he said. One strength of the study, Dr. Handelsman said, is its size and scope, following 28 years of data. But a weakness was its observational design. “It doesn’t evaluate any true intervention to modify risk,” he said.

Dr. Machado-Fragua and coauthors have no disclosures.

Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Maladaptive schemas (entitlement, vulnerability, and emotional deprivation) and cognitive evaluation systems (self-esteem and systemizing-empathizing) are associated with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Why this matters

The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.

This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
 

Study design

This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).

The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.

A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.

The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.

The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.

The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
 

Key results

Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.

A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.

No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.

A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.

A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.

Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
 

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.

The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.

Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
 

Disclosures

The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Maladaptive schemas (entitlement, vulnerability, and emotional deprivation) and cognitive evaluation systems (self-esteem and systemizing-empathizing) are associated with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Why this matters

The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.

This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
 

Study design

This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).

The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.

A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.

The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.

The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.

The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
 

Key results

Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.

A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.

No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.

A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.

A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.

Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
 

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.

The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.

Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
 

Disclosures

The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

Editor’s Note: The study covered in this summary was published on ResearchSquare.com as a preprint and has not yet been peer reviewed.

Key takeaway

Maladaptive schemas (entitlement, vulnerability, and emotional deprivation) and cognitive evaluation systems (self-esteem and systemizing-empathizing) are associated with grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

Why this matters

The cognitive features and phenotypic diversity of narcissism subtypes are partially unknown.

This study integrates both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism into a common framework with cognitive components connected to these traits.
 

Study design

This study enrolled 478 participants (397 female and 4 did not reveal their gender).

The average age of participants was 35 years (standard deviation, 14.97), with a range of 18-76 years.

A 25-item version of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI), a 40-item self-report measure of narcissism traits, was used to assess the level of authority, grandiose exhibitionism, and entitlement/exploitativeness characteristics of study participants.

The Maladaptive Covert Narcissism Scale, an expanded version of the 23-item self-report Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, was used to assess the level of hypersensitivity, vulnerability, and entitlement of study participants.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, a 10-item self-report scale, was used to assess the level of self-esteem of study participants.

The Young Schema Questionnaire is a 244-item measure of 19 different maladaptive schemas and was used to observe Emotional Deprivation, Vulnerability to Harm and Illness, and Entitlement schemas of study participants.

The Empathizing Quotient is a self-report measure and was used to assess the emotional intelligence of study participants.
 

Key results

Moderate correlation between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the Entitlement schema was observed.

A moderate/strong connection was observed between vulnerable narcissism and the Vulnerability to Harm and Illness schema and a moderate connection with the Emotional Deprivation schema.

No significant correlation was observed between grandiose narcissism and the Emotional Deprivation schema.

A moderate, negative correlation between vulnerable narcissism and emotional skills was observed.

A positive, weak connection between grandiose narcissism and self-esteem; and a negative, moderate connection between vulnerable narcissism and self-esteem were observed.

Gender and age were associated with empathic skills, and age was weakly/moderately connected with self-esteem and vulnerable narcissism.
 

Limitations

This was a cross-sectional analysis investigating a temporally specific state of personality and cognitive functioning.

The gender ratio was shifted toward women in this study.

Conclusions drawn from connections between observed components are interchangeable and cause/effect connections cannot be discerned.
 

Disclosures

The study was supported by the National Research, Development, and Innovation Office (Grant No. NRDI–138040) and by the Human Resource Development Operational Program – Comprehensive developments at the University of Pécs for the implementation of intelligent specialization (EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00004). First author Dorian Vida’s work was supported by the Collegium Talentum Programme of Hungary. None of the authors disclosed any competing interests.

This is a summary of a preprint research study, “In the mind of Narcissus: the mediating role of emotional regulation in the emergence of distorted cognitions,” written by Dorian Vida from the University of Pécs, Hungary and colleagues on ResearchSquare.com. This study has not yet been peer reviewed. The full text of the study can be found on ResearchSquare.com.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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

A U.S. neuroscientist claims that some of the studies of the experimental agent, simufilam (Cassava Sciences), a drug that targets amyloid beta (Abeta) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), are flawed, and, as a result, has taken his concerns to the National Institutes of Health.

Matthew Schrag, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., uncovered what he calls inconsistencies in major studies examining the drug.

In a whistleblower report to the NIH about the drug, Dr. Schrag claims that several prominent investigators altered images and reused them over years to support the hypothesis that buildup of amyloid in the brain causes AD. The NIH has funded research into Abeta as a potential cause of AD to the tune of millions of dollars for years.

“This hypothesis has been the central dominant thinking of the field,” Dr. Schrag told this news organization. “A lot of the therapies that have been developed and tested clinically over the last decade focused on the amyloid hypothesis in one formulation or another. So, it’s an important component of the way we think about Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In an in-depth article published in Science and written by investigative reporter Charles Piller, Dr. Schrag said he became involved after a colleague suggested he work with an attorney investigating simufilam. The lawyer paid Dr. Schrag $18,000 to investigate the research behind the agent. Cassava Sciences denies any misconduct, according to the article.

Dr. Schrag ran many AD studies through sophisticated imaging software. The effort revealed multiple Western blot images – which scientists use to detect the presence and amount of proteins in a sample – that appeared to be altered.
 

High stakes

Dr. Schrag found “apparently altered or duplicated images in dozens of journal articles,” the Science article states.

“A lot is at stake in terms of getting this right and it’s also important to acknowledge the limitations of what we can do. We were working with what’s published, what’s publicly available, and I think that it raises quite a lot of red flags, but we’ve also not reviewed the original material because it’s simply not available to us,” Dr. Schrag said in an interview.

However, he added that despite these limitations he believes “there’s enough here that it’s important for regulatory bodies to take a closer look at it to make sure that the data is right.”

Science reports that it launched its own independent review, asking several neuroscience experts to also review the research. They agreed with Dr. Schrag’s overall conclusions that something was amiss.

Many of the studies questioned in the whistleblower report involve Sylvain Lesné, PhD, who runs The Lesné Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and is an associate professor of neuroscience. His colleague Karen Ashe, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology at the same institution, was also mentioned in the whistleblower report. She was coauthor of a 2006 report in Nature that identified an Abeta subtype as a potential culprit behind AD.

This news organization reached out to Dr. Lesné and Dr. Ashe for comment, but has not received a response.

However, an email from a University of Minnesota spokesperson said the institution is “aware that questions have arisen regarding certain images used in peer-reviewed research publications authored by University faculty Dr. Ashe and Dr. Lesné. The University will follow its processes to review the questions any claims have raised. At this time, we have no further information to provide.”
 

A matter of trust

Dr. Schrag noted the “important trust relationship between patients, physicians and scientists. When we’re exploring diseases that we don’t have good treatments for.” He added that when patients agree to participate in trials and accept the associated risks, “we owe them a very high degree of integrity regarding the foundational data.”

Dr. Schrag also pointed out that there are limited resources to study these diseases. “There is some potential for that to be misdirected. It’s important for us to pay attention to data integrity issues, to make sure that we’re investing in the right places.”

The term “fraud” does not appear in Dr. Schrag’s whistleblower report, nor does he claim misconduct in the report. However, his work has spurred some independent, ongoing investigation into the claims by several journals that published the works in question, including Nature and Science Signaling.

Dr. Schrag said that if his findings are validated through an investigation he would like to see the scientific record corrected.

“Ultimately, I’d like to see a new set of hypotheses given a chance to look at this disease from a new perspective,” he added.

Dr. Schrag noted that the work described in the Science article was performed outside of his employment with Vanderbilt University Medical Center and that his opinions do not necessarily represent the views of Vanderbilt University or Vanderbilt University Medical Center. 

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