User login
Cardiovascular Health Becoming a Major Risk Factor for Dementia
That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.
Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.
Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.
Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.
“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.
Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said.
The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.
Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.
Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.
Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.
“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.
Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said.
The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That’s according to researchers from University College London (UCL) in the United Kingdom who analyzed 27 papers about dementia that had data collected over more than 70 years. They calculated what share of dementia cases were due to different risk factors. Their findings were recently published in the Lancet Public Health.
Top risk factors for dementia over the years have been hypertension, obesity, diabetes, education, and smoking, according to a news release on the findings. But the prevalence of risk factors has changed over the decades.
Researchers said smoking and education have become less important risk factors because of “population-level interventions,” such as stop-smoking campaigns and compulsory public education. On the other hand, obesity and diabetes rates have increased and become bigger risk factors.
Hypertension remains the greatest risk factor, even though doctors and public health groups are putting more emphasis on managing the condition, the study said.
“Cardiovascular risk factors may have contributed more to dementia risk over time, so these deserve more targeted action for future dementia prevention efforts,” said Naaheed Mukadam, PhD, an associate professor at UCL and the lead author of the study.
Eliminating modifiable risk factors could theoretically prevent 40% of dementia cases, the release said.
The CDC says that an estimated 5.8 million people in the United States have Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, including 5.6 million people ages 65 and older and about 200,000 under age 65. The UCL release said an estimated 944,000 in the U.K. have dementia.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM THE LANCET PUBLIC HEALTH
Revised Criteria for Alzheimer’s Diagnosis, Staging Released
, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system.
“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead.
The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.
“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association.
“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added.
The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
Core Biomarkers Defined
The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.
The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.
Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2.
Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217.
“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote.
Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments.
Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted.
The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.”
The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages.
Formal Guidelines to Come
The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.
Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies.
This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote.
They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.
“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”
This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said.
The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician.
“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine.
Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”
Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system.
“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead.
The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.
“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association.
“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added.
The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
Core Biomarkers Defined
The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.
The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.
Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2.
Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217.
“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote.
Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments.
Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted.
The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.”
The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages.
Formal Guidelines to Come
The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.
Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies.
This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote.
They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.
“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”
This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said.
The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician.
“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine.
Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”
Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, including a new biomarker classification system that incorporates fluid and imaging biomarkers as well as an updated disease staging system.
“Plasma markers are here now, and it’s very important to incorporate them into the criteria for diagnosis,” said senior author Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association chief science officer and medical affairs lead.
The revised criteria are the first updates since 2018.
“Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine — including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes — and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases,” lead author Clifford Jack Jr, MD, with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said in a news release from the Alzheimer’s Association.
“These updates to the diagnostic criteria are needed now because we know more about the underlying biology of Alzheimer’s and we are able to measure those changes,” Dr. Jack added.
The 2024 revised criteria for diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease were published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
Core Biomarkers Defined
The revised criteria define Alzheimer’s disease as a biologic process that begins with the appearance of Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change (ADNPC) in the absence of symptoms. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.
The work group organized Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers into three broad categories: (1) core biomarkers of ADNPC, (2) nonspecific biomarkers that are important in Alzheimer’s disease but are also involved in other brain diseases, and (3) biomarkers of diseases or conditions that commonly coexist with Alzheimer’s disease.
Core Alzheimer’s biomarkers are subdivided into Core 1 and Core 2.
Core 1 biomarkers become abnormal early in the disease course and directly measure either amyloid plaques or phosphorylated tau (p-tau). They include amyloid PET; cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta 42/40 ratio, CSF p-tau181/amyloid beta 42 ratio, and CSF total (t)-tau/amyloid beta 42 ratio; and “accurate” plasma biomarkers, such as p-tau217.
“An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and to inform clinical decision making [sic] throughout the disease continuum,” the work group wrote.
Core 2 biomarkers become abnormal later in the disease process and are more closely linked with the onset of symptoms. Core 2 biomarkers include tau PET and certain soluble tau fragments associated with tau proteinopathy (eg, MTBR-tau243) but also pT205 and nonphosphorylated mid-region tau fragments.
Core 2 biomarkers, when combined with Core 1, may be used to stage biologic disease severity; abnormal Core 2 biomarkers “increase confidence that Alzheimer’s disease is contributing to symptoms,” the work group noted.
The revised criteria give clinicians “the flexibility to use plasma or PET scans or CSF,” Dr. Carrillo said. “They will have several tools that they can choose from and offer this variety of tools to their patients. We need different tools for different individuals. There will be differences in coverage and access to these diagnostics.”
The revised criteria also include an integrated biologic and clinical staging scheme that acknowledges the fact that common co-pathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biologic Alzheimer’s disease stages.
Formal Guidelines to Come
The work group noted that currently, the clinical use of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers is intended for the evaluation of symptomatic patients, not cognitively unimpaired individuals.
Disease-targeted therapies have not yet been approved for cognitively unimpaired individuals. For this reason, the work group currently recommends against diagnostic testing in cognitively unimpaired individuals outside the context of observational or therapeutic research studies.
This recommendation would change in the future if disease-targeted therapies that are currently being evaluated in trials demonstrate a benefit in preventing cognitive decline and are approved for use in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease, they wrote.
They emphasize that the revised criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinicians. Rather, they provide general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of Alzheimer’s disease that reflect current science.
“This is just the beginning,” said Dr. Carrillo. “This is a gathering of the evidence to date and putting it in one place so we can have a consensus and actually a way to test it and make it better as we add new science.”
This also serves as a “springboard” for the Alzheimer’s Association to create formal clinical guidelines. “That will come, hopefully, over the next 12 months. We’ll be working on it, and we hope to have that in 2025,” Dr. Carrillo said.
The revised criteria also emphasize the role of the clinician.
“The biologically based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease is meant to assist, rather than supplant, the clinical evaluation of individuals with cognitive impairment,” the work group wrote in a related commentary published online in Nature Medicine.
Recent diagnostics and therapeutic developments “herald a virtuous cycle in which improvements in diagnostic methods enable more sophisticated treatment approaches, which in turn steer advances in diagnostic methods,” they continued. “An unchanging principle, however, is that effective treatment will always rely on the ability to diagnose and stage the biology driving the disease process.”
Funding for this research was provided by the National Institutes of Health, Alexander family professorship, GHR Foundation, Alzheimer’s Association, Veterans Administration, Life Molecular Imaging, Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, Avid Radiopharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Gates Foundation, Biogen, C2N Diagnostics, Eisai, Fujirebio, GE Healthcare, Roche, National Institute on Aging, Roche/Genentech, BrightFocus Foundation, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novo Nordisk, Toyama, National MS Society, Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation, and others. A complete list of donors and disclosures is included in the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ALZHEIMER’S & DEMENTIA
Common Cognitive Test Falls Short for Concussion Diagnosis
, a new study showed.
Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.
“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.
Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.
Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.
All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.
No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.
Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.
The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.
“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”
Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”
The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.
Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”
This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study showed.
Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.
“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.
Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.
Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.
All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.
No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.
Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.
The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.
“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”
Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”
The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.
Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”
This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study showed.
Investigators found that almost half of athletes diagnosed with a concussion tested normally on the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool 5 (SCAT5), the recommended tool for measuring cognitive skills in concussion evaluations. The most accurate measure of concussion was symptoms reported by the athletes.
“If you don’t do well on the cognitive exam, it suggests you have a concussion. But many people who are concussed do fine on the exam,” lead author Kimberly Harmon, MD, professor of family medicine and section head of sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in a news release.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Introduced in 2004, the SCAT was created to standardize the collection of information clinicians use to diagnose concussion, including evaluation of symptoms, orientation, and balance. It also uses a 10-word list to assess immediate memory and delayed recall.
Dr. Harmon’s own experiences as a team physician led her to wonder about the accuracy of the cognitive screening portion of the SCAT. She saw that “some people were concussed, and they did well on the recall test. Some people weren’t concussed, and they didn’t do well. So I thought we should study it,” she said.
Investigators compared 92 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1 athletes who had sustained a concussion between 2020 and 2022 and had a concussion evaluation within 48 hours to 92 matched nonconcussed teammates (overall cohort, 52% men). Most concussions occurred in those who played football, followed by volleyball.
All athletes had previously completed NCAA-required baseline concussion screenings. Participants completed the SCAT5 screening test within 2 weeks of the incident concussion.
No significant differences were found between the baseline scores of athletes with and without concussion. Moreover, responses on the word recall section of the SCAT5 held little predictive value for concussion.
Nearly half (45%) of athletes with concussion performed at or even above their baseline cognitive report, which the authors said highlights the limitations of the cognitive components of SCAT5.
The most accurate predictor of concussion was participants’ responses to questions about their symptoms.
“If you get hit in the head and go to the sideline and say, ‘I have a headache, I’m dizzy, I don’t feel right,’ I can say with pretty good assurance that you have a concussion,” Dr. Harmon continued. “I don’t need to do any testing.”
Unfortunately, the problem is “that some athletes don’t want to come out. They don’t report their symptoms or may not recognize their symptoms. So then you need an objective, accurate test to tell you whether you can safely put the athlete back on the field. We don’t have that right now.”
The study did not control for concussion history, and the all–Division 1 cohort means the findings may not be generalizable to other athletes.
Nevertheless, investigators said the study “affirms that reported symptoms are the most sensitive indicator of concussion, and there are limitations to the objective cognitive testing included in the SCAT.” They concluded that concussion “remains a clinical diagnosis that should be based on a thorough review of signs, symptoms, and clinical findings.”
This study was funded in part by donations from University of Washington alumni Jack and Luellen Cherneski and the Chisholm Foundation. Dr. Harmon reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Form of B12 Deficiency Affecting the Central Nervous System May Be New Autoimmune Disease
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Discovered while studying a puzzling case of one patient with inexplicable neurological systems, the same autoantibody was detected in a small percentage of healthy individuals and was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“I didn’t think this single investigation was going to yield a broader phenomenon with other patients,” lead author John V. Pluvinage, MD, PhD, a neurology resident at the University of California San Francisco, said in an interview. “It started as an N-of-one study just based on scientific curiosity.”
“It’s a beautifully done study,” added Betty Diamond, MD, director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, commenting on the research. It uncovers “yet another example of a disease where antibodies getting into the brain are the problem.”
The research was published in Science Translational Medicine.
The Patient
The investigation began in 2014 with a 67-year-old woman presenting with difficulty speaking, ataxia, and tremor. Her blood tests showed no signs of B12 deficiency, and testing for known autoantibodies came back negative.
Solving this mystery required a more exhaustive approach. The patient enrolled in a research study focused on identifying novel autoantibodies in suspected neuroinflammatory disease, using a screening technology called phage immunoprecipitation sequencing.
“We adapted this technology to screen for autoantibodies in an unbiased manner by displaying every peptide across the human proteome and then mixing those peptides with patient antibodies in order to figure out what the antibodies are binding to,” explained Dr. Pluvinage.
Using this method, he and colleagues discovered that this woman had autoantibodies that target CD320 — a receptor important in the cellular uptake of B12. While her blood tests were normal, B12 in the patient’s cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) was “nearly undetectable,” Dr. Pluvinage said. Using an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), the researchers determined that anti-CD320 impaired the transport of B12 across the BBB by targeting receptors on the cell surface.
Treating the patient with a combination of immunosuppressant medication and high-dose B12 supplementation increased B12 levels in the patient’s CSF and improved clinical symptoms.
Identifying More Cases
Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues tested the 254 other individuals enrolled in the neuroinflammatory disease study and identified seven participants with CSF anti-CD320 autoantibodies — four of whom had low B12 in the CSF.
In a group of healthy controls, anti-CD320 seropositivity was 6%, similar to the positivity rate in 132 paired serum and CSF samples from a cohort of patients with multiple sclerosis (5.7%). In this group of patients with multiple sclerosis, anti-CD320 presence in the blood was highly predictive of high levels of CSF methylmalonic acid, a metabolic marker of B12 deficiency.
Researchers also screened for anti-CD320 seropositivity in 408 patients with non-neurologic SLE and 28 patients with neuropsychiatric SLE and found that the autoantibody was nearly four times as prevalent in patients with neurologic symptoms (21.4%) compared with in those with non-neurologic SLE (5.6%).
“The clinical relevance of anti-CD320 in healthy controls remains uncertain,” the authors wrote. However, it is not uncommon to have healthy patients with known autoantibodies.
“There are always people who have autoantibodies who don’t get disease, and why that is we don’t know,” said Dr. Diamond. Some individuals may develop clinical symptoms later, or there may be other reasons why they are protected against disease.
Pluvinage is eager to follow some seropositive healthy individuals to track their neurologic health overtime, to see if the presence of anti-CD320 “alters their neurologic trajectories.”
Alternative Pathways
Lastly, Dr. Pluvinage and colleagues set out to explain why patients with anti-CD320 in their blood did not show any signs of B12 deficiency. They hypothesized that another receptor may be compensating and still allowing blood cells to take up B12. Using CRISPR screening, the team identified the low-density lipoprotein receptor as an alternative pathway to B12 uptake.
“These findings suggest a model in which anti-CD320 impairs transport of B12 across the BBB, leading to autoimmune B12 central deficiency (ABCD) with varied neurologic manifestations but sparing peripheral manifestations of B12 deficiency,” the authors wrote.
The work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Defense, UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Laboratory for Cell Analysis Shared Resource Facility, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, Valhalla Foundation, and the Westridge Foundation. Dr. Pluvinage is a co-inventor on a patent application related to this work. Dr. Diamond had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Is Screen Time to Blame for Rising Rates of Myopia in Children?
TOPLINE:
More time spent exposed to screens is associated with a higher risk for myopia in children and adolescents; the use of computers and televisions appears to have the most significant effects on eye health.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies involving 102,360 children and adolescents to assess the association between screen time and myopia.
- Data were collected from studies published before June 1, 2023, in three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
- Screen time was categorized by device type, including computers, televisions, and smartphones, and analyzed using random or fixed-effect models.
- The analysis included both cohort and cross-sectional studies.
TAKEAWAY:
- High exposure to screen time was significantly associated with myopia in both cross-sectional (odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.47-3.42) and cohort studies (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.07-2.76).
- In cohort studies, each extra hour per day spent using screens increased the risk for myopia by 7% (95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
- Subgroup analyses revealed significant associations between myopia and screen time on computers (OR, 8.19; 95% CI, 4.78-14.04) and televisions (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10), whereas time spent using smartphones was not significantly associated with myopia.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the development of technology and GDP [gross domestic product], educational pressure may lead students to use screen devices such as smartphones and computers for long periods of time to learn online courses, receive additional tutoring or practice, and increase the incidence of myopia,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Zhiqiang Zong of Anhui Medical University in Hefei, China. It was published online in BMC Public Health.
LIMITATIONS:
The majority of the studies included were cross-sectional, which cannot establish causality. High heterogeneity was found among the included studies, possibly due to differences in research design, population characteristics, and exposure levels. Some studies did not adjust for important confounding factors such as outdoor activities.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Educational Commission of Anhui Province of China, Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine, and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
More time spent exposed to screens is associated with a higher risk for myopia in children and adolescents; the use of computers and televisions appears to have the most significant effects on eye health.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies involving 102,360 children and adolescents to assess the association between screen time and myopia.
- Data were collected from studies published before June 1, 2023, in three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
- Screen time was categorized by device type, including computers, televisions, and smartphones, and analyzed using random or fixed-effect models.
- The analysis included both cohort and cross-sectional studies.
TAKEAWAY:
- High exposure to screen time was significantly associated with myopia in both cross-sectional (odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.47-3.42) and cohort studies (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.07-2.76).
- In cohort studies, each extra hour per day spent using screens increased the risk for myopia by 7% (95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
- Subgroup analyses revealed significant associations between myopia and screen time on computers (OR, 8.19; 95% CI, 4.78-14.04) and televisions (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10), whereas time spent using smartphones was not significantly associated with myopia.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the development of technology and GDP [gross domestic product], educational pressure may lead students to use screen devices such as smartphones and computers for long periods of time to learn online courses, receive additional tutoring or practice, and increase the incidence of myopia,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Zhiqiang Zong of Anhui Medical University in Hefei, China. It was published online in BMC Public Health.
LIMITATIONS:
The majority of the studies included were cross-sectional, which cannot establish causality. High heterogeneity was found among the included studies, possibly due to differences in research design, population characteristics, and exposure levels. Some studies did not adjust for important confounding factors such as outdoor activities.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Educational Commission of Anhui Province of China, Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine, and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
More time spent exposed to screens is associated with a higher risk for myopia in children and adolescents; the use of computers and televisions appears to have the most significant effects on eye health.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 19 studies involving 102,360 children and adolescents to assess the association between screen time and myopia.
- Data were collected from studies published before June 1, 2023, in three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.
- Screen time was categorized by device type, including computers, televisions, and smartphones, and analyzed using random or fixed-effect models.
- The analysis included both cohort and cross-sectional studies.
TAKEAWAY:
- High exposure to screen time was significantly associated with myopia in both cross-sectional (odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.47-3.42) and cohort studies (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.07-2.76).
- In cohort studies, each extra hour per day spent using screens increased the risk for myopia by 7% (95% CI, 1.01-1.13).
- Subgroup analyses revealed significant associations between myopia and screen time on computers (OR, 8.19; 95% CI, 4.78-14.04) and televisions (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.02-2.10), whereas time spent using smartphones was not significantly associated with myopia.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the development of technology and GDP [gross domestic product], educational pressure may lead students to use screen devices such as smartphones and computers for long periods of time to learn online courses, receive additional tutoring or practice, and increase the incidence of myopia,” wrote the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Zhiqiang Zong of Anhui Medical University in Hefei, China. It was published online in BMC Public Health.
LIMITATIONS:
The majority of the studies included were cross-sectional, which cannot establish causality. High heterogeneity was found among the included studies, possibly due to differences in research design, population characteristics, and exposure levels. Some studies did not adjust for important confounding factors such as outdoor activities.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Educational Commission of Anhui Province of China, Research Fund of Anhui Institute of Translational Medicine, and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prostate Meds Tied to Reduced Risk for Lewy Body Dementia
Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.
Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.
“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?
In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD).
In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.
To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.
Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.
After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.
During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.
After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).
“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.
Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.
No study funding or author disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.
Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.
“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?
In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD).
In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.
To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.
Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.
After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.
During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.
After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).
“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.
Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.
No study funding or author disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Certain medications that are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) are associated with a reduced risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), the second most common neurodegenerative type of dementia after Alzheimer’s disease.
Investigators found older men taking alpha-1 blockers terazosin, doxazosin, or alfuzosin (Tz/Dz/Az) were 40% less likely to develop DLB than those taking tamsulosin and 37% less likely than men taking the 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI) finasteride and dutasteride.
“These results are exciting because right now there are no drugs to prevent or treat dementia with Lewy bodies,” study investigator Jacob E. Simmering, PhD, of the University of Iowa in Iowa City, said in a press release. “If we can determine that an existing drug can offer protection against this debilitating disease, that has the potential to greatly reduce its effects.”
The findings were published online in Neurology.
Increasing ATP Neuroprotective?
In recent years, investigators have speculated that improving metabolic activity in the brain may reduce the risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD).
In previous studies, the use of Tz/Dz/Az resulted in the activation of phosphoglycerate kinase-1 (PKG1), which increases the availability of adenosine triphosphate (ATP).
There have been case reports of PD being linked to mutations affecting PGK1. Researchers speculate that increased ATP availability in neurons resulting from the activation of PKG1 allows cells to better adapt to aging and synuclein aggregation.
To investigate whether glycolysis-enhancing drugs might be neuroprotective in those with DLB, investigators conducted a retrospective cohort study using a commercial health insurance claims database and a Medicare supplemental health claims database to follow a sample of men aged > 40 years taking Tz, Dz, or Az (n = 126,313), tamsulosin (n = 437,035), or a 5ARI (n = 80,158) for BPH.
Tamsulosin and 5ARI medications do not activate PKG1, so investigators used them as comparators to Tz/Dz/Az. Participants were followed from the medication initiation date until the end of enrollment in the claims databases.
After following claimants for an average of 3 years, 195 participants developed DLB who were taking Tz, Dz, or Az, a rate of 5.21 cases per 10,000 people per year.
During the follow-up period, 1286 participants taking tamsulosin developed DLB, a rate of 10.8 per 10,000 people per year, and among those taking 5ARIs, 193 cases of DLB were reported, a rate of 7.8 per 10,000 people per year.
After matching the groups by age and other health conditions that may explain differences in rates of DLB, men taking Tz/Dz/Az had a 60% lower risk than those taking tamsulosin (P < .001) and a 37% lower risk for developing DLB than those taking the 5ARI medications (P = .012).
“This emerging evidence of a protective association across a spectrum of diseases suggests a broad neuroprotective effect for Tz/Dz/Az, consistent with our hypothesized mechanism that activation of PGK1 increases brain ATP and mitigates neurodegeneration,” the authors wrote.
Study limitations include excluding women from the study, so the findings cannot be generalized to women. Claims analyses were limited to administrative data that could have been incorrect, and the analyses did not include medication dosages.
No study funding or author disclosures were reported.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New Insight Into CVD, Stroke Risk in Migraine
SAN DIEGO – Researchers are unraveling the complex relationship between cardiovascular (CV)- and stroke-related outcomes in migraine with, and without, aura.
“We confirmed that aura increases the risk for these cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes in people with migraine and that there’s an increased risk of these MACE events in men with migraine,” said study investigator Gina Dumkrieger, PhD, principal data science analyst and assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Few Data on Migraine and Stroke Risk
The extent to which migraine increases the risk for stroke CV outcomes has not been extensively studied.
“We’re trying to find out whether migraine-related factors make it more likely that you’re going to have one of these events,” said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Knowing a particular factor increases the risk is something patients and medical providers would want to know.”
Using Mayo Clinic electronic health records, which cover all three sites (Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona), researchers identified individuals with migraine using diagnostic codes. They also looked at data on sex, race, and the presence of aura.
They investigated whether a history of MACE risk factors — including atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and tobacco use — affected risk and the potential interaction of aura with these risk factors.
MACE events included cerebral infarction, intracerebral hemorrhage, and acute myocardial infarction.
The analysis included 130,126 participants (80% women, 95% White individuals). Of these, 6% experienced a MACE event, and 94% did not.
“We confirmed that aura does increase the risk for a MACE event, and all of the known risk factors that we included were also significant,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
Odds ratios (ORs) were 3.82 for atrial fibrillation, 3.11 for hypertension, and 3.06 for hyperlipidemia.
It was surprising, said Dr. Dumkrieger, that male sex was tied to an increased risk for a MACE event (OR, 1.40). “This is not something that was known before,” she said.
The link between migraine and ischemic stroke, particularly with aura, was stronger in women — particularly young women.
Investigators also found an interaction between male sex and aura, when it comes to MACE outcomes, said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Males in general are at higher risk, and people with aura are at higher risk. Males with aura are also at higher risk, but maybe not as much as you would think they would be. It’s not a purely additive thing. This is something we need to look into more,” she said.
The study also revealed an interaction between aura and hypertension as well as aura and tobacco use, but here too, it was not an additive risk, said Dr. Dumkrieger. However, she added, the presence of aura does not moderate the risk for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or atrial fibrillation.
The research also showed a significant interaction between male sex and Black race which was additive. “There’s apparently increased risk if you are male and Black or African American that’s greater than what you would expect. We should be especially concerned about these individuals,” she said.
Unanswered Questions
The current analysis is part of a larger study that will more closely examine these relationships. “We want to learn, for example, why aura moderates some of the risk factors but not others,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
The researchers also plan to investigate other migraine features, including headache frequency, and headache sensations such as pulsating or throbbing.
Dr. Dumkrieger was an investigator of another study, also presented at the AHS meeting, that’s investigating the role of migraine-specific features and imaging results in the complex interrelationship between migraine and MACE risk.
That study, which also used the Mayo Clinic electronic health record data, included 60,454 migraine patients diagnosed with migraine after 2010.
Researchers divided participants into those with a MACE outcome (1107) and those without such an outcome (59,347) after at least 2 years of follow-up. They created a propensity cohort of individuals matched for age and risk factors for MACE outcome.
The final cohort consisted of 575 patients with and 652 patients without MACE outcome.
One of the most interesting early results from this study was that those with a MACE outcome had significantly more white matter hyperintensities than those with no MACE outcome, at 64% versus 51%, respectively.
This and other findings need to be validated in a different cohort with an electronic health records database from another institution. In future, the team plans to focus on identifying specific migraine features and medications and their relative contributions to MACE risk in migraine patients.
Yet another study featured at the AHS meeting confirmed the increased risk for stroke among migraine patients using a large database with over 410,000 subjects.
Results showed stroke was more than three times more common in those with a migraine diagnosis than in those without (risk ratio, [RR] 3.23; P < .001). The RR for hemorrhagic stroke (3.15) was comparable with that of ischemic stroke (3.20).
The overall stroke RR for chronic migraine versus controls without migraine was 3.68 (P < .001). The RR for migraine with aura versus migraine without aura was 1.37 (P < .001).
Useful Data
Commenting on the research, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, described this new information as “very useful.”
The fact that there are more white matter lesions on MRI scans in migraine patients with MACE needs further exploration, said Dr. VanderPluym.
“Understanding how much of that relates to migraine, how much relates to other comorbid conditions, and what this all means together, is very important, particularly because MACE can be life-threatening and life-altering,” she added.
Learning how migraine medications may impact MACE risk is also something that needs to be examined in greater depth, she said. “I would think that migraines that are controlled might have a different risk for MACE than uncontrolled migraine,” she said.
The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers are unraveling the complex relationship between cardiovascular (CV)- and stroke-related outcomes in migraine with, and without, aura.
“We confirmed that aura increases the risk for these cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes in people with migraine and that there’s an increased risk of these MACE events in men with migraine,” said study investigator Gina Dumkrieger, PhD, principal data science analyst and assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Few Data on Migraine and Stroke Risk
The extent to which migraine increases the risk for stroke CV outcomes has not been extensively studied.
“We’re trying to find out whether migraine-related factors make it more likely that you’re going to have one of these events,” said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Knowing a particular factor increases the risk is something patients and medical providers would want to know.”
Using Mayo Clinic electronic health records, which cover all three sites (Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona), researchers identified individuals with migraine using diagnostic codes. They also looked at data on sex, race, and the presence of aura.
They investigated whether a history of MACE risk factors — including atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and tobacco use — affected risk and the potential interaction of aura with these risk factors.
MACE events included cerebral infarction, intracerebral hemorrhage, and acute myocardial infarction.
The analysis included 130,126 participants (80% women, 95% White individuals). Of these, 6% experienced a MACE event, and 94% did not.
“We confirmed that aura does increase the risk for a MACE event, and all of the known risk factors that we included were also significant,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
Odds ratios (ORs) were 3.82 for atrial fibrillation, 3.11 for hypertension, and 3.06 for hyperlipidemia.
It was surprising, said Dr. Dumkrieger, that male sex was tied to an increased risk for a MACE event (OR, 1.40). “This is not something that was known before,” she said.
The link between migraine and ischemic stroke, particularly with aura, was stronger in women — particularly young women.
Investigators also found an interaction between male sex and aura, when it comes to MACE outcomes, said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Males in general are at higher risk, and people with aura are at higher risk. Males with aura are also at higher risk, but maybe not as much as you would think they would be. It’s not a purely additive thing. This is something we need to look into more,” she said.
The study also revealed an interaction between aura and hypertension as well as aura and tobacco use, but here too, it was not an additive risk, said Dr. Dumkrieger. However, she added, the presence of aura does not moderate the risk for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or atrial fibrillation.
The research also showed a significant interaction between male sex and Black race which was additive. “There’s apparently increased risk if you are male and Black or African American that’s greater than what you would expect. We should be especially concerned about these individuals,” she said.
Unanswered Questions
The current analysis is part of a larger study that will more closely examine these relationships. “We want to learn, for example, why aura moderates some of the risk factors but not others,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
The researchers also plan to investigate other migraine features, including headache frequency, and headache sensations such as pulsating or throbbing.
Dr. Dumkrieger was an investigator of another study, also presented at the AHS meeting, that’s investigating the role of migraine-specific features and imaging results in the complex interrelationship between migraine and MACE risk.
That study, which also used the Mayo Clinic electronic health record data, included 60,454 migraine patients diagnosed with migraine after 2010.
Researchers divided participants into those with a MACE outcome (1107) and those without such an outcome (59,347) after at least 2 years of follow-up. They created a propensity cohort of individuals matched for age and risk factors for MACE outcome.
The final cohort consisted of 575 patients with and 652 patients without MACE outcome.
One of the most interesting early results from this study was that those with a MACE outcome had significantly more white matter hyperintensities than those with no MACE outcome, at 64% versus 51%, respectively.
This and other findings need to be validated in a different cohort with an electronic health records database from another institution. In future, the team plans to focus on identifying specific migraine features and medications and their relative contributions to MACE risk in migraine patients.
Yet another study featured at the AHS meeting confirmed the increased risk for stroke among migraine patients using a large database with over 410,000 subjects.
Results showed stroke was more than three times more common in those with a migraine diagnosis than in those without (risk ratio, [RR] 3.23; P < .001). The RR for hemorrhagic stroke (3.15) was comparable with that of ischemic stroke (3.20).
The overall stroke RR for chronic migraine versus controls without migraine was 3.68 (P < .001). The RR for migraine with aura versus migraine without aura was 1.37 (P < .001).
Useful Data
Commenting on the research, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, described this new information as “very useful.”
The fact that there are more white matter lesions on MRI scans in migraine patients with MACE needs further exploration, said Dr. VanderPluym.
“Understanding how much of that relates to migraine, how much relates to other comorbid conditions, and what this all means together, is very important, particularly because MACE can be life-threatening and life-altering,” she added.
Learning how migraine medications may impact MACE risk is also something that needs to be examined in greater depth, she said. “I would think that migraines that are controlled might have a different risk for MACE than uncontrolled migraine,” she said.
The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO – Researchers are unraveling the complex relationship between cardiovascular (CV)- and stroke-related outcomes in migraine with, and without, aura.
“We confirmed that aura increases the risk for these cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes in people with migraine and that there’s an increased risk of these MACE events in men with migraine,” said study investigator Gina Dumkrieger, PhD, principal data science analyst and assistant professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.
Few Data on Migraine and Stroke Risk
The extent to which migraine increases the risk for stroke CV outcomes has not been extensively studied.
“We’re trying to find out whether migraine-related factors make it more likely that you’re going to have one of these events,” said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Knowing a particular factor increases the risk is something patients and medical providers would want to know.”
Using Mayo Clinic electronic health records, which cover all three sites (Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona), researchers identified individuals with migraine using diagnostic codes. They also looked at data on sex, race, and the presence of aura.
They investigated whether a history of MACE risk factors — including atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and tobacco use — affected risk and the potential interaction of aura with these risk factors.
MACE events included cerebral infarction, intracerebral hemorrhage, and acute myocardial infarction.
The analysis included 130,126 participants (80% women, 95% White individuals). Of these, 6% experienced a MACE event, and 94% did not.
“We confirmed that aura does increase the risk for a MACE event, and all of the known risk factors that we included were also significant,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
Odds ratios (ORs) were 3.82 for atrial fibrillation, 3.11 for hypertension, and 3.06 for hyperlipidemia.
It was surprising, said Dr. Dumkrieger, that male sex was tied to an increased risk for a MACE event (OR, 1.40). “This is not something that was known before,” she said.
The link between migraine and ischemic stroke, particularly with aura, was stronger in women — particularly young women.
Investigators also found an interaction between male sex and aura, when it comes to MACE outcomes, said Dr. Dumkrieger. “Males in general are at higher risk, and people with aura are at higher risk. Males with aura are also at higher risk, but maybe not as much as you would think they would be. It’s not a purely additive thing. This is something we need to look into more,” she said.
The study also revealed an interaction between aura and hypertension as well as aura and tobacco use, but here too, it was not an additive risk, said Dr. Dumkrieger. However, she added, the presence of aura does not moderate the risk for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, or atrial fibrillation.
The research also showed a significant interaction between male sex and Black race which was additive. “There’s apparently increased risk if you are male and Black or African American that’s greater than what you would expect. We should be especially concerned about these individuals,” she said.
Unanswered Questions
The current analysis is part of a larger study that will more closely examine these relationships. “We want to learn, for example, why aura moderates some of the risk factors but not others,” said Dr. Dumkrieger.
The researchers also plan to investigate other migraine features, including headache frequency, and headache sensations such as pulsating or throbbing.
Dr. Dumkrieger was an investigator of another study, also presented at the AHS meeting, that’s investigating the role of migraine-specific features and imaging results in the complex interrelationship between migraine and MACE risk.
That study, which also used the Mayo Clinic electronic health record data, included 60,454 migraine patients diagnosed with migraine after 2010.
Researchers divided participants into those with a MACE outcome (1107) and those without such an outcome (59,347) after at least 2 years of follow-up. They created a propensity cohort of individuals matched for age and risk factors for MACE outcome.
The final cohort consisted of 575 patients with and 652 patients without MACE outcome.
One of the most interesting early results from this study was that those with a MACE outcome had significantly more white matter hyperintensities than those with no MACE outcome, at 64% versus 51%, respectively.
This and other findings need to be validated in a different cohort with an electronic health records database from another institution. In future, the team plans to focus on identifying specific migraine features and medications and their relative contributions to MACE risk in migraine patients.
Yet another study featured at the AHS meeting confirmed the increased risk for stroke among migraine patients using a large database with over 410,000 subjects.
Results showed stroke was more than three times more common in those with a migraine diagnosis than in those without (risk ratio, [RR] 3.23; P < .001). The RR for hemorrhagic stroke (3.15) was comparable with that of ischemic stroke (3.20).
The overall stroke RR for chronic migraine versus controls without migraine was 3.68 (P < .001). The RR for migraine with aura versus migraine without aura was 1.37 (P < .001).
Useful Data
Commenting on the research, Juliana VanderPluym, MD, a headache specialist at the Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, described this new information as “very useful.”
The fact that there are more white matter lesions on MRI scans in migraine patients with MACE needs further exploration, said Dr. VanderPluym.
“Understanding how much of that relates to migraine, how much relates to other comorbid conditions, and what this all means together, is very important, particularly because MACE can be life-threatening and life-altering,” she added.
Learning how migraine medications may impact MACE risk is also something that needs to be examined in greater depth, she said. “I would think that migraines that are controlled might have a different risk for MACE than uncontrolled migraine,” she said.
The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AHS 2024
Chronic Loneliness Tied to Increased Stroke Risk
Adults older than 50 years who report experiencing persistently high levels of loneliness have a 56% increased risk for stroke, a new study showed.
The increased stroke risk did not apply to individuals who reported experiencing situational loneliness, a finding that investigators believe bolsters the hypothesis that chronic loneliness is driving the association.
“Our findings suggest that individuals who experience chronic loneliness are at higher risk for incident stroke,” lead investigator Yenee Soh, ScD, research associate of social and behavioral sciences in the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization. “It is important to routinely assess loneliness, as the consequences may be worse if unidentified and/or ignored.”
The findings were published online in eClinicalMedicine.
Significant, Chronic Health Consequences
Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, loneliness is at an all-time high. A 2023 Surgeon General’s report highlighted the fact that loneliness and social isolation are linked to significant and chronic health consequences.
Previous research has linked loneliness to cardiovascular disease, yet few studies have examined the association between loneliness and stroke risk. The current study is one of the first to examine the association between changes in loneliness and stroke risk over time.
Using data from the 2006-2018 Health and Retirement Study, researchers assessed the link between loneliness and incident stroke over time. Between 2006 and 2008, 12,161 study participants, who were all older than 50 years with no history of stroke, responded to questions from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. From these responses, researchers created summary loneliness scores.
Four years later, from 2010 to 2012, the 8936 remaining study participants responded to the same 20 questions again. Based on loneliness scores across the two time points, participants were divided into four groups:
- Consistently low (those who scored low on the loneliness scale at both baseline and follow-up).
- Remitting (those who scored high at baseline and low at follow-up).
- Recent onset (those who scored low at baseline and high at follow-up).
- Consistently high (those who scored high at both baseline and follow-up).
Incident stroke was determined by participant report and medical record data.
Among participants whose loneliness was measured at baseline only, 1237 strokes occurred during the 2006-2018 follow-up period. Among those who provided two loneliness assessments over time, 601 strokes occurred during the follow-up period.
Even after adjusting for social isolation, depressive symptoms, physical activity, body mass index, and other health conditions, investigators found that participants who reported being lonely at baseline only had a 25% increased stroke risk, compared with those who did not report being lonely at baseline (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.47).
Participants who reported having consistently high loneliness across both time points had a 56% increased risk for incident stroke vs those who did not report loneliness at both time points after adjusting for social isolation and depression (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18).
The researchers did not investigate any of the underlying issues that may contribute to the association between loneliness and stroke risk, but speculated there may be physiological factors at play. These could include inflammation caused by increased hypothalamic pituitary-adrenocortical activity, behavioral factors such as poor medication adherence, smoking and/or alcohol use, and psychosocial issues.
Those who experience chronic loneliness may represent individuals that are unable to develop or maintain satisfying social relationships, which may result in longer-term interpersonal difficulties, Dr. Soh noted.
“Since loneliness is a highly subjective experience, seeking help to address and intervene to address a patient’s specific personal needs is important. It’s important to distinguish loneliness from social isolation,” said Dr. Soh.
She added that “by screening for loneliness and providing care or referring patients to relevant behavioral healthcare providers, clinicians can play a crucial role in addressing loneliness and its associated health risks early on to help reduce the population burden of loneliness.”
Progressive Research
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Elaine Jones, MD, medical director of Access TeleCare, who was not involved in the research, applauded the investigators for “advancing the topic by looking at the chronicity aspect of loneliness.”
She said more research is needed to investigate loneliness as a stroke risk factor and noted that there may be something inherently different among respondents who reported loneliness at both study time points.
“Personality types may play a role here. We know people with positive attitudes and outlooks can do better in challenging health situations than people who are negative in their attitudes, regardless of depression. Perhaps those who feel lonely initially decided to do something about it and join groups, take up a hobby, or re-engage with family or friends. Perhaps the people who are chronically lonely don’t, or can’t, do this,” Dr. Jones said.
Chronic loneliness can cause stress, she added, “and we know that stress chemicals and hormones can be harmful to health over long durations of time.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. There were no conflicts of interest noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults older than 50 years who report experiencing persistently high levels of loneliness have a 56% increased risk for stroke, a new study showed.
The increased stroke risk did not apply to individuals who reported experiencing situational loneliness, a finding that investigators believe bolsters the hypothesis that chronic loneliness is driving the association.
“Our findings suggest that individuals who experience chronic loneliness are at higher risk for incident stroke,” lead investigator Yenee Soh, ScD, research associate of social and behavioral sciences in the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization. “It is important to routinely assess loneliness, as the consequences may be worse if unidentified and/or ignored.”
The findings were published online in eClinicalMedicine.
Significant, Chronic Health Consequences
Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, loneliness is at an all-time high. A 2023 Surgeon General’s report highlighted the fact that loneliness and social isolation are linked to significant and chronic health consequences.
Previous research has linked loneliness to cardiovascular disease, yet few studies have examined the association between loneliness and stroke risk. The current study is one of the first to examine the association between changes in loneliness and stroke risk over time.
Using data from the 2006-2018 Health and Retirement Study, researchers assessed the link between loneliness and incident stroke over time. Between 2006 and 2008, 12,161 study participants, who were all older than 50 years with no history of stroke, responded to questions from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. From these responses, researchers created summary loneliness scores.
Four years later, from 2010 to 2012, the 8936 remaining study participants responded to the same 20 questions again. Based on loneliness scores across the two time points, participants were divided into four groups:
- Consistently low (those who scored low on the loneliness scale at both baseline and follow-up).
- Remitting (those who scored high at baseline and low at follow-up).
- Recent onset (those who scored low at baseline and high at follow-up).
- Consistently high (those who scored high at both baseline and follow-up).
Incident stroke was determined by participant report and medical record data.
Among participants whose loneliness was measured at baseline only, 1237 strokes occurred during the 2006-2018 follow-up period. Among those who provided two loneliness assessments over time, 601 strokes occurred during the follow-up period.
Even after adjusting for social isolation, depressive symptoms, physical activity, body mass index, and other health conditions, investigators found that participants who reported being lonely at baseline only had a 25% increased stroke risk, compared with those who did not report being lonely at baseline (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.47).
Participants who reported having consistently high loneliness across both time points had a 56% increased risk for incident stroke vs those who did not report loneliness at both time points after adjusting for social isolation and depression (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18).
The researchers did not investigate any of the underlying issues that may contribute to the association between loneliness and stroke risk, but speculated there may be physiological factors at play. These could include inflammation caused by increased hypothalamic pituitary-adrenocortical activity, behavioral factors such as poor medication adherence, smoking and/or alcohol use, and psychosocial issues.
Those who experience chronic loneliness may represent individuals that are unable to develop or maintain satisfying social relationships, which may result in longer-term interpersonal difficulties, Dr. Soh noted.
“Since loneliness is a highly subjective experience, seeking help to address and intervene to address a patient’s specific personal needs is important. It’s important to distinguish loneliness from social isolation,” said Dr. Soh.
She added that “by screening for loneliness and providing care or referring patients to relevant behavioral healthcare providers, clinicians can play a crucial role in addressing loneliness and its associated health risks early on to help reduce the population burden of loneliness.”
Progressive Research
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Elaine Jones, MD, medical director of Access TeleCare, who was not involved in the research, applauded the investigators for “advancing the topic by looking at the chronicity aspect of loneliness.”
She said more research is needed to investigate loneliness as a stroke risk factor and noted that there may be something inherently different among respondents who reported loneliness at both study time points.
“Personality types may play a role here. We know people with positive attitudes and outlooks can do better in challenging health situations than people who are negative in their attitudes, regardless of depression. Perhaps those who feel lonely initially decided to do something about it and join groups, take up a hobby, or re-engage with family or friends. Perhaps the people who are chronically lonely don’t, or can’t, do this,” Dr. Jones said.
Chronic loneliness can cause stress, she added, “and we know that stress chemicals and hormones can be harmful to health over long durations of time.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. There were no conflicts of interest noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults older than 50 years who report experiencing persistently high levels of loneliness have a 56% increased risk for stroke, a new study showed.
The increased stroke risk did not apply to individuals who reported experiencing situational loneliness, a finding that investigators believe bolsters the hypothesis that chronic loneliness is driving the association.
“Our findings suggest that individuals who experience chronic loneliness are at higher risk for incident stroke,” lead investigator Yenee Soh, ScD, research associate of social and behavioral sciences in the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, told this news organization. “It is important to routinely assess loneliness, as the consequences may be worse if unidentified and/or ignored.”
The findings were published online in eClinicalMedicine.
Significant, Chronic Health Consequences
Exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, loneliness is at an all-time high. A 2023 Surgeon General’s report highlighted the fact that loneliness and social isolation are linked to significant and chronic health consequences.
Previous research has linked loneliness to cardiovascular disease, yet few studies have examined the association between loneliness and stroke risk. The current study is one of the first to examine the association between changes in loneliness and stroke risk over time.
Using data from the 2006-2018 Health and Retirement Study, researchers assessed the link between loneliness and incident stroke over time. Between 2006 and 2008, 12,161 study participants, who were all older than 50 years with no history of stroke, responded to questions from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale. From these responses, researchers created summary loneliness scores.
Four years later, from 2010 to 2012, the 8936 remaining study participants responded to the same 20 questions again. Based on loneliness scores across the two time points, participants were divided into four groups:
- Consistently low (those who scored low on the loneliness scale at both baseline and follow-up).
- Remitting (those who scored high at baseline and low at follow-up).
- Recent onset (those who scored low at baseline and high at follow-up).
- Consistently high (those who scored high at both baseline and follow-up).
Incident stroke was determined by participant report and medical record data.
Among participants whose loneliness was measured at baseline only, 1237 strokes occurred during the 2006-2018 follow-up period. Among those who provided two loneliness assessments over time, 601 strokes occurred during the follow-up period.
Even after adjusting for social isolation, depressive symptoms, physical activity, body mass index, and other health conditions, investigators found that participants who reported being lonely at baseline only had a 25% increased stroke risk, compared with those who did not report being lonely at baseline (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.06-1.47).
Participants who reported having consistently high loneliness across both time points had a 56% increased risk for incident stroke vs those who did not report loneliness at both time points after adjusting for social isolation and depression (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.11-2.18).
The researchers did not investigate any of the underlying issues that may contribute to the association between loneliness and stroke risk, but speculated there may be physiological factors at play. These could include inflammation caused by increased hypothalamic pituitary-adrenocortical activity, behavioral factors such as poor medication adherence, smoking and/or alcohol use, and psychosocial issues.
Those who experience chronic loneliness may represent individuals that are unable to develop or maintain satisfying social relationships, which may result in longer-term interpersonal difficulties, Dr. Soh noted.
“Since loneliness is a highly subjective experience, seeking help to address and intervene to address a patient’s specific personal needs is important. It’s important to distinguish loneliness from social isolation,” said Dr. Soh.
She added that “by screening for loneliness and providing care or referring patients to relevant behavioral healthcare providers, clinicians can play a crucial role in addressing loneliness and its associated health risks early on to help reduce the population burden of loneliness.”
Progressive Research
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Elaine Jones, MD, medical director of Access TeleCare, who was not involved in the research, applauded the investigators for “advancing the topic by looking at the chronicity aspect of loneliness.”
She said more research is needed to investigate loneliness as a stroke risk factor and noted that there may be something inherently different among respondents who reported loneliness at both study time points.
“Personality types may play a role here. We know people with positive attitudes and outlooks can do better in challenging health situations than people who are negative in their attitudes, regardless of depression. Perhaps those who feel lonely initially decided to do something about it and join groups, take up a hobby, or re-engage with family or friends. Perhaps the people who are chronically lonely don’t, or can’t, do this,” Dr. Jones said.
Chronic loneliness can cause stress, she added, “and we know that stress chemicals and hormones can be harmful to health over long durations of time.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. There were no conflicts of interest noted.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BP Disorder in Pregnancy Tied to Young-Onset Dementia Risk
TOPLINE:
A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
- Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
- Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
- The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
- Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.
“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”
SOURCE:
Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
- Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
- Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
- The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
- Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.
“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”
SOURCE:
Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new analysis showed that preeclampsia is associated with an increased risk for young-onset dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the French Conception study, a nationwide prospective cohort study of more than 1.9 million pregnancies.
- Mothers were followed for an average of 9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Nearly 3% of the mothers had preeclampsia, and 128 developed young-onset dementia.
- Preeclampsia was associated with a 2.65-fold increased risk for young-onset dementia after adjusting for obesity, diabetes, smoking, drug or alcohol addiction, and social deprivation.
- The risk was greater when preeclampsia occurred before 34 weeks of gestation (hazard ratio [HR], 4.15) or was superimposed on chronic hypertension (HR, 4.76).
- Prior research has found an association between preeclampsia and vascular dementia, but this analysis “is the first to show an increase in early-onset dementia risk,” the authors of the study wrote.
IN PRACTICE:
“Individuals who have had preeclampsia should be reassured that young-onset dementia remains a very rare condition. Their absolute risk increases only imperceptibly,” Stephen Tong, PhD, and Roxanne Hastie, PhD, both with the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, wrote in a related commentary about the findings.
“Individuals who have been affected by preeclampsia in a prior pregnancy might instead focus on reducing their risk of developing the many chronic health ailments that are far more common,” they added. “Although it is yet to be proven in clinical trials, it is plausible that after an episode of preeclampsia, adopting a healthy lifestyle may improve vascular health and reduce the risk of many serious cardiovascular conditions.”
SOURCE:
Valérie Olié, PhD, of the Santé Publique France in Saint-Maurice, France, was the corresponding author on the paper. The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The investigators relied on hospital records to identify cases of dementia, which may have led to underestimation of incidence of the disease.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the French Hypertension Society, the French Hypertension Research Foundation, and the French Cardiology Federation. A co-author disclosed personal fees from pharmaceutical companies.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Online Tool Predicts Real-World Driving Ability of Older Drivers
An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .
The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
Algorithm Available for Providers
The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.
Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.
“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.
A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.
A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.
“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.
For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
Limitations of the Study
There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.
Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.
“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.
The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.
An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .
The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
Algorithm Available for Providers
The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.
Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.
“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.
A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.
A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.
“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.
For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
Limitations of the Study
There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.
Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.
“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.
The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.
An algorithm using two well-known tests has shown strong accuracy (91%) in predicting whether an older driver can pass an on-road driving evaluation according to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Directors Association .
The Fit2Drive algorithm combines the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a 30-point dementia screening tool that has been found in several studies to have an association with driving ability, and the Trails B test, which gauges cognitive flexibility and set-shifting (task switching), considered to be measures of executive functioning.
Algorithm Available for Providers
The algorithm is clinically available and providers can fill in patients’ information and results of the two tests at the Fit2Drive website. Results may help physicians with often-difficult conversations with older patients about driving when they present with cognitive concerns.
Families report it is one of the most difficult conversations they have with a loved one and doctors are often asked to be part of the conversation. This is particularly difficult when, often, little objective information is available. In the past, a clinical rule of thumb has been that people diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease or related dementias (ADRD) will usually be able to drive for 3 years after diagnosis.
“[T]he anger, tears, and frustration on the part of the individual patient and the lack of objective data to guide provider recommendations are the driving forces behind our effort to develop a highly accurate, evidence-based predictor of the ability to pass an on-road driving test,” the authors write. They added that the goal of the study was to identify the smallest number of cognitive test results that could predict likelihood of passing an on-road driver evaluation.
A number of tests were evaluated for the algorithm, but the combination of Trails B in seconds and MMSE using the highest scores of the serial 7s (counting back from 100 by 7s) or WORLD spelled backward accounted for the highest correlation with passing the on-road driving test, according to the authors, led by Ruth Tappen, EdD, FN, with the Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, in Boca Raton.
A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was conducted on the linear combination of the two assessments.
“Because an ROC of 0.70 is considered to be the minimal requirement [for predictive value], 0.80 is considered good, and higher than 0.90 is excellent, these findings [with 91% area under the curve] suggest excellent accuracy using these two cognitive tests in this population,” the authors write.
For this analysis, researchers included 412 older drivers (179 men and 233 women) with an average age of 80. T he study was conducted at the Florida Atlantic University’s Memory Center and Clinical Research Unit. Participants included those who received a driving evaluation at the Memory Center and agreed to have their results included in the Driving Repository, and community-based older drivers who volunteered to participate.
Limitations of the Study
There were marginal differences between sexes on the measures, but they were not significant. The sample was composed of relatively well-educated people, primarily of European American ethnic origin, which is a consideration in generalizing the results.
Among other limitations are that physical and sensory factors, in addition to cognitive issues, may affect an individual’s ability to drive safely and are not included in the algorithm. Sensory disabilities, including reduced visual acuity caused by binocular field vision loss, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, and other conditions, may affect driving ability as well as the ability to fully rotate the head and neck. Medical conditions affecting the cardiovascular, neurological, and orthopedic systems can also influence driving ability.
“Future studies should involve more diverse samples and a greater variety of driving challenges, including school zones and multilane highways, which are not included in the study,” the authors write.
The study received grant support from the State of Florida Department of Health and the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.
FROM JAMDA