Neurology

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with accelerated brain aging and a higher risk for early dementia, regardless of income level or education, new research suggested.

Analysis of two datasets revealed that people living in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a more than 20% higher risk for dementia than those in other areas and measurably poorer brain health as early as age 45, regardless of their own personal income and education.

“If you want to prevent dementia and you’re not asking someone about their neighborhood, you’re missing information that’s important to know,” lead author Aaron Reuben, PhD, postdoctoral scholar in neuropsychology and environmental health at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.

Higher Risk in Men

Few interventions exist to halt or delay the progression of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), which has increasingly led to a focus on primary prevention.

Although previous research pointed to a link between socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods and a greater risk for cognitive deficits, mild cognitive impairment, dementia, and poor brain health, the timeline for the emergence of that risk is unknown.

To fill in the gaps, investigators studied data on all 1.4 million New Zealand residents, dividing neighborhoods into quintiles based on level of disadvantage (assessed by the New Zealand Index of Deprivation) to see whether dementia diagnoses followed neighborhood socioeconomic gradients.

After adjusting for covariates, they found that overall, those living in disadvantaged areas were slightly more likely to develop dementia across the 20-year study period (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.10).

The more disadvantaged the neighborhood, the higher the dementia risk, with a 43% higher risk for ADRD among those in the highest quintile than among those in the lowest quintile (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.36-1.49).

The effect was larger in men than in women and in younger vs older individuals, with the youngest age group showing 21% greater risk in women and 26% greater risk in men vs the oldest age group.

Dementia Prevention Starts Early

Researchers then turned to the Dunedin Study, a cohort of 938 New Zealanders (50% female) followed from birth to age 45 to track their psychological, social, and physiological health with brain scans, memory tests, and cognitive self-assessments.

The analysis suggested that by age 45, those living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods across adulthood had accumulated a significantly greater number of midlife risk factors for later ADRD.

They also had worse structural brain integrity, with each standard deviation increase in neighborhood disadvantage resulting in a thinner cortex, greater white matter hyperintensities volume, and older brain age.

Those living in poorer areas had lower cognitive test scores, reported more issues with everyday cognitive function, and showed a greater reduction in IQ from childhood to midlife. Analysis of brain scans also revealed mean brain ages 2.98 years older than those living in the least disadvantaged areas (P = .001).

Limitations included the study’s observational design, which could not establish causation, and the fact that the researchers did not have access to individual-level socioeconomic information for the entire population. Additionally, brain-integrity measures in the Dunedin Study were largely cross-sectional.

“If you want to truly prevent dementia, you’ve got to start early because 20 years before anyone will get a diagnosis, we’re seeing dementia’s emergence,” Dr. Reuben said. “And it could be even earlier.”

Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes for Health; UK Medical Research Council; Health Research Council of New Zealand; Brain Research New Zealand; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment; and the Duke University and the University of North Carolina Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center. The authors declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Vitamin D deficiency is independently linked to the risk for diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) by potentially affecting large nerve fibers in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Although previous research has shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk for peripheral neuropathy, its effects on large and small nerve fiber lesions have not been well explored yet.
• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study to understand the association between vitamin D deficiency and DPN development in 230 older patients (mean age, 67 years) with T2D for about 15 years who were recruited from Beijing Hospital between 2020 and 2023.
• All patients were evaluated for DPN based on poor blood sugar control or symptoms such as pain and sensory abnormalities, of which 175 patients diagnosed with DPN were propensity-matched with 55 patients without DPN.
• Vitamin D deficiency, defined as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D circulating levels below 20 ng/mL, was reported in 169 patients.
• Large nerve fiber lesions were evaluated using electromyography, and small nerve fiber lesions were assessed by measuring skin conductance.

TAKEAWAY:

• Vitamin D deficiency was more likely to affect large fiber lesions, suggested by longer median sensory nerve latency, minimum latency of the F-wave, and median nerve motor evoked potential latency than those in the vitamin D–sufficient group.
• Furthermore, vitamin D deficiency was linked to large fiber neuropathy with increased odds of prolongation of motor nerve latency (odds ratio, 1.362; P = .038).
• The electrochemical skin conductance, which indicates damage to small nerve fibers, was comparable between patients with and without vitamin D deficiency.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practice application.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sijia Fei, Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, and was published online in Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Skin biopsy, the “gold-standard” for quantifying intraepidermal nerve fiber density, was not used to assess small nerve fiber lesions. Additionally, a causal link between vitamin D deficiency and diabetic nerve damage was not established owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Some patients with T2D may have been receiving insulin therapy, which may have affected vitamin D levels.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China and China National Key R&D Program. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In middle-aged men at high risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), higher pancreatic fat is linked to lower cognition and brain volumes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Obesity is a well-known risk factor for poorer cognition and dementia, but the distribution of body fat may influence the risk and underlying mechanisms in the fat-brain-cognition pathway.
• The study examined associations of several abdominal fat depots with cognitive functioning and AD-related brain volumes.
• The study sample included 204 men and women from the Israel Registry for Alzheimer’s Prevention (mean age, 59 years; 60% women) who had a high AD risk due to parental family history.
• Abdominal MRI scans assessed fat stored as subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) beneath the skin, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) around abdominal organs, and ectopic, a harmful condition in which lipids accumulate in lean tissues such as the liver and pancreas.
• A structural volumetric brain MRI scan was undertaken by 142 participants to assess specific regions implicated in chosen previous research.

TAKEAWAY:

• High body mass index was associated with high pancreatic fat percentage in both men and women (P < .001) and with high SAT percentage in women (P = .01) but not with VAT percentage in either sex.
• After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors, a higher pancreatic fat percentage was linked to lower global cognition (beta, −0.33; P = .02) and executive function (beta, −0.32; P = .02) in men, and with lower hippocampal volume in women (beta, −0.25; P = .03).
• In men only, a higher SAT percentage was associated with a lower middle frontal gyrus volume (beta, −0.27; P = .03), while a higher VAT percentage was linked to higher middle frontal gyrus (beta, 0.29; P = .03) and superior frontal gyrus volumes (beta, 0.31; P = .02).
• Hepatic fat was not associated with brain volumes or cognition in either men or women.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that already in midlife, abdominal fat accumulation may have deleterious effects on brain health, especially in men,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Sapir G. Shekhtman, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel, and published online in Obesity (Silver Spring).

LIMITATIONS:

No causal inferences could be drawn from this study due to its cross-sectional nature. It did not represent the population of middle-aged adults as a whole, but rather those at high risk of developing AD. Factors contributing to fat accumulation, such as menopausal status or treatment, inflammation, insulin resistance, daily exercise, and dietary factors, were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cervical manipulations have been associated with vascular complications. While the incidence of carotid dissections does not seem to have increased, the question remains open for vertebral artery injuries. We must remain vigilant!

Resorting to joint manipulation for neck pain is not unusual. Currently, cervical manipulation remains a popular first-line treatment for cervicodynia or headaches. Although evidence exists showing that specific joint mobilization can improve this type of symptomatology, there is a possibility that it may risk damaging the cervical arteries and causing ischemic stroke through arterial dissection.

Epidemiologically, internal carotid artery dissection is a relatively rare event with an estimated annual incidence of 1.72 per 100,000 individuals (those most likely to be diagnosed being obviously those leading to hospitalization for stroke) but represents one of the most common causes of stroke in young and middle-aged adults. Faced with case reports that may raise concerns and hypotheses about an associated risk, two studies have sought to delve into the issue.
 

No Increased Carotid Risk Identified

The first study, of a case-cross design, identified all incident cases of ischemic stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery admitted to the hospital over a 9-year period using administrative healthcare data, the cases being used as their own control by sampling control periods before the date of the index stroke. Thus, 15,523 cases were compared with 62,092 control periods using exposure windows of 1, 3, 7, and 14 days before the stroke. The study also compared post-medical consultation and post-chiropractic consultation outcomes, knowing that as a first-line for complaints of neck pain or headache, patients often turn to one of these two types of primary care clinicians.

However, data analysis shows, among subjects aged under 45 years, positive associations for both different consultations in cases of subsequent carotid stroke (but no association for those aged over 45 years). These associations tended to increase when analyses were limited to visits for diagnoses of neck pain and headaches. Nevertheless, there was no significant difference between risk estimates after chiropractic or general medical consultation.

A notable limitation of this work is that it did not focus on strokes due to vertebral artery dissections that run through the transverse foramina of the cervical vertebrae.
 

A Screening Test Lacking Precision

More recently, the International Federation of Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapists has looked into the subject to refine the assessment of the risk for vascular complications in patients seeking physiotherapy/osteopathy care for neck pain and/or headaches. Through a cross-sectional study involving 150 patients, it tested a vascular complication risk index (from high to low grade, based on history taking and clinical examination), developed to estimate the risk for the presence of vascular rather than musculoskeletal pathology, to determine whether or not there is a contraindication to cervical manipulation.

However, the developed index had only low sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.61) and moderate specificity (0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75), knowing that the reference test was a consensus medical decision made by a vascular neurologist, an interventional neurologist, and a neuroradiologist (based on clinical data and cervical MRI). Similarly, positive and negative likelihood ratios were low at 1.36 (95% CI, 0.93-1.99) and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05), respectively.

In conclusion, the data from the case-cross study did not seem to demonstrate an excess risk for stroke in the territory of the internal carotid artery after cervical joint manipulations. Associations between cervical manipulation sessions or medical consultations and carotid strokes appear similar and could have been due to the fact that patients with early symptoms related to arterial dissection seek care before developing their stroke.

However, it is regrettable that the study did not focus on vertebral artery dissections, which are anatomically more exposed to cervical chiropractic sessions. Nevertheless, because indices defined from joint tests and medical history are insufficient to identify patients “at risk or in the process of arterial dissection,” and because stroke can result in severe disability, practitioners managing patients with neck pain cannot take this type of complication lightly.

This story was translated from JIM using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New research shows increased screen time in children aged 12-36 months is associated with reduced verbal interactions between toddlers and their parents, which in turn could affect language development. 

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included data from 220 families in Australia.
• Researchers used advanced speech recognition technology to capture children’s screen time and language environment at home during a 16-hour window every 6 months.
• They adjusted for variables such as the sex of the child, the education level of the mother, and psychological distress in the primary caregiver.

TAKEAWAY: 

• Increases in screen time were associated with decreases in words spoken near children by adults, vocalizations by children, and back-and-forth interactions between adults and children. This correlation was especially notable at age 36 months.
• At age 36 months, each additional minute of screen time was linked to children hearing 6.6 fewer adult words, making 4.9 fewer vocalizations, and participating in 1.1 fewer conversational interactions.
• Based on the average daily screen time at that age seen in the study — 172 minutes (2.87 hours) — “children could be missing out on 1139 adult words, 843 vocalizations, and 194 conversational turns per day,” the researchers estimated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Identifying different ways that screen time could facilitate parent-child interactions, such as through interactive co-viewing, may be important strategies to support families given the current ubiquitous nature of screen time in families’ lives,” the authors of the study wrote.

What children watch and listen to may be an important consideration, according to a developmental scientist who was not involved with the study.

“It could be that less communicative contact with the caregiver is not as detrimental if the screen time is of high quality and developmentally appropriate, educational content,” Marina Bazhydai, PhD, with Lancaster University in Lancaster, United Kingdom, said in her comments on the research. 

SOURCE:

Mary E. Brushe, PhD, with Telethon Kids Institute and the University of Western Australia in Adelaide, was the corresponding author of the study. The research was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s reliance on speech recognition technology did not capture all nuances of screen exposure.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

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 appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Skipping meals, mood and anxiety disorders, as well as vaping and substance use, all raise the risk for frequent recurrent headaches in children and adolescents, new data from a population-based study showed.

Children and teens with anxiety or mood disorders had twice the risk for frequent headaches, defined as occurring once or more per week, and those who regularly ate breakfast and dinners with their family had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who did not eat regular meals.

“It is not uncommon for children and teens to have headaches, and while medications are used to stop and sometimes prevent headaches, lifestyle changes also may offer an effective route to relief by preventing headaches from happening and improving quality of life,” study investigator Serena L. Orr, MD, MSc, University of Calgary in Alberta, Canada, said in a press release.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Negative Consequences

Previous research shows frequent recurrent headaches occur in up to 30% of children and adolescents and can lead to lower academic achievement and lower quality of life.

Treatment recommendations often focus on adjusting lifestyle behaviors, such as sleep and meal timing or smoking.

To further investigate these links, researchers used data from the 2019 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth and included about 5 million children and teens aged 5-17 years. In most cases, a parent or guardian answered the survey questions.

In addition to assessing participants for headache frequency in the past week, the survey included questions about how often they had breakfast, were physically active, or spent playing video games or with a mobile device, for instance. Parents/guardians were also asked whether the youth had ever been diagnosed with a mood or anxiety disorder.

For participants aged between 12 and 17 years, there were also questions about smoking, alcohol consumption, and substance use.

The mean age of participants was 11 years, and 48% were female. About 6% of the participants had frequent recurrent headaches.

Investigators found that meal regularity was inversely associated with frequent headaches (P < .001). In an adjusted model, youth who often ate breakfast and dinner with their families had an 8% lower risk for frequent headaches than those who didn’t dine with their families regularly.

“It is possible regular family meals may lead to greater connectedness and communication within the family and better mental health outcomes, which in turn may impact headache frequency,” Dr. Orr noted.

Youth who spent more than 21 hours per week in front of computer screens or with video games had higher odds for frequent headaches (P < .001), but this association did not survive statistical adjustment for demographics or lifestyle factors.

Both mood and anxiety disorders were associated with twice the risk for frequent headaches, and this risk survived adjustment for age, sex, household income, and other lifestyle factors.

In adolescents aged 12-17 years, there was an association between drinking alcohol and frequent headache, with higher alcohol consumption increasing the likelihood of frequent headache. For instance, those who drank once or more per week had three times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001), and those who indulged in binge drinking at least five times per month had five times the risk for frequent headache (P < .001).

Smoking cannabis was also associated with frequent headache in a dose-dependent manner. Daily users had a threefold increased risk for frequent headache vs those who didn’t use cannabis (P < .001).

Similarly, those who smoked or used e-cigarettes daily also had a threefold increased risk for frequent headaches versus nonusers.

One of the study’s limitations was that it didn’t include participants living in foster homes, institutions or on First Nation reserves. Investigators also were not able to determine headache type and did not assess hydration, which can be an important lifestyle factor in headache etiology.
 

Prioritize Questions About Lifestyle?

In an accompanying editorial, Irene Patniyot, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, noted that lifestyle advice is an important part of managing headache disorders in children and youth and questioned whether neurologists should prioritize discussions about lifestyle habits in this patient population. However, she noted, given the heavy demands on neurologists’ time, this may be “idealistic.”

One potential solution may lie in automating electronic questionnaires for inclusion in patients’ medical records. “Data extraction from electronic questionnaires has already led to new data on symptoms associated with headache in youth and can potentially lead to earlier identification and treatment of mental health disorders and lifestyle habits that negatively affect headache burden and overall well-being,” Dr. Patniyot wrote.

The study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and Statistics Canada. Dr. Orr reported receiving royalties from Cambridge University Press; serving on the editorial boards of Headache, Neurology, and the American Migraine Foundation; and receiving research funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. Other disclosures were noted in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Epilepsy was linked to a significantly increased the risk for hospitalization and death from COVID-19 early in the pandemic, while healthcare utilization rates in this patient population declined, data from two linked studies showed. 

Results showed that individuals with epilepsy had a 60% higher risk for hospitalization and a 33% higher risk of dying from COVID-19 than those without the disorder. However, during the pandemic, the number of hospitalizations and ER visits by people with epilepsy dropped by as much as 30%. 

“The neurotropic effects of Sars-CoV-2 might explain some of this increased risk for people with epilepsy, or epilepsy might be associated with alterations in the immune system, predisposing to more severe COVID-19,” wrote the investigators, led by Owen Pickrell, MBBChirm, PhD, Swansea University, United Kingdom.

The findings were published online March 5 in Epilepsia. 
 

Skill Shifting 

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological conditions and affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with significant comorbidity and an increased risk for early death.

During the pandemic, clinicians treating people with epilepsy and other conditions shifted their skills to treat an ever-increasing number of patients with COVID-19, which may have hindered epilepsy-specific services for a time.

To further explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the health of this patient population, researchers analyzed health records from a large database with information about hospital admissions, primary care visits, COVID-19 vaccination status, and demographics of 90% of Welsh residents.

Those living with epilepsy before or during the study period (March 1, 2020, to June 31, 2021) were identified and compared with controls without epilepsy. 

The analysis included approximately 27,280 people with epilepsy and 136,400 matched controls. Among those with epilepsy, there were 158 deaths (0.58%) and 933 hospitalizations (3.4%). In comparison, there were 370 deaths (0.27%) and 1871 hospitalizations (1.4%) in the control group.

Unadjusted analyses showed the risk of dying from COVID-19 for those with epilepsy vs controls was more than twofold higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI; 1.78-2.59) and the increase in the risk for hospitalization was similar (HR, 2.15; 95% CI; 1.94-2.37). 

After adjusting for 40 comorbidities, including serious mental illness, asthma, and diabetes, those with epilepsy had a 60% increased risk for hospitalization (adjusted HR [aHR], 1.60) and a 33% increased risk for death (aHR, 1.33) than those without epilepsy (all P < .0001). 

The findings “may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for people with epilepsy,” the investigators wrote.

Study limitations included the inability to account for the effect of vaccinations or prior infections with SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, the study did not account for geographical or temporal variations in prevalence and COVID-19 variants. 
 

Consultations Canceled 

In the related study, researchers analyzed healthcare utilization by people with epilepsy before and after the pandemic using the same database. Results showed hospital admissions, ER visits, and outpatient visits significantly decreased during the pandemic. 

In the year before the pandemic, people with epilepsy had double the rate of ER visits (rate ratio [RR], 2.36), hospital admissions (RR, 2.08), and outpatient appointments (RR, 1.92) compared with matched controls. 

However, during the pandemic there was a greater reduction in hospital admissions (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.69-0.72) and ER visits (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.77-0.70) in those with epilepsy versus matched controls (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81-0.83) as well as hospital visits and ER visits (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86-0.88; all P < .0001). New epilepsy diagnoses also decreased during the pandemic (RR, 0.73; P < .0001)

The redeployment of epileptologists during the pandemic also meant that epilepsy consultations and investigations were canceled, making it harder for people with epilepsy to access specialty care, the researchers noted. 

“Our research also showed that there were fewer new diagnoses of epilepsy and fewer contacts with health services by people with epilepsy, during the period we examined,” Huw Strafford, lead data analyst for the studies, said in a release.

Both studies were funded by Health and Care Research Wales. Dr. Pickrell reported receiving speaker fees from UCB Pharma and Angelini Pharma, travel grants from Angelini Pharma, and an unrestricted grant from UCB Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, and other neurological conditions are now the leading cause of health loss and disability around the world, affecting nearly half of the world’s population, a new comprehensive analysis showed.

In 2021, neurological conditions were responsible for 443 million years of healthy life lost due to illness, disability, and premature death — a measurement known as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) — making them the top contributor to the global disease burden, ahead of cardiovascular diseases.

Some 3.4 billion people — 43% of the entire global population — had a neurological illness in 2021, the report noted.

“As the world’s leading cause of overall disease burden, and with case numbers rising 59% globally since 1990, nervous system conditions must be addressed through effective, culturally acceptable, and affordable prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and long-term care strategies,” lead author Jaimie Steinmetz, PhD, from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), University of Washington, Seattle, said in a news release. 

The findings, from the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021, “have important health service and policy implications and serve as evidence that global neurological heath loss has been under-recognized and is increasing and unevenly distributed geographically and socioeconomically,” the authors noted.

The study was published online in The Lancet: Neurology.
 

The Top 10

The top 10 contributors to neurological health loss in 2021 were stroke, neonatal encephalopathy, migraine, Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias, diabetic neuropathy, meningitis, epilepsy, neurological complications from preterm birth, autistic spectrum disorders, and nervous system cancers.

Neurological consequences of COVID-19 ranked 20th out of 37 unique conditions assessed.

In 2021, there were more than 23 million global cases of COVID-19 with long-term cognitive symptoms or Guillain-Barré syndrome, accounting for 57% of all infectious neurological disease cases and contributing to 2.48 million years of healthy life lost, the study found.

The most prevalent neurological disorders were tension-type headache (about 2 billion cases) and migraine (about 1.1 billion cases), while diabetic neuropathy is the fastest-growing of all neurological conditions.

“The number of people with diabetic neuropathy has more than tripled globally since 1990, rising to 206 million in 2021. This is in line with the increase in the global prevalence of diabetes,” co-senior author Liane Ong, PhD, from IHME, said in the release.

The data showed striking differences in the burden of neurological conditions between world regions and national income levels, with over 80% of neurological deaths and health loss occurring in low- and middle-income countries.

Regions with the highest burden of neurological conditions were central and western sub-Saharan Africa, while high-income Asia Pacific and Australasia had the lowest burden.

“Nervous system health loss disproportionately impacts many of the poorest countries partly due to the higher prevalence of conditions affecting neonates and children under 5, especially birth-related complications and infections,” co-senior author Tarun Dua, MD, with the World Health Organization (WHO) brain health unit, noted in the news release.

“Improved infant survival has led to an increase in long-term disability, while limited access to treatment and rehabilitation services is contributing to the much higher proportion of deaths in these countries,” Dr. Dua said.
 

Prioritize Prevention

The analysis also provides estimates of the proportion of neurological conditions that are potentially preventable by eliminating known risk factors for stroke, dementia, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, encephalitis, meningitis, and intellectual disability.

It shows that modifying 18 risk factors over a person’s lifetime — most importantly high systolic blood pressure — could prevent 84% of global DALYs from stroke. Controlling lead exposure could lower intellectual disability cases by 63% and reducing high fasting plasma glucose to normal levels could cut dementia by roughly 15%.

“Because many neurological conditions lack cures, and access to medical care is often limited, understanding modifiable risk factors and the potentially avoidable neurological condition burden is essential to help curb this global health crisis,” co-lead author Katrin Seeher, PhD, mental health specialist with WHO’s brain health unit, said in the release.

It’s important to note that nervous system conditions include infectious and vector-borne diseases and injuries as well as noncommunicable diseases and injuries, Dr. Steinmetz said, “demanding different strategies for prevention and treatment throughout life.”

“We hope that our findings can help policymakers more comprehensively understand the impact of neurological conditions on both adults and children to inform more targeted interventions in individual countries, as well as guide ongoing awareness and advocacy efforts around the world,” Dr. Steinmetz added.

In an accompanying editorial, Wolfgang Grisold, MD, president of the World Federation of Neurology, London, noted that the study builds on previous findings and expands the number of neurological conditions studied from 15 to 37.

“This important new GBD report highlights that the burden of neurological conditions is greater than previously thought,” wrote Dr. Grisold, who was not a part of the study. “In the next iteration, more attention should be given to neuromuscular diseases, the effects of cancer in the nervous system, and neuropathic pain. Comparing the disability caused by conditions with episodic occurrence versus those that cause permanent and progressive disease will remain challenging because the effects on the individuals vary substantially.”

The study was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

They have gone by many different names over the centuries: hysteria, psychosomatic illnesses, psychogenic neurological disorders, conversion disorders, dissociative neurological symptom disorders. The terminology may change, but functional neurological disorders by any other name are still real and serious yet treatable phenomena.

Functional neurological disorders, or FNDs, live at the crossroads of neurology and psychiatry, and they are as much a product of the body as they are of the brain, say neurologists who specialize in treating these complex and clinically challenging conditions.

“Whether they’re easily recognized or not depends on someone’s training and experience in this regard,” said Mark Hallett, MD, of the Human Motor Control Section of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland.

“The difficulty has been that there hasn’t been very good education about functional disorders over the last 50 years or so,” he said in an interview.

However, with training and experience, clinicians can learn to identify these common and disabling conditions, Dr. Hallett said.
 

Varying Definitions

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) labels FND as “conversion disorder,” and lists diagnostic criteria that include “one or more symptoms of altered voluntary motor or sensory function; clinical findings provide evidence of incompatibility between the symptom and recognized neurological or medical conditions; the symptom or deficit is not better explained by another medical or mental disorder;” and “the symptom or deficit causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning or warrants medical evaluation.”

Dr. Hallett offers his own definition of FND, which includes the following characteristics:

• A neurological disorder, characterized by almost any type of neurological symptom
• Not voluntarily produced
• Caused by a brain network dysfunction that does not exclude the possibility of normal function
• Sometimes due in part to a psychological cause, and not explained by other neurological pathology that may or may not be present
• Symptoms may be inconsistent (variable) or incompatible (incongruent) with other known neurological disorders or human anatomy and physiology.

The two most common types of FND are psychogenic nonepileptic seizures and functional movement disorders, but patients may also have functional sensory, visual, auditory, speech, and urologic disorders, and even functional coma.

Dr. Hallett cited studies showing that an estimated 9% of neurology hospital admission are for FNDS, and that among patients in neurology clinics 5.4% had a diagnosis of FND, and 30% had an FND as part of the diagnosis.

Women comprise between 60% and 75% of the population with FNDs.
 

Diagnosis

FND is not, as once thought, a diagnosis of exclusion, but is based on signs and symptoms, which may be either inconsistent or irreversible and may occur in the absence of a stressor, said Sara Finkelstein, MD, MSc, of the Functional Neurological Disorder Unit in the Department of Neurology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

She emphasized that there are several diagnostic pitfalls that clinicians need to be aware of.

For example, “just because a patient has a psychiatric history does not mean that they have a functional neurological disorder,” she said in an interview.

Massachusetts General Hospital

Functional seizures

A definitive diagnosis can depend on the type of disorder.

“Many functional seizures have some clinical manifestations that are apparent, but as seizures are intermittent the doctor may not see one, and it may depend upon someone taking a video of the person with the seizure perhaps, or bringing them into a hospital and watching them until they do have the seizure,” Dr. Hallett said.

There are some manifestations that indicate the likelihood that a seizure has a functional origin, and when there is uncertainty EEG can help to nail down a diagnosis, he added.

Dr. Finkelstein noted that exam signs with good reliability for functional seizures include eye closure or resistance to opening; duration longer than 2 minutes; stopping and starting; asynchronous limb movements; patient maintenance of awareness during a generalized event; and ictal weeping.

Differential diagnoses included migraine with complex aura, dissociation related to posttraumatic stress disorder, or anxiety.
 

Functional movement disorders

Dr. Finkelstein cautioned that when evaluating patients for potential functional movement disorders, it’s important to not jump to conclusions.

For example, the amplitude of tremor can vary in Parkinson’s disease and essential tremor as well as in functional tremor. The clinician should not read too much into the observation that a patient’s tremor gets worse with increasing stress as stress can exacerbate most tremor types, she said.

One sign that tremor could be functional (dystonic tremor) is irregularity of amplitude and frequency, she noted.

When assessing patients with gait disorder, it’s important to understand that there is no single sign that is specially characteristic for a given disorder, and just because a patient has a “bizarre” gait, it doesn’t necessarily signal a functional disorder.

“A dystonic gait may improve with an alternate motor pattern or be inconsistent over time,” Dr. Finkelstein said.
 

Treatment

In a comprehensive review published in The Lancet: Neurology in 2022, Dr. Hallett and colleagues said that good doctor-patient communications and understanding of each patient’s needs and goals are essential for effective treatment of all FNDs.

“Neurologists have traditionally avoided taking responsibility for people with FND, although are often most appropriate to engage patients in treatment. Explaining the diagnosis with clarity, confidence, using the principles of a ‘rule in’ process, is a key step in treatment,” they wrote.

Treatment can take several forms, depending on the FND, and may include physiotherapy for patients with functional movement disorders and psychological therapy for patients with functional seizures.

“With increasing evidence-based treatment, the diagnosis of FND should be seen as a process of looking for potentially reversible cause of disability and distress whether or not an individual has abnormalities on conventional laboratory or radiological testing,” Dr. Hallett and colleagues concluded.

This article was based on interviews and from presentations by Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein at a 2023 meeting of the Indiana Neurological Society. Dr. Hallett and Dr. Finkelstein declared no conflicts of interest.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study from the United Kingdom provides greater clarity on how SARS-CoV-2 infection can affect cognition and memory, including novel data on how long brain fog may last after the illness resolves and which cognitive functions are most vulnerable. 

In a large community sample, researchers found that on average, people who had recovered from COVID-19 showed small cognitive deficits equivalent to a 3-point loss in IQ for up to 1 year or more after recovering from the acute illness compared with peers who never had COVID-19.

However, people who had more severe cases, requiring treatment in a hospital intensive care unit, had cognitive deficits equivalent to a 9-point drop in IQ.

“People with ongoing persistent symptoms, indicative of long COVID, had larger cognitive deficits than people whose symptoms had resolved,” first author Adam Hampshire, PhD, with Imperial College London, London, England, told this news organization. 

The largest deficits among cognitive tasks were in memory, reasoning, and executive function, he added.

“That is, people who had had COVID-19 were both slower and less accurate when performing tasks that measure those abilities,” Dr. Hampshire said. “The group with the largest cognitive deficits were patients who had been in intensive care for COVID-19.”

The study was published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. 
 

Lingering Brain Fog

Cognitive symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection are well recognized, but whether objectively measurable cognitive deficits exist and how long they persist remains unclear. 

To investigate, researchers invited 800,000 adults from the REACT study of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England to complete an online assessment for cognitive function with eight domains.

Altogether, 141,583 participants started the cognitive battery by completing at least one task, and 112,964 completed all eight tasks.

The researchers estimated global cognitive scores among participants who had been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms that persisted for at least 12 weeks, whether or not resolved, and among uninfected participants. 

Compared with uninfected adults, those who had COVID-19 that resolved had a small cognitive deficit, corresponding to a 3-point loss in IQ, the researchers found. 

Adults with unresolved persistent COVID-19 symptoms had the equivalent of a 6-point loss in IQ, and those who had been admitted to the intensive care unit had the equivalent of a 9-point loss in IQ, in line with previous findings of cognitive deficits in patients hospitalized in a critical care unit, the researchers report. 

Larger cognitive deficits were evident in adults infected early in the pandemic by the original SARS-CoV-2 virus or the B.1.1.7 variant, whereas peers infected later in the pandemic (eg., in the Omicron period), showed smaller cognitive deficits. This finding is in line with other studies suggesting that the association between COVID-19–associated cognitive deficits attenuated as the pandemic progressed, the researchers noted. 

They also found that people who had COVID-19 after receiving two or more vaccinations showed better cognitive performance compared with those who had not been vaccinated. 

The memory, reasoning, and executive function tasks were among the most sensitive to COVID-19–related cognitive differences and performance on these tasks differed according to illness duration and hospitalization. 

Dr. Hampshire said that more research is needed to determine whether the cognitive deficits resolve with time. 

“The implications of longer-term persistence of cognitive deficits and their clinical relevance remain unclear and warrant ongoing surveillance,” he said.

 

Larger Cognitive Deficits Likely?

These results are “a concern and the broader implications require evaluation,” wrote Ziyad Al-Aly, MD, with Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, and Clifford Rosen, MD, with Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, in an accompanying editorial. 

In their view, several outstanding questions remain, including what the potential functional implications of a 3-point loss in IQ may be and whether COVID-19–related cognitive deficits predispose to a higher risk for dementia later in life. 

“A deeper understanding of the biology of cognitive dysfunction after SARS-CoV-2 infection and how best to prevent and treat it are critical for addressing the needs of affected persons and preserving the cognitive health of populations,” Drs. Al-Aly and Rosen concluded. 

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Jacqueline Becker, PhD, clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor of medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that “one important caveat” is that the study used an online assessment tool for cognitive function and therefore the findings should be taken with “a grain of salt.”

“That said, this is a large sample, and the findings are generally consistent with what we’ve seen in terms of cognitive deficits post-COVID,” Dr. Becker said. 

It’s likely that this study “underestimates” the degree of cognitive deficits that would be seen on validated neuropsychological tests, she added.

In a recent study, Dr. Becker and her colleagues investigated rates of cognitive impairment in 740 COVID-19 patients who recovered and were treated in outpatient, emergency department, or inpatient hospital settings. 

Using validated neuropsychological measures, they found a relatively high frequency of cognitive impairment several months after patients contracted COVID-19. Impairments in executive functioning, processing speed, category fluency, memory encoding, and recall were predominant among hospitalized patients. 

Dr. Becker noted that in her experience, cognition typically will improve in some patients 12-18 months post COVID. 

Support for the study was provided by the National Institute for Health and Care Research and UK Research and Innovation and by the Department of Health and Social Care in England and the Huo Family Foundation. Disclosures for authors and editorial writers are available at NEJM.org. Dr. Becker has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.