Neurology

Adults with depression have more than double the risk of developing dementia and the risk persists regardless of when in life depression is diagnosed, a large population-based study shows.

That the association between depression and dementia persisted even among individuals first diagnosed with depression in early or mid-life provides “strong evidence that depression is not only an early symptom of dementia, but also that depression increases dementia risk,” study investigator Holly Elser, MD, PhD, epidemiologist and resident physician, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Double the risk

Several prior studies that have examined the relationship between depression and dementia over the life course have consistently shown depression later in life is associated with subsequent dementia.

“Late-life depression is generally thought to be an early symptom of dementia or a reaction to subclinical cognitive decline,” said Dr. Elser.

The investigators wanted to examine whether the association between depression and dementia persists even when depression is diagnosed earlier in life, which may suggest it increases the risk of dementia.

“To my knowledge, ours is the largest study on this topic to date, leveraging routinely and prospectively collected data from more than 1.4 million Danish citizens followed from 1977 to 2018,” Dr. Elser noted.

The cohort included 246,499 individuals diagnosed with depression and 1,190,302 individuals without depression. 

In both groups, the median age was 50 years and 65% were women. Roughly two-thirds (68%) of those diagnosed with depression were diagnosed before age 60 years.

In Cox proportional hazards regression models, the overall hazard of dementia was more than doubled in those diagnosed with depression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.41). The risk of dementia with depression was more pronounced for men (HR, 2.98) than in women (HR, 2.21).

This association persisted even when the time elapsed from depression diagnosis was between 20 and 39 years (HR, 1.79) and whether depression was diagnosed in early life (18-44 years: HR, 3.08), mid-life (45-59 years: HR, 2.95), or late life (≥ 60 years: HR, 2.31).

It remains unclear whether effective treatment of depression modifies the risk of dementia, as the current study explored the role of antidepressants in a “very limited fashion,” Dr. Elser said.

Specifically, the researchers considered whether an individual was treated with an antidepressant within 6 months of the initial depression diagnosis and found no evidence of a difference in dementia risk between the treated and untreated groups.

“Research that explores implications of the timing and duration of treatment with antidepressants for dementia, treatment with cognitive behavioral therapy, and is able to evaluate the effectiveness of those treatments will be extremely important,” Dr. Elser said.
 

‘An assault on the brain’

Reached for comment, John Showalter, MD, chief product officer at Linus Health, said one of the most “intriguing” findings of the study is that a depression diagnosis earlier in adulthood conferred a greater risk of developing vascular dementia (HR, 3.28) than did dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.73).

“The difference in risk for subtypes of dementia is a meaningful addition to our understanding of depression’s connection to dementia,” said Dr. Showalter, who was not involved in the study.

Also weighing in, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the findings from this “far-reaching investigation leave little room for doubt – depression unleashes a devastating storm within the brain, wreaking havoc on the lives of those ensnared by its grip.

“This massive, multi-decade, and high-data quality registry study adds another brick to the growing edifice of evidence attesting to the profound connection between psychiatric health and the very essence of brain health,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“In a resounding declaration, this research underscores that psychiatric health should be perceived as an integral component of overall health – a paradigm shift that challenges long-standing misconceptions and stigmas surrounding mental disorders. Depression, once marginalized, now claims its rightful place on the pedestal of health concerns that must be addressed with unwavering resolve,” said Dr. Lakhan.

He noted that depression is “not just a mental battle, it’s a profound assault on the very fabric of the brain, leaving lives in turmoil and hearts in search of hope. No longer shrouded in silence, depression demands society’s attention.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elser, Dr. Showalter, and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with depression have more than double the risk of developing dementia and the risk persists regardless of when in life depression is diagnosed, a large population-based study shows.

That the association between depression and dementia persisted even among individuals first diagnosed with depression in early or mid-life provides “strong evidence that depression is not only an early symptom of dementia, but also that depression increases dementia risk,” study investigator Holly Elser, MD, PhD, epidemiologist and resident physician, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Double the risk

Several prior studies that have examined the relationship between depression and dementia over the life course have consistently shown depression later in life is associated with subsequent dementia.

“Late-life depression is generally thought to be an early symptom of dementia or a reaction to subclinical cognitive decline,” said Dr. Elser.

The investigators wanted to examine whether the association between depression and dementia persists even when depression is diagnosed earlier in life, which may suggest it increases the risk of dementia.

“To my knowledge, ours is the largest study on this topic to date, leveraging routinely and prospectively collected data from more than 1.4 million Danish citizens followed from 1977 to 2018,” Dr. Elser noted.

The cohort included 246,499 individuals diagnosed with depression and 1,190,302 individuals without depression. 

In both groups, the median age was 50 years and 65% were women. Roughly two-thirds (68%) of those diagnosed with depression were diagnosed before age 60 years.

In Cox proportional hazards regression models, the overall hazard of dementia was more than doubled in those diagnosed with depression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.41). The risk of dementia with depression was more pronounced for men (HR, 2.98) than in women (HR, 2.21).

This association persisted even when the time elapsed from depression diagnosis was between 20 and 39 years (HR, 1.79) and whether depression was diagnosed in early life (18-44 years: HR, 3.08), mid-life (45-59 years: HR, 2.95), or late life (≥ 60 years: HR, 2.31).

It remains unclear whether effective treatment of depression modifies the risk of dementia, as the current study explored the role of antidepressants in a “very limited fashion,” Dr. Elser said.

Specifically, the researchers considered whether an individual was treated with an antidepressant within 6 months of the initial depression diagnosis and found no evidence of a difference in dementia risk between the treated and untreated groups.

“Research that explores implications of the timing and duration of treatment with antidepressants for dementia, treatment with cognitive behavioral therapy, and is able to evaluate the effectiveness of those treatments will be extremely important,” Dr. Elser said.
 

‘An assault on the brain’

Reached for comment, John Showalter, MD, chief product officer at Linus Health, said one of the most “intriguing” findings of the study is that a depression diagnosis earlier in adulthood conferred a greater risk of developing vascular dementia (HR, 3.28) than did dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.73).

“The difference in risk for subtypes of dementia is a meaningful addition to our understanding of depression’s connection to dementia,” said Dr. Showalter, who was not involved in the study.

Also weighing in, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the findings from this “far-reaching investigation leave little room for doubt – depression unleashes a devastating storm within the brain, wreaking havoc on the lives of those ensnared by its grip.

“This massive, multi-decade, and high-data quality registry study adds another brick to the growing edifice of evidence attesting to the profound connection between psychiatric health and the very essence of brain health,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“In a resounding declaration, this research underscores that psychiatric health should be perceived as an integral component of overall health – a paradigm shift that challenges long-standing misconceptions and stigmas surrounding mental disorders. Depression, once marginalized, now claims its rightful place on the pedestal of health concerns that must be addressed with unwavering resolve,” said Dr. Lakhan.

He noted that depression is “not just a mental battle, it’s a profound assault on the very fabric of the brain, leaving lives in turmoil and hearts in search of hope. No longer shrouded in silence, depression demands society’s attention.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elser, Dr. Showalter, and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with depression have more than double the risk of developing dementia and the risk persists regardless of when in life depression is diagnosed, a large population-based study shows.

That the association between depression and dementia persisted even among individuals first diagnosed with depression in early or mid-life provides “strong evidence that depression is not only an early symptom of dementia, but also that depression increases dementia risk,” study investigator Holly Elser, MD, PhD, epidemiologist and resident physician, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Double the risk

Several prior studies that have examined the relationship between depression and dementia over the life course have consistently shown depression later in life is associated with subsequent dementia.

“Late-life depression is generally thought to be an early symptom of dementia or a reaction to subclinical cognitive decline,” said Dr. Elser.

The investigators wanted to examine whether the association between depression and dementia persists even when depression is diagnosed earlier in life, which may suggest it increases the risk of dementia.

“To my knowledge, ours is the largest study on this topic to date, leveraging routinely and prospectively collected data from more than 1.4 million Danish citizens followed from 1977 to 2018,” Dr. Elser noted.

The cohort included 246,499 individuals diagnosed with depression and 1,190,302 individuals without depression. 

In both groups, the median age was 50 years and 65% were women. Roughly two-thirds (68%) of those diagnosed with depression were diagnosed before age 60 years.

In Cox proportional hazards regression models, the overall hazard of dementia was more than doubled in those diagnosed with depression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.41). The risk of dementia with depression was more pronounced for men (HR, 2.98) than in women (HR, 2.21).

This association persisted even when the time elapsed from depression diagnosis was between 20 and 39 years (HR, 1.79) and whether depression was diagnosed in early life (18-44 years: HR, 3.08), mid-life (45-59 years: HR, 2.95), or late life (≥ 60 years: HR, 2.31).

It remains unclear whether effective treatment of depression modifies the risk of dementia, as the current study explored the role of antidepressants in a “very limited fashion,” Dr. Elser said.

Specifically, the researchers considered whether an individual was treated with an antidepressant within 6 months of the initial depression diagnosis and found no evidence of a difference in dementia risk between the treated and untreated groups.

“Research that explores implications of the timing and duration of treatment with antidepressants for dementia, treatment with cognitive behavioral therapy, and is able to evaluate the effectiveness of those treatments will be extremely important,” Dr. Elser said.
 

‘An assault on the brain’

Reached for comment, John Showalter, MD, chief product officer at Linus Health, said one of the most “intriguing” findings of the study is that a depression diagnosis earlier in adulthood conferred a greater risk of developing vascular dementia (HR, 3.28) than did dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.73).

“The difference in risk for subtypes of dementia is a meaningful addition to our understanding of depression’s connection to dementia,” said Dr. Showalter, who was not involved in the study.

Also weighing in, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the findings from this “far-reaching investigation leave little room for doubt – depression unleashes a devastating storm within the brain, wreaking havoc on the lives of those ensnared by its grip.

“This massive, multi-decade, and high-data quality registry study adds another brick to the growing edifice of evidence attesting to the profound connection between psychiatric health and the very essence of brain health,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“In a resounding declaration, this research underscores that psychiatric health should be perceived as an integral component of overall health – a paradigm shift that challenges long-standing misconceptions and stigmas surrounding mental disorders. Depression, once marginalized, now claims its rightful place on the pedestal of health concerns that must be addressed with unwavering resolve,” said Dr. Lakhan.

He noted that depression is “not just a mental battle, it’s a profound assault on the very fabric of the brain, leaving lives in turmoil and hearts in search of hope. No longer shrouded in silence, depression demands society’s attention.”

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Elser, Dr. Showalter, and Dr. Lakhan have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Under a new Medicare pilot program that will begin in 2024, the federal government will pay clinicians to coordinate at-home dementia support services, including respite care for family members.

A Department of Health & Human Services initiative, part of the aim of the Guiding an Improved Dementia Experience (GUIDE) program is to help Medicare beneficiaries with dementia stay in the community for as long as possible. It is estimated that there are 6.7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease or some other form of dementia, said HHS.

The program is voluntary and will be open to Medicare-enrolled clinicians and other providers who can assemble an interdisciplinary care team and meet the program’s participation criteria.

“Our new GUIDE Model has the potential to improve the quality of life for people with dementia and alleviate the significant strain on our families,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, in a statement.

“Not only is dementia care management a proven way to improve the quality of care and quality of life for those living with Alzheimer’s and other dementia, but now we know that it would also save the federal government billions of dollars,” Robert Egge, Alzheimer’s Association chief public policy officer and Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) executive director, said in a statement.

Mr. Egge cited a recent analysis commissioned by AIM that found that dementia care management would save the federal government nearly $21 billion over 10 years.

“People living with dementia and their caregivers too often struggle to manage their health care and connect with key supports that can allow them to remain in their homes and communities,” said Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, in the HHS statement.

“Fragmented care contributes to the mental and physical health strain of caring for someone with dementia, as well as the substantial financial burden,” she said, adding that Black, Hispanic, Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander populations have been especially disadvantaged.

The GUIDE Model will provide new resources and greater access to specialty care to those communities, said Ms. Brooks-LaSure.

Care teams that seek to participate in the GUIDE model must have a care navigator who has received required training in dementia, assessment, and care planning.

The teams also must have a clinician with dementia proficiency as recognized by experience caring for adults with cognitive impairment; experience caring for patients aged 65 years old or older; or specialty designation in neurology, psychiatry, geriatrics, geriatric psychiatry, behavioral neurology, or geriatric neurology.

Medicare beneficiaries will be eligible if they are not residing in a nursing home; are not enrolled in hospice; and have a confirmed dementia diagnosis.

Beneficiaries who receive care from GUIDE participants will be placed in one of five “tiers,” based on a combination of disease stage and caregiver status. Beneficiary needs, and care intensity and payment, increase by tier.

GUIDE teams will receive a monthly, per-beneficiary amount for providing care management and coordination and caregiver education and support services. They can also bill for respite services – up to an annual cap – for Medicare beneficiaries who have an unpaid caregiver.

Clinicians seeking to participate in GUIDE can apply beginning in the fall. The program will run for 8 years beginning July 1, 2024.

Alzheimer’s Association President and CEO Joanne Pike, DrPH, said in a statement that the organization had “advocated for this approach for years, believing it [to be] the key to addressing systemic challenges faced by those with dementia, their families and those who provide them with care and support.”

The John A. Hartford Foundation noted that it also had long pushed for a comprehensive dementia care program. “Comprehensive dementia care supports both the medical and nonmedical needs of patients and their family caregivers,” said Foundation President Terry Fulmer, PhD, RN, FAAN, in a statement.

“Notably and necessarily, the model will help improve equity in access to care for underserved communities by addressing unpaid caregiver needs, including respite services and screening for health-related social needs,” added Dr. Fulmer.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Taking folic acid supplements before conception and in the first trimester of pregnancy continues to be a major line of defense against neural tube defects.

In a statement published in JAMA, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended that all people planning on becoming pregnant or who could become pregnant take a daily supplement of 0.4-0.8 mg (400-800 mcg) of folic acid to prevent neural tube defects. 

The task force also found that folic acid is not associated with maternal cancer or autism, which were the concerns of some researchers. The current findings regarding potential harm align with earlier evidence examining possible risks.

The recommendation also aligns with previous recommendations from the USPSTF and is supported by 12 more recent observational studies. Neural tube defects occur in an estimated 3,000 pregnancies per year.

Folic acid deficiency is common due to diet, impaired folate metabolism, and poor nutrient uptake as a result of medications or bariatric surgery. 

“As much as we’ve been trying to get the word out there, we still need to get it out there even more,” Wanda Nicholson, MD, MPH, MBA, vice chair of the USPSTF, told this news organization. “It’s so simple and straightforward and can be so impactful for the health of the baby.”

Neural tube formation occurs 26-28 days after fertilization. Folic acid supplementation is essential for all people who may become pregnant, considering half of the pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, according to the USPSTF.

“In many cases, neural tube formation has already occurred, or not occurred appropriately, before someone realizes that they’re pregnant,” Dr. Nicholson said. “That’s why it’s so important to start taking folic acid one month prior to conception if you’re planning on becoming pregnant, and if you’re capable of being pregnant but not planning pregnancy, yes, we’re advocating that you also proceed with folic acid supplementation.”

Primary care physicians play a key role in patient education and ensuring that all patients receive adequate folic acid, according to Spencer McClelland, MD, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Denver Health, who was not involved in the statement. Dr. McClelland advised that clinicians recommend patients who are or could get pregnant take a multivitamin, because most brands will contain the recommended dosage of folic acid.

“There’s some confusion about folic acid,” he said. “Many patients know that they should be on a prenatal vitamin, but most don’t know that the reason we’re recommending a prenatal vitamin is almost entirely because of the value of folic acid, and everything else in the prenatal vitamin is kind of icing on the cake.”

For patients trying to get pregnant, the risk for neural tube defects “is one of many examples of the importance of preconception counseling,” Dr. McClelland said.

Dr. Nicholson noted that the recommended 0.4-0.8 mg of folic acid per day is for patients without heightened deficiency due to medications or bariatric surgery. At-risk patients should receive counseling from their physician to determine the correct amount to take.

The authors report no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

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

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, by 38% among healthy older people with no history of cardiovascular events, and did not help prevent ischemic stroke, according to results from a large randomized trial.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, bolster recommendations published in 2022 by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force against daily aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in older adults and add to a mounting consensus that it should be avoided in the healthy elderly, for whom bleeding risks outweigh potential benefits.

Stroke was a preplanned secondary outcome of the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, which randomized 19,114 community-living people in Australia and the United States (56% women, 91% White) to 100 mg. daily aspirin or placebo. Participants were aged 70 and older, with the exception of U.S. Black and Hispanic individuals, who could be as young as 65. Participants did not have disability or known cardiovascular disease at baseline, and blood pressure was adequately controlled.
 

ASPEE findings

In 2018 the ASPREE authors, led by John McNeil, PhD, of Monash University, Melbourne, published their findings that aspirin did not reduce mortality or cardiovascular events (including stroke) in the same large cohort.

The new analysis, led by Geoffrey Cloud, MB, BS, of Monash University, focuses on stroke and intracranial bleeding outcomes. At 5 years’ follow up, the ASPREE investigators saw no significant reduction in ischemic stroke incidence associated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.11), while incidence of all types of intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic stroke, was significantly increased (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.03-1.84).

Altogether 108 of participants taking aspirin (1.1%) experienced some form of intracranial bleeding (subdural, extradural, and/or subarachnoid), compared with 79 (0.8%) in the placebo group. Aspirin-treated patients also saw more hemorrhagic stroke (0.5% vs. 0.4%). As the ASPREE investigators had reported in an earlier paper, upper gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in significantly more aspirin-treated patients than those on placebo (HR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.32-2.66).

“These outcomes may alter the balance of risks and benefits of an antiplatelet drug, especially if given to individuals at low risk in a primary prevention setting. This concern is relevant given the high stroke risk in older individuals, worldwide increases in populations of older individuals, and the importance of evaluating preventive strategies in this age group,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators cited the study’s large size as a strength while noting among its weaknesses that fewer stroke and bleeding events occurred during follow-up than expected, and that not all ischemic stroke events among older participants were thoroughly investigated.
 

Patients need to know their risk

In an interview, Shlee Song, MD, director of the stroke center at Cedars-Sinai, Los Angeles, said that the new ASPREE findings underscore the importance of careful communication with patients and their families, who may be confused about which risk group they belong to and either cease taking aspirin when it is in fact indicated, or take it when it could harm them.

“We need to be clear for our patients whether these results are relevant to them or not,” Dr. Song said. “People with a history of ischemic stroke need to know aspirin therapy is helpful in reducing risk of another stroke.”

Some patients may come to believe that because their stroke occurred a long time ago, they are in a lower-risk group. “But people need to understand that with a history of a heart attack or stroke, you’re always a separate group,” Dr. Song said. “Our job is also surveillance screening – have you had a fall this past year? Have you had a change in bowel movements? The bleeding events seen in ASPREE include bleeding in the head and bleeding in the gut.”

A key issue to stress with patients, Dr. Song said, is blood pressure management. “Patients might take aspirin because a family member had a stroke, without controlling blood pressure first. That could be the perfect storm for a head bleed: uncontrolled hypertension and an antiplatelet agent.”

The ASPREE study was funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States and Monash University and the Victorian Cancer Agency in Australia. Three coauthors reported receiving funding or fees from drug manufacturers. Dr. Song disclosed no financial conflicts related to her comments.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children’s intelligence quotient scores are not significantly different in the first months after concussion, compared with before concussion, data suggest.

In a multicenter study of almost 900 children with concussion or orthopedic injury, differences between groups in full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d = 0.13) and matrix reasoning scores (d = 0.16) were small.

“We draw the inference that IQ scores are unchanged, in the sense that they’re not different from [those of] kids with other types of injuries that don’t involve the brain,” said study author Keith Owen Yeates, PhD, Ronald and Irene Ward Chair in Pediatric Brain Injury and a professor of psychology at the University of Calgary (Alta.).

The study was published in Pediatrics.
 

A representative sample

The investigators analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies of children who were treated for concussion or mild orthopedic injury at two hospitals in the United States and five in Canada. Participants were aged 8-17 years and were recruited within 24 hours of the index event. Patients in the United States completed IQ and performance validity testing at 3-18 days after injury. Patients in Canada did so at 3 months after injury. The study used the short-form IQ test. The investigators included 866 children in their analysis.

Using linear modeling, Bayesian analysis, and multigroup factor analysis, the researchers found “very small group differences” in full-scale IQ scores between the two groups. Mean IQ was 104.95 for the concussion group and 106.08 for the orthopedic-injury group. Matrix reasoning scores were 52.28 and 53.81 for the concussion and orthopedic-injury groups, respectively.

Vocabulary scores did not differ between the two groups (53.25 for the concussion group and 53.27 for the orthopedic-injury group).

The study population is “pretty representative” from a demographic perspective, although it was predominantly White, said Dr. Yeates. “On the other hand, we did look at socioeconomic status, and that didn’t seem to alter the findings at all.”

The sample size is one of the study’s strengths, said Dr. Yeates. “Having 866 kids is far larger, I think, than just about any other study out there.” Drawing from seven children’s hospitals in North America is another strength. “Previous studies, in addition to having smaller samples, were from a single site and often recruited from a clinic population, not a representative group for a general population of kids with concussion.”

The findings must be interpreted precisely, however. “We don’t have actual preinjury data, so the more precise way of describing the findings is to say they’re not different from kids who are very similar to them demographically, have the same risk factors for injuries, and had a similar experience of a traumatic injury,” said Dr. Yeates. “The IQ scores for both groups are smack dab in the average range.”

Overall, the results are encouraging. “There’s been a lot of bad news in the media and in the science about concussion that worries patients, so it’s nice to be able to provide a little bit of balance,” said Dr. Yeates. “The message I give parents is that most kids recover within 2-4 weeks, and we’re much better now at predicting who’s going to [recover] and who isn’t, and that helps, too, so that we can focus our intervention on kids who are most at risk.”

Some children will have persisting symptoms, but evidence-based treatments are lacking. “I think that’ll be a really important direction for the future,” said Dr. Yeates.
 

Graduated return

Commenting on the findings, Michael Esser, MD, a pediatric neurologist at Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, and an associate professor in pediatrics at the University of Calgary, said that they can help allay parents’ concerns about concussions. “It can also be of help for clinicians who want to have evidence to reassure families and promote a graduated return to activities. In particular, the study would support the philosophy of a graduated return to school or work, after a brief period of rest, following concussion.” Dr. Esser did not participate in the study.

The research is also noteworthy because it acknowledges that the differences in the design and methodology used in prior studies may explain the apparent disagreement over how concussion may influence cognitive function.

“This is an important message,” said Dr. Esser. “Families struggle with determining the merit of a lot of information due to the myriad of social media comments about concussion and the risk for cognitive impairment. Therefore, it is important that conclusions with a significant implication are evaluated with a variety of approaches.”

The study received funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Dr. Yeates disclosed relationships with the American Psychological Association, Guilford Press, and Cambridge University Press. He has received grant funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institutes of Health, Brain Canada Foundation, and the National Football League Scientific Advisory Board. He also has relationships with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke, National Pediatric Rehabilitation Resource Center, Center for Pediatric Rehabilitation, and Virginia Tech University. Dr. Esser had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

Daily use of low-dose aspirin offers no significant protection against stroke and was linked to a higher rate of bleeding in the brain, according to new research published in JAMA.

The research matches other evidence advising that healthy older adults without a history of heart conditions or warning signs of stroke should not take low-dose aspirin. 

The findings also support the recommendation from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that low-dose aspirin should not be prescribed for preventing a first heart attack or stroke in healthy older adults, The New York Times reported.

“We can be very emphatic that healthy people who are not on aspirin and do not have multiple risk factors should not be starting it now,” said Randall Stafford, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University, who was not involved in the study, in the Times.

It’s not as clear for others, he said.

“The longer you’ve been on aspirin and the more risk factors you have for heart attacks and strokes, the murkier it gets,” he said.

Some cardiac and stroke experts say daily aspirin should remain part of the regimen for people who have had a heart attack or stroke.

The JAMA report was based on data from a randomized control trial of 19,000 people from Australia and America. Participants were over the age of 70 and did not have heart disease. 

The data covered an average of almost 4.7 years and revealed that aspirin lowered the rate of ischemic stroke but not significantly. An ischemic stroke happens when a clot forms in a blood vessel that sends blood to the brain. 

There was also a 38% higher rate of brain bleeds for people who took aspirin daily, compared with those who took a placebo.

The Times wrote, “In the past, some doctors regarded aspirin as something of a wonder drug, capable of protecting healthy patients against a future heart attack or stroke. But recent studies have shown that the powerful drug has limited protective power among people who have not yet had such an event, and it comes with dangerous side effects.”

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

If you’ve ever felt an urge to scratch after witnessing someone else relieve their own itch, you’re certainly not alone. Itching can be contagious and the phenomenon is so common it doesn’t just affect humans. Now researchers may understand why.

Some background: In a 2007 study led by Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, professor of anesthesiology, psychiatry, and developmental biology at the Washington University in St. Louis, researchers discovered a specific gene, the GRPR (gastrin-releasing peptide receptor), in the spinal cord and a corresponding neuropeptide, GRP (gastrin-releasing peptide). Together, the GRP system was found to transmit the “itch information” from one’s skin to the spinal cord.

This discovery was further backed by 2017 findings when Dr. Chen and his colleagues closely observed the molecular and neural basis of contagious itch behavior in mice. “We played a video that showed a mouse scratching at a very high frequency to other mice,” said Dr. Chen. “We found that, indeed, the mice who watched the video also scratched.”

To determine the inner workings at play, the researchers used molecular mapping to reveal increased neuronal activity in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), a bilateral structure found in the hypothalamus of the mouse’s brain. In other words, this part of the mouse’s brain “lit up” when a mouse displayed contagious scratching behavior.

The researchers then decided to take this one step further by manipulating the amount of GRP in the hypothalamus. “When we deleted the GRP in the SCN, the mice stopped imitating the scratch,” Dr. Chen said. “When we injected more GRP into the SCN, the mice started scratching like crazy.”

Now, after more investigating and research published in 2022 in Cell Reports, Dr. Chen and his team suspect contagious itching may have just as much to do with our eyeballs as our skin and spinal cord. Why? The phenomenon begins with a visual component: Someone seeing another person scratching.

The researchers targeted mice’s retinal ganglion cells, a type of light-capturing neuron found near the inner surface of the retina. When those cells were disabled, all scratching stopped.

This recent study argues that a previously undiscovered visual pathway may exist between the retina and the brain – bypassing the visual cortex – to provide more immediate physical reactions to potential adverse situations.

There’s more (and it could be quite relatable to some people): After the mice watched a video of another mouse scratching for half an hour, the researchers measured the mice’s stress hormone levels, finding a significant increase. This suggested that exposure to impulsive, contagious scratching behavior may have caused heightened anxiety in the mice.

“This is an important discovery that helps answer the psychological question of why animals and people scratch all the time,” said Dr. Chen. “We humans also scratch a lot, sometimes as a way to unconsciously express our internal anxiety.”

The mice may have interpreted the scratching video as a sudden negative change to their environment that they had to prepare for. “Contagious behavior is actually a very efficient way to inform other animals of what’s coming,” Dr. Chen said. “When we see other people running in a panic, there is no time to think. You just run as fast as you can. This is another example of contagious behavior that is in your own interest to survive.”

As a result, Dr. Chen believes it’s fair to infer that contagious behavior, including yawning and emotional contagion, is merely an expression of a fundamental survival mechanism that has evolved over time. “The human being is just an imitation machine. It’s often very difficult for people to act independently or as a minority because you would be working against evolution,” said Dr. Chen.

Scott Ira Krakower, DO, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at Northwell Health in Glen Oaks, N.Y., (and not party to this research), seconds this sentiment. “In regard to the physical benefits of contagion, it acts as a permanent defense and helps build collective immunity,” he said. “The social benefits when it comes to empathy or social media contagion are also important to our development. It helps us understand, adapt, and connect with others.”

Observing how empathy operates as a socially contagious behavior is something Dr. Chen and his colleagues are interested in looking into in the future.

“The definition of empathy is the sharing of emotions,” Dr. Chen said. “Shared feelings are crucial for social bonding and mental health, and for other animals, like mice, this is also the case.” Previous studies have shown that mice do, in fact, experience empathy and share feelings of pain and fear with one another.

There is still much to be explored in the study of contagious behaviors and the components of the brain that are activated during such behavior. Dr. Chen and his team intend to, ahem, scratch that particular itch.

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gum disease and tooth loss are linked to hippocampal atrophy and may have a more negative impact on the brain than aging, new research suggests.

Investigators found that in a late middle-aged and older cohort, among patients with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth was linked to a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy. For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth was associated with a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“Tooth loss and gum disease, which is inflammation of the tissue around the teeth that can cause shrinkage of the gums and loosening of the teeth, are very common, so evaluating a potential link with dementia is incredibly important,” study investigator Satoshi Yamaguchi, PhD, DDS, of Tohoku University, in Sendai, Japan, said in a release.

“Our study found that these conditions may play a role in the health of the brain area that controls thinking and memory, giving people another reason to take better care of their teeth,” Dr. Yamaguchi noted.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Greater effect than aging

Although previous research suggests that tooth loss and periodontitis are risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease, longitudinal research has not shown a significant correlation between these conditions and hippocampal atrophy.

To clarify this association, the investigators followed 172 men and women (average age, 67 years) who had undergone two MRI brain scans 4 years apart and had had a dental examination. None of the participants had any signs of cognitive decline at baseline.

At study outset, information on cerebrovascular and cardiovascular disease, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression history, and cognitive function was gathered. The Mini Mental State Exam and dental exams were administered at baseline and at 4-year follow-up.

For each participant, the number of teeth was counted, and all participants were assessed for gum disease via periodontal probing depth (PD).

Healthy gums typically measure between 1 and 3 mm in depth. Mild gum disease is signified by measurements of 3-4 mm in several areas. Severe gum disease involves measurements of 5-6 mm and is accompanied by greater bone loss, leading to potential tooth loss.

Multiple regression analysis was performed, with the annual symmetric percentage change (SPC) of hippocampal volume as the dependent variable. The analysis included an interaction term between the number of teeth present (NTP) and mean PD.

Over the 4-year study period, the investigators found that the qualitative interaction between NTP and mean PD was significant for the annual SPC in the left hippocampus.

Among those with mild periodontitis, having fewer teeth correlated with more rapid atrophy of the left hippocampus, such that every tooth lost was equivalent to nearly 1 year of brain aging.

In contrast, having more teeth was associated with a faster rate of left hippocampal atrophy among those with severe periodontitis and was equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

For those with severe gum disease, each additional lost tooth corresponded to a faster rate of brain shrinkage, equivalent to 1.3 years of brain aging.

“This finding indicates that periodontitis may have a greater association with left hippocampal atrophy than the association exhibited by age. Furthermore, in cases of mild periodontitis, fewer teeth may be associated with a subsequent decline in cognitive function,” the investigators write.

The study’s results, they add, highlight the importance of preserving oral health, not just the retaining of teeth. “These findings suggest that retaining teeth with severe gum disease is associated with brain atrophy,” said Dr. Yamaguchi.

“Controlling the progression of gum disease through regular dental visits is crucial, and teeth with severe gum disease may need to be extracted and replaced with appropriate prosthetic devices,” he added.

The researchers note that further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

The study was supported the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology; Kelo University; Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund; Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare; Teiko University; Pfizer Japan; Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharmaceutical; Daiichi Sankyo; Astrellas Pharma; Takeda Pharmaceutical; the Health Care Science Institute; the Health Science Center; and the Takeda Science Foundation. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

Social isolation in older individuals has been linked to reduced brain volume in regions associated with memory, a new study shows.

Further, the association between social isolation and reduced brain volume appears to be at least partly mediated by depressive symptoms.

“We believe that efforts should be made to reduce social isolation among the elderly as much as possible,” investigator Toshiharu Ninomiya, MD, PhD, professor of epidemiology and public health at Kyushu University in Fukuoka, Japan, said in an interview.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

A dementia prevention strategy

Dr. Ninomiya noted there have been several studies suggesting that social interaction is beneficial in preventing cognitive decline and the onset of dementia.

In addition, recent epidemiological studies have shown social isolation is associated with a risk for cognitive decline and dementia.

Although the investigators note that very little is known about the link between the two, some studies have shown that social isolation is linked with depressive symptoms in older adults, and late-life depression has been associated with brain atrophy.

To explore the potential link between social isolation and brain atrophy, as well as the role of depression as a potential mediator, the investigators studied nearly 9,000 citizens aged 65 and older as part of the Japan Prospective Studies Collaboration for Aging and Dementia (JPSC-AD), an ongoing, community-based nationwide cohort study of dementia in Japan.

Participants were recruited from eight research sites across Japan, and each had a baseline MRI scan between 2016 and 2018. The investigators excluded those with a dementia diagnosis at baseline. Self-reported frequency of social contact was categorized as every day, several times a week, several times a month, or seldom.

Participants also answered questions about medical history and treatment, antihypertensive or antidiabetic medications, exercise, current alcohol intake, and smoking habits. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale. Of the participants, 57% were women, and the mean age was 73 years.
 

Lower brain volume

Total brain volume was lower in those with the lowest frequency of social contact vs. those with the highest frequency (67.3% vs. 67.8%). Less social contact was also linked to smaller temporal lobe, occipital lobe, cingulum, hippocampus, and amygdala volumes.

White matter lesion volume increased with fewer social interactions, from 0.26% in the most social group to 0.30% in the least.

Cognitive function was higher in participants who had daily social contact, compared with those who had the least contact (28 vs. 27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination; P < .001). Scores between 25 and 30 are considered normal.

Depressive symptoms were lower in the daily contact group, compared with the seldom-contact group (P < .001).

The team also found that lower frequency of social contact was significantly associated with the smaller superior, middle, or inferior temporal gyrus; and a smaller fusiform gyrus, transverse temporal gyrus, temporal pole, and entorhinal cortex, among other subregions.

Mediation analyses indicated that depressive symptoms accounted for only 15%-29% of the associations of lower frequency of social contact with each regional volume.
 

Worse physical health

The results also showed that socially isolated participants were more likely to have diabetes, to have hypertension, to smoke, and to be physically inactive.

“Cardiovascular risk factors have been reported to cause endothelial dysfunction in the brain, which could in turn lead to problems in maintaining microcirculation and blood-brain barrier function,” the investigators write.

Some epidemiological studies have associated cardiovascular risk factors with brain atrophy, they noted, which could have been one of the underlying mechanisms.

Another possibility is that reduced cognitive stimulation due to social isolation may cause brain atrophy, they add.

“Ultimately,” Dr. Ninomiya said, “the detailed mechanism of the relationship between social isolation and brain volume is not yet clear.”

He also said more research is needed to know whether the findings would apply to people in other countries.

In an accompanying editorial, Alexa Walter, PhD, and Danielle Sandsmark, MD, PhD, from the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, note that  isolation has been associated with many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and premature death.

“Given these findings, future work considering social health factors in the context of neurological disease is an important area of research to consider. Additionally, leveraging other existing longitudinal studies could provide us with an opportunity to better understand these relationships within populations and inform public policy to address these issues,” Dr. Walter and Dr. Sandsmark write.

The study was funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and Suntory Holdings Limited. Dr. Ninomiya reports receiving grants from Suntory Holdings Limited.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

With the Food and Drug Administration’s full stamp of approval in hand, Leqembi (lecanemab) is poised to catapult us into a new era of treatment for Alzheimer’s disease. And now that the donanemab trial data are out, there’s another antiamyloid drug waiting in the wings.

To finally have true disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease is a massive step forward for a field that’s been plagued with disappointment. But these drugs come with serious concerns and unknowns. They will require complex decision-making, putting doctors, patients, and their families in a medical quandary.

Striking the right balance between cautious optimism and realistic expectations will be a formidable challenge.
 

Managing patient and family expectations

These drugs are no magic bullet. They slow down the dementia’s progression, buying patients more time (on the order of months) before they begin to experience significant worsening. We’ll need a lot more information from research and clinical experience before we can understand how meaningful that treatment effect is. Right now, it is unclear whether eligible patients and their families will even perceive tangible differences.

In the CLARITY-AD trial, participants on lecanemab experienced a 27% slowing in the rate of cognitive decline over 18 months. Donanemab was shown to slow decline in memory and cognition by about 35% over the same time frame in the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ 2 trial. That translates to more time for patients and their families to enjoy independence, maintain normal life, and stave off the most distressing parts of the disease.

But what happens after 18 months of treatment – will the treatment effect magnify or dissipate? How much time are we really buying in the long run? Counseling patients and their families is made all the more difficult when the answers to important questions like these remain to be seen.
 

Only a sliver of Alzheimer’s patients are current candidates

The fact is that most patients living with Alzheimer’s disease will not qualify for treatment with these drugs. Lecanemab is approved for people with early-stage disease, meaning their dementia is mild or they have mild cognitive impairment, which is a precursor to full-blown Alzheimer’s disease. Of the 6 million people in the United States living with Alzheimer’s, about 1.5 million are estimated to fall into that category. We can expect to see a similar qualifier for donanemab if it receives FDA approval, especially because that trial suggested a more pronounced treatment effect for patients in the earliest stages of the disease.

Even if a patient hits the sweet spot where they have just enough cognitive impairment, but not too much, they aren’t technically therapeutic candidates until prerequisite testing confirms amyloid protein accumulation in the brain via PET scan or cerebrospinal fluid analysis.

Even then, the FDA’s boxed warning for lecanemab recommends that patients undergo genetic testing for the apo E4 mutation to identify those at a particularly high risk for severe adverse effects including brain bleeding and swelling. This recommendation is not unreasonable considering that 15% of the Alzheimer’s population has two copies of the apo E4 mutation and fall into that high-risk group.
 

Significant risks

Antiamyloid drugs are well-known to cause serious side effects. In the lecanemab trial, 13% of participants receiving Leqembi experienced brain swelling (vs. 2% of participants receiving placebo) and 17% of participants had brain bleeding (vs. 9% of participants on placebo). In the donanemab trial, brain bleeding occurred in 31.4% of participants on the drug (vs. 13.6% on placebo) and swelling occurred in 24% (vs. 2.1% receiving placebo). Thankfully, in both trials, most of these adverse events did not produce significant symptoms, but in rare cases these events caused severe or catastrophic neurologic injury, including death.

How can we best guide patients and their families to weigh the uncertain benefits against potentially serious risks? We can start by considering the patient characteristics most likely to portend increased risk for serious side effects: apo E4 mutations, blood thinner use, and the presence of microhemorrhages on brain imaging. But after that, we’re left with a lot of uncertainty in terms of which patients are most likely to see meaningful clinical improvements from the drug and unknown factors that may increase the risks of treatment.
 

A costly therapy

Medicare plans to cover 80% of lecanemab’s steep cost of $26,500 per year. Still, that will leave many patients with a hefty copay, potentially over $6,000 per year. But that only scratches the surface. Consider the frequent medical visits, repeated brain scans, laboratory tests, and infusion center appointments. It’s been estimated that all-in, the treatment will actually cost about $90,000 per year.

Yes, Medicare will reimburse a large portion of that cost, but it adds up to an estimated $2 billion per year for about 85,000 patients. This will probably spur increases to Medicare premiums, among other economic consequences for the health care system.

We’ll probably have to wait for an FDA approval decision before we know where donanemab will be priced.
 

Logistical challenges could be a rate-limiting step

Ask anyone who’s tried to see a neurologist recently, and they’ll tell you that the wait for a new patient appointment is months long. The shortage of neurologists in the United States is already a crisis, and there are even fewer cognitive neurologists. How long will patients be forced to wait for their diagnosis?

Many geriatricians will get comfortable prescribing these drugs, but will our already overburdened primary care providers have the bandwidth to do the same? It’s a tall order.

A new world of Alzheimer’s treatments also means that the infrastructure of our health care systems will need to be ramped up. Lecanemab infusions are administered every 2 weeks and donanemab every 4 weeks. Infusion centers will need to accommodate a lot more patients. And those patients will need frequent brain scans, so neuroimaging centers will need to increase their capacity to perform many more brain MRI and PET scans.
 

Antiamyloid drugs: An exciting first step

The bottom line is that these drugs aren’t the Alzheimer’s holy grail: An accessible treatment that could stop the disease in its tracks or reverse cognitive impairment. They are, however, a very promising breakthrough.

Yes, there are a ton of kinks to work out here, but this is an exciting start. Alzheimer’s research is entering a renaissance era that will hopefully bring more groundbreaking developments. Better biomarkers to facilitate faster, easier diagnosis. More drugs that go beyond amyloid proteins for their therapeutic targets. Treatments for later-stage disease. Drugs that prevent dementia altogether.

Ultimately, these new antiamyloid beta drugs are an exciting indication that we will eventually have a toolkit of Alzheimer’s drugs to choose from. For now, we’ve taken a solid step forward and there is ample reason to be hopeful for the future.

Dr. Croll is assistant professor of neurology at Temple University, Philadelphia. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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