Neurology

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To compare rates of adverse events and 30-day readmission among patients with dementia who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with those without dementia.

Design: This cohort study used a national database of hospital readmissions developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Setting and participants: Data from State Inpatient Databases were used to derive this national readmissions database representing 80% of hospitals from 28 states that contribute data. The study included all individuals aged 18 years and older who were identified to have had a PCI procedure in the years 2017 and 2018. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify PCI procedures, including drug-eluting stent placement, bare-metal stent placement, and balloon angioplasty, performed in patients who presented with myocardial infarction and unstable angina and those with stable ischemic heart disease. Patients were stratified into those with or without dementia, also defined using ICD-10 codes. A total of 755,406 index hospitalizations were included; 2.3% of the patients had dementia.

Main outcome measures: The primary study outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission, with the cause classified as cardiovascular or noncardiovascular. Secondary outcome measures examined were delirium, in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, fall in hospital, length of hospital stay, and other adverse outcomes. Location at discharge was also examined. Other covariates included in the analysis were age, sex, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, primary payer, and median income. For analysis, a propensity score matching algorithm was applied to match patients with and without dementia. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine 30-day readmission rates, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for those with and without dementia. For secondary outcomes, logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) of outcomes between those with and without dementia.

Main results: The average age of those with dementia was 78.8 years vs 64.9 years in those without dementia. Women made up 42.8% of those with dementia and 31.3% of those without dementia. Those with dementia also had higher rates of comorbidities, such as heart failure, renal failure, and depression. After propensity score matching, 17,309 and 17,187 patients with and without dementia, respectively, were included. Covariates were balanced between the 2 groups after matching. For the primary outcome, patients with dementia were more likely to be readmitted at 30 days (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18; P < .01) when compared to those without dementia. For other adverse outcomes, delirium was significantly more likely to occur for those with dementia (OR, 4.37; 95% CI, 3.69-5.16; P < .01). Patients with dementia were also more likely to die in hospital (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30; P = .03), have cardiac arrest (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39; P = .04), receive a blood transfusion (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; P = .05), experience acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.39; P < .01), and fall in hospital (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.06-3.07; P < .01). Hospital length of stay was higher for those with dementia, with a mean difference of 1.43 days. For discharge location, patients with dementia were more likely to be sent to a skilled nursing facility (30.1% vs 12.2%) and less likely to be discharged home.

Conclusion: Patients with dementia are more likely to experience adverse events, including delirium, mortality, kidney injury, and falls after PCI, and are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital in 30 days compared to those without dementia.

Study 2 Overview (Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al)

Objective: To examine the association between race and 30-day readmissions in Black and non-Hispanic White Medicare beneficiaries with dementia.

Design: This was a retrospective cohort study that used 100% Medicare fee-for service claims data from all hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, for all enrollees with a dementia diagnosis. The claims data were linked to the patient, hospital stay, and hospital factors. Patients with dementia were identified using a validated algorithm that requires an inpatient, skilled nursing facility, home health, or Part B institutional or noninstitutional claim with a qualifying diagnostic code during a 3-year period. Persons enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan were excluded.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome examined in this study was 30-day all-cause readmission. Self-reported race and ethnic identity was a baseline covariate. Persons who self-reported Black or non-Hispanic White race were included in the study; other categories of race and ethnicity were excluded because of prior evidence suggesting low accuracy of these categories in Medicare claims data. Other covariates included neighborhood disadvantage, measured using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and rurality; hospital-level and hospital stay–level characteristics such as for-profit status and number of annual discharges; and individual demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The ADI is constructed using variables of poverty, education, housing, and employment and is represented as a percentile ranking of level of disadvantage. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses of 30-day hospital readmission were conducted. Models using various levels of adjustment were constructed to examine the contributions of the identified covariates to the estimated association between 30-day readmission and race.

Main results: A total of 1,523,142 index hospital stays among 945,481 beneficiaries were included; 215,815 episodes were among Black beneficiaries and 1,307,327 episodes were among non-Hispanic White beneficiaries. Mean age was 81.5 years, and approximately 61% of beneficiaries were female. Black beneficiaries were younger but had higher rates of dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibility and disability; they were also more likely to reside in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Black beneficiaries had a 30-day readmission rate of 24.1% compared with 18.5% in non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (unadjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.35-1.39). The differences in outcomes persisted after adjusting for geographic factors, social factors, hospital characteristics, hospital stay factors, demographics, and comorbidities, suggesting that unmeasured underlying racial disparities not included in this model accounted for the differences. The effects of certain variables, such as neighborhood, differed by race; for example, the protective effect of living in a less disadvantaged neighborhood was observed among White beneficiaries but not Black beneficiaries.

Conclusion: Racial and geographic disparities in 30-day readmission rates were observed among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. Protective effects associated with neighborhood advantage may confer different levels of benefit for people of different race.

Commentary

Adults living with dementia are at higher risk of adverse outcomes across settings. In the first study, by Park et al, among adults who underwent a cardiac procedure (PCI), those with dementia were more likely to experience adverse events compared to those without dementia. These outcomes include increased rates of 30-day readmissions, delirium, cardiac arrest, and falls. These findings are consistent with other studies that found a similar association among patients who underwent other cardiac procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement.¹ Because dementia is a strong predisposing factor for delirium, it is not surprising that delirium is observed across patients who underwent different procedures or hospitalization episodes.² Because of the potential hazards for inpatients with dementia, hospitals have developed risk-reduction programs, such as those that promote recognition of dementia, and management strategies that reduce the risk of delirium.³ Delirium prevention may also impact other adverse outcomes, such as falls, discharge to institutional care, and readmissions.

Racial disparities in care outcomes have been documented across settings, including hospital⁴ and hospice care settings.⁵ In study 2, by Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al, the findings of higher rates of hospital readmission among Black patients when compared to non-Hispanic White patients were not surprising. The central finding of this study is that even when accounting for various levels of factors, including hospital-level, hospital stay–level, individual (demographics, comorbidities), and neighborhood characteristics (disadvantage), the observed disparity diminished but persisted, suggesting that while these various levels of factors contributed to the observed disparity, other unmeasured factors also contributed. Another key finding is that the effect of the various factors examined in this study may affect different subgroups in different ways, suggesting underlying factors, and thus potential solutions to reduce disparities in care outcomes, could differ among subgroups.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

These 2 studies add to the literature on factors that can affect 30-day hospital readmission rates in patients with dementia. These data could allow for more robust discussions of what to anticipate when adults with dementia undergo specific procedures, and also further build the case that improvements in care, such as delirium prevention programs, could offer benefits. The observation about racial and ethnic disparities in care outcomes among patients with dementia highlights the continued need to better understand the drivers of these disparities so that hospital systems and policy makers can consider and test possible solutions. Future studies should further disentangle the relationships among the various levels of factors and observed disparities in outcomes, especially for this vulnerable population of adults living with dementia.

Practice Points

• Clinicians should be aware of the additional risks for poor outcomes that dementia confers.
• Awareness of this increased risk will inform discussions of risks and benefits for older adults considered for procedures.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To compare rates of adverse events and 30-day readmission among patients with dementia who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with those without dementia.

Design: This cohort study used a national database of hospital readmissions developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Setting and participants: Data from State Inpatient Databases were used to derive this national readmissions database representing 80% of hospitals from 28 states that contribute data. The study included all individuals aged 18 years and older who were identified to have had a PCI procedure in the years 2017 and 2018. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify PCI procedures, including drug-eluting stent placement, bare-metal stent placement, and balloon angioplasty, performed in patients who presented with myocardial infarction and unstable angina and those with stable ischemic heart disease. Patients were stratified into those with or without dementia, also defined using ICD-10 codes. A total of 755,406 index hospitalizations were included; 2.3% of the patients had dementia.

Main outcome measures: The primary study outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission, with the cause classified as cardiovascular or noncardiovascular. Secondary outcome measures examined were delirium, in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, fall in hospital, length of hospital stay, and other adverse outcomes. Location at discharge was also examined. Other covariates included in the analysis were age, sex, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, primary payer, and median income. For analysis, a propensity score matching algorithm was applied to match patients with and without dementia. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine 30-day readmission rates, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for those with and without dementia. For secondary outcomes, logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) of outcomes between those with and without dementia.

Main results: The average age of those with dementia was 78.8 years vs 64.9 years in those without dementia. Women made up 42.8% of those with dementia and 31.3% of those without dementia. Those with dementia also had higher rates of comorbidities, such as heart failure, renal failure, and depression. After propensity score matching, 17,309 and 17,187 patients with and without dementia, respectively, were included. Covariates were balanced between the 2 groups after matching. For the primary outcome, patients with dementia were more likely to be readmitted at 30 days (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18; P < .01) when compared to those without dementia. For other adverse outcomes, delirium was significantly more likely to occur for those with dementia (OR, 4.37; 95% CI, 3.69-5.16; P < .01). Patients with dementia were also more likely to die in hospital (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30; P = .03), have cardiac arrest (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39; P = .04), receive a blood transfusion (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; P = .05), experience acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.39; P < .01), and fall in hospital (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.06-3.07; P < .01). Hospital length of stay was higher for those with dementia, with a mean difference of 1.43 days. For discharge location, patients with dementia were more likely to be sent to a skilled nursing facility (30.1% vs 12.2%) and less likely to be discharged home.

Conclusion: Patients with dementia are more likely to experience adverse events, including delirium, mortality, kidney injury, and falls after PCI, and are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital in 30 days compared to those without dementia.

Study 2 Overview (Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al)

Objective: To examine the association between race and 30-day readmissions in Black and non-Hispanic White Medicare beneficiaries with dementia.

Design: This was a retrospective cohort study that used 100% Medicare fee-for service claims data from all hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, for all enrollees with a dementia diagnosis. The claims data were linked to the patient, hospital stay, and hospital factors. Patients with dementia were identified using a validated algorithm that requires an inpatient, skilled nursing facility, home health, or Part B institutional or noninstitutional claim with a qualifying diagnostic code during a 3-year period. Persons enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan were excluded.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome examined in this study was 30-day all-cause readmission. Self-reported race and ethnic identity was a baseline covariate. Persons who self-reported Black or non-Hispanic White race were included in the study; other categories of race and ethnicity were excluded because of prior evidence suggesting low accuracy of these categories in Medicare claims data. Other covariates included neighborhood disadvantage, measured using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and rurality; hospital-level and hospital stay–level characteristics such as for-profit status and number of annual discharges; and individual demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The ADI is constructed using variables of poverty, education, housing, and employment and is represented as a percentile ranking of level of disadvantage. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses of 30-day hospital readmission were conducted. Models using various levels of adjustment were constructed to examine the contributions of the identified covariates to the estimated association between 30-day readmission and race.

Main results: A total of 1,523,142 index hospital stays among 945,481 beneficiaries were included; 215,815 episodes were among Black beneficiaries and 1,307,327 episodes were among non-Hispanic White beneficiaries. Mean age was 81.5 years, and approximately 61% of beneficiaries were female. Black beneficiaries were younger but had higher rates of dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibility and disability; they were also more likely to reside in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Black beneficiaries had a 30-day readmission rate of 24.1% compared with 18.5% in non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (unadjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.35-1.39). The differences in outcomes persisted after adjusting for geographic factors, social factors, hospital characteristics, hospital stay factors, demographics, and comorbidities, suggesting that unmeasured underlying racial disparities not included in this model accounted for the differences. The effects of certain variables, such as neighborhood, differed by race; for example, the protective effect of living in a less disadvantaged neighborhood was observed among White beneficiaries but not Black beneficiaries.

Conclusion: Racial and geographic disparities in 30-day readmission rates were observed among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. Protective effects associated with neighborhood advantage may confer different levels of benefit for people of different race.

Commentary

Adults living with dementia are at higher risk of adverse outcomes across settings. In the first study, by Park et al, among adults who underwent a cardiac procedure (PCI), those with dementia were more likely to experience adverse events compared to those without dementia. These outcomes include increased rates of 30-day readmissions, delirium, cardiac arrest, and falls. These findings are consistent with other studies that found a similar association among patients who underwent other cardiac procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement.¹ Because dementia is a strong predisposing factor for delirium, it is not surprising that delirium is observed across patients who underwent different procedures or hospitalization episodes.² Because of the potential hazards for inpatients with dementia, hospitals have developed risk-reduction programs, such as those that promote recognition of dementia, and management strategies that reduce the risk of delirium.³ Delirium prevention may also impact other adverse outcomes, such as falls, discharge to institutional care, and readmissions.

Racial disparities in care outcomes have been documented across settings, including hospital⁴ and hospice care settings.⁵ In study 2, by Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al, the findings of higher rates of hospital readmission among Black patients when compared to non-Hispanic White patients were not surprising. The central finding of this study is that even when accounting for various levels of factors, including hospital-level, hospital stay–level, individual (demographics, comorbidities), and neighborhood characteristics (disadvantage), the observed disparity diminished but persisted, suggesting that while these various levels of factors contributed to the observed disparity, other unmeasured factors also contributed. Another key finding is that the effect of the various factors examined in this study may affect different subgroups in different ways, suggesting underlying factors, and thus potential solutions to reduce disparities in care outcomes, could differ among subgroups.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

These 2 studies add to the literature on factors that can affect 30-day hospital readmission rates in patients with dementia. These data could allow for more robust discussions of what to anticipate when adults with dementia undergo specific procedures, and also further build the case that improvements in care, such as delirium prevention programs, could offer benefits. The observation about racial and ethnic disparities in care outcomes among patients with dementia highlights the continued need to better understand the drivers of these disparities so that hospital systems and policy makers can consider and test possible solutions. Future studies should further disentangle the relationships among the various levels of factors and observed disparities in outcomes, especially for this vulnerable population of adults living with dementia.

Practice Points

• Clinicians should be aware of the additional risks for poor outcomes that dementia confers.
• Awareness of this increased risk will inform discussions of risks and benefits for older adults considered for procedures.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Park et al)

Objective: To compare rates of adverse events and 30-day readmission among patients with dementia who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with those without dementia.

Design: This cohort study used a national database of hospital readmissions developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Setting and participants: Data from State Inpatient Databases were used to derive this national readmissions database representing 80% of hospitals from 28 states that contribute data. The study included all individuals aged 18 years and older who were identified to have had a PCI procedure in the years 2017 and 2018. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes were used to identify PCI procedures, including drug-eluting stent placement, bare-metal stent placement, and balloon angioplasty, performed in patients who presented with myocardial infarction and unstable angina and those with stable ischemic heart disease. Patients were stratified into those with or without dementia, also defined using ICD-10 codes. A total of 755,406 index hospitalizations were included; 2.3% of the patients had dementia.

Main outcome measures: The primary study outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission, with the cause classified as cardiovascular or noncardiovascular. Secondary outcome measures examined were delirium, in-hospital mortality, cardiac arrest, blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, fall in hospital, length of hospital stay, and other adverse outcomes. Location at discharge was also examined. Other covariates included in the analysis were age, sex, comorbidities, hospital characteristics, primary payer, and median income. For analysis, a propensity score matching algorithm was applied to match patients with and without dementia. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to examine 30-day readmission rates, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for those with and without dementia. For secondary outcomes, logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) of outcomes between those with and without dementia.

Main results: The average age of those with dementia was 78.8 years vs 64.9 years in those without dementia. Women made up 42.8% of those with dementia and 31.3% of those without dementia. Those with dementia also had higher rates of comorbidities, such as heart failure, renal failure, and depression. After propensity score matching, 17,309 and 17,187 patients with and without dementia, respectively, were included. Covariates were balanced between the 2 groups after matching. For the primary outcome, patients with dementia were more likely to be readmitted at 30 days (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.18; P < .01) when compared to those without dementia. For other adverse outcomes, delirium was significantly more likely to occur for those with dementia (OR, 4.37; 95% CI, 3.69-5.16; P < .01). Patients with dementia were also more likely to die in hospital (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.01-1.30; P = .03), have cardiac arrest (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39; P = .04), receive a blood transfusion (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.00-1.36; P = .05), experience acute kidney injury (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.21-1.39; P < .01), and fall in hospital (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.06-3.07; P < .01). Hospital length of stay was higher for those with dementia, with a mean difference of 1.43 days. For discharge location, patients with dementia were more likely to be sent to a skilled nursing facility (30.1% vs 12.2%) and less likely to be discharged home.

Conclusion: Patients with dementia are more likely to experience adverse events, including delirium, mortality, kidney injury, and falls after PCI, and are more likely to be readmitted to the hospital in 30 days compared to those without dementia.

Study 2 Overview (Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al)

Objective: To examine the association between race and 30-day readmissions in Black and non-Hispanic White Medicare beneficiaries with dementia.

Design: This was a retrospective cohort study that used 100% Medicare fee-for service claims data from all hospitalizations between January 1, 2014, and November 30, 2014, for all enrollees with a dementia diagnosis. The claims data were linked to the patient, hospital stay, and hospital factors. Patients with dementia were identified using a validated algorithm that requires an inpatient, skilled nursing facility, home health, or Part B institutional or noninstitutional claim with a qualifying diagnostic code during a 3-year period. Persons enrolled in a health maintenance organization plan were excluded.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome examined in this study was 30-day all-cause readmission. Self-reported race and ethnic identity was a baseline covariate. Persons who self-reported Black or non-Hispanic White race were included in the study; other categories of race and ethnicity were excluded because of prior evidence suggesting low accuracy of these categories in Medicare claims data. Other covariates included neighborhood disadvantage, measured using the Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and rurality; hospital-level and hospital stay–level characteristics such as for-profit status and number of annual discharges; and individual demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The ADI is constructed using variables of poverty, education, housing, and employment and is represented as a percentile ranking of level of disadvantage. Unadjusted and adjusted analyses of 30-day hospital readmission were conducted. Models using various levels of adjustment were constructed to examine the contributions of the identified covariates to the estimated association between 30-day readmission and race.

Main results: A total of 1,523,142 index hospital stays among 945,481 beneficiaries were included; 215,815 episodes were among Black beneficiaries and 1,307,327 episodes were among non-Hispanic White beneficiaries. Mean age was 81.5 years, and approximately 61% of beneficiaries were female. Black beneficiaries were younger but had higher rates of dual Medicare/Medicaid eligibility and disability; they were also more likely to reside in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Black beneficiaries had a 30-day readmission rate of 24.1% compared with 18.5% in non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (unadjusted OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.35-1.39). The differences in outcomes persisted after adjusting for geographic factors, social factors, hospital characteristics, hospital stay factors, demographics, and comorbidities, suggesting that unmeasured underlying racial disparities not included in this model accounted for the differences. The effects of certain variables, such as neighborhood, differed by race; for example, the protective effect of living in a less disadvantaged neighborhood was observed among White beneficiaries but not Black beneficiaries.

Conclusion: Racial and geographic disparities in 30-day readmission rates were observed among Medicare beneficiaries with dementia. Protective effects associated with neighborhood advantage may confer different levels of benefit for people of different race.

Commentary

Adults living with dementia are at higher risk of adverse outcomes across settings. In the first study, by Park et al, among adults who underwent a cardiac procedure (PCI), those with dementia were more likely to experience adverse events compared to those without dementia. These outcomes include increased rates of 30-day readmissions, delirium, cardiac arrest, and falls. These findings are consistent with other studies that found a similar association among patients who underwent other cardiac procedures, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement.¹ Because dementia is a strong predisposing factor for delirium, it is not surprising that delirium is observed across patients who underwent different procedures or hospitalization episodes.² Because of the potential hazards for inpatients with dementia, hospitals have developed risk-reduction programs, such as those that promote recognition of dementia, and management strategies that reduce the risk of delirium.³ Delirium prevention may also impact other adverse outcomes, such as falls, discharge to institutional care, and readmissions.

Racial disparities in care outcomes have been documented across settings, including hospital⁴ and hospice care settings.⁵ In study 2, by Gilmore-Bykovskyi et al, the findings of higher rates of hospital readmission among Black patients when compared to non-Hispanic White patients were not surprising. The central finding of this study is that even when accounting for various levels of factors, including hospital-level, hospital stay–level, individual (demographics, comorbidities), and neighborhood characteristics (disadvantage), the observed disparity diminished but persisted, suggesting that while these various levels of factors contributed to the observed disparity, other unmeasured factors also contributed. Another key finding is that the effect of the various factors examined in this study may affect different subgroups in different ways, suggesting underlying factors, and thus potential solutions to reduce disparities in care outcomes, could differ among subgroups.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

These 2 studies add to the literature on factors that can affect 30-day hospital readmission rates in patients with dementia. These data could allow for more robust discussions of what to anticipate when adults with dementia undergo specific procedures, and also further build the case that improvements in care, such as delirium prevention programs, could offer benefits. The observation about racial and ethnic disparities in care outcomes among patients with dementia highlights the continued need to better understand the drivers of these disparities so that hospital systems and policy makers can consider and test possible solutions. Future studies should further disentangle the relationships among the various levels of factors and observed disparities in outcomes, especially for this vulnerable population of adults living with dementia.

Practice Points

• Clinicians should be aware of the additional risks for poor outcomes that dementia confers.
• Awareness of this increased risk will inform discussions of risks and benefits for older adults considered for procedures.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Physical activity has been tied to a significantly decreased risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, results of a large, long-term prospective study show.

Investigators found that among almost 99,000 women participating in the ongoing E3N study, those who exercised the most frequently had up to a 25% lower risk for PD than their less-active counterparts.

The results highlight the importance of exercising early in mid-life to prevent PD later on, study investigator Alexis Elbaz, MD, PhD, research director, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), Paris, said in an interview.

This is especially critical since there is no cure nor disease-modifying treatments. The medications that are available are aimed at symptom reduction.

“Finding ways to prevent or delay the onset of Parkinson’s is really important, and physical activity seems to be one of the possible strategies to reduce the risk,” Dr. Elbaz said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Direct protective effect?

Results from previous research examining the relationship physical activity and PD has been inconsistent. One meta-analysis showed a statistically significant association among men but a nonsignificant link in women.

The investigators noted that some of the findings from previous studies may have been affected by reverse causation. As nonmotor symptoms such as constipation and subtle motor signs such as tremor and balance issues can present years before a PD diagnosis, patients may reduce their physical activity because of such symptoms.

To address this potential confounder, the researchers used “lag” analyses, where data on physical activity levels in the years close to a PD diagnosis are omitted.

The study relied on data from the E3N, an ongoing cohort study of 98,995 women, born between 1925 and 1950 and recruited in 1990, who were affiliated with a French national health insurance plan that primarily covers teachers. Participants completed a questionnaire on lifestyle and medical history at baseline and follow-up questionnaires every 2-3 years.

In six of the questionnaires, participants provided details about various recreational, sports, and household activities – for example, walking, climbing stairs, gardening, and cleaning. The authors attributed metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values to each activity and multiplied METs by their frequency and duration to obtain a physical activity score.

Definite and probable PD cases were determined through self-reported physician diagnoses, anti-parkinsonian drug claims, and medical records, with diagnoses verified by an expert panel.

Researchers investigated the relationship between physical activity and PD onset in a nested-case control study that included 25,075 women (1,196 PD cases and 23,879 controls) with a mean age of 71.9 years. They found physical activity was significantly lower in cases than in controls throughout follow-up.

The difference between cases and controls began to increase at 10 years before diagnosis (P-interaction = .003). “When we looked at the trajectories of physical activity in PD patients and in controls, we saw that in the 10 years before the diagnosis, physical activity declined at a steeper rate in controls. We think this is because those subtle prodromal symptoms cause people to exercise less,” said Dr. Elbaz.

In the main analysis, which had a 10-year lag, 1,074 women developed incident PD during a mean follow-up of 17.2 years. Those in the highest quartile of physical activity had a 25% lower risk for PD vs. those in the lowest quartile (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.89).

The risk for PD decreased with increasing levels of physical activity in a linear fashion, noted Dr. Elbaz. “So doing even a little bit of physical activity is better than doing nothing at all.”

Analyses that included 15-year and 20-year lag times had similar findings.

Sensitivity analyses that adjusted for the Mediterranean diet and caffeine and dairy intake also yielded comparable results. This was also true for analyses that adjusted for comorbidities such as body mass index, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, all of which can affect PD risk.

“This gives weight to the idea that diabetes or cardiovascular diseases do not explain the relationship between physical activity and PD, which means the most likely hypothesis is that physical activity has a direct protective effect on the brain,” said Dr. Elbaz.

Studies have shown that physical activity affects brain plasticity and can reduce oxidative stress in the brain – a key mechanism involved in PD, he added.

Physical activity is a low-risk, inexpensive, and accessible intervention. But the study was not designed to determine the types of physical activity that are most protective against PD.

The study’s main limitation is that it used self-reported physical activity rather than objective measures such as accelerometers. In addition, the participants were not necessarily representative of the general population.
 

Robust evidence

In an accompanying editorial, Lana M. Chahine, MD, associate professor in the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sirwan K. L. Darweesh, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Center of Expertise for Parkinson and Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said the study “provides robust evidence” that physical activity reduces risk for PD in women.

“These results show that the field is moving in the right direction and provide a clear rationale for exercise trials to prevent or delay the onset of manifest PD in at-risk individuals” they wrote.

The study highlights “gaps” in knowledge that merit closer attention and that “further insight is warranted on how much the effects on PD vary by type, intensity, frequency, and duration of physical activity,” the editorialists noted.

Another gap is how the accuracy of assessment of physical activity can be improved beyond self-report. “Wearable sensor technology now offers the potential to assess physical activity remotely and objectively in prevention trials,” they added.

Other areas that need exploring relate to mechanisms by which physical activity reduces PD risk, and to what extent effects of physical activity vary between individuals, Dr. Chahine and Dr. Darweesh noted.

Commenting for this article, Michael S. Okun, MD, executive director of the Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health, and medical adviser for the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the findings are “significant and important.”

Based on only a handful of previous studies, it was assumed that physical activity was associated with reduced Parkinson’s diagnosis only in men, said Dr. Okun. “The current dataset was larger and included longer-term outcomes, and it informs the field that exercise may be important for reducing the risk of Parkinson’s disease in men as well as in women.”

The investigators, the editorialists, and Dr. Okun reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity has been tied to a significantly decreased risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, results of a large, long-term prospective study show.

Investigators found that among almost 99,000 women participating in the ongoing E3N study, those who exercised the most frequently had up to a 25% lower risk for PD than their less-active counterparts.

The results highlight the importance of exercising early in mid-life to prevent PD later on, study investigator Alexis Elbaz, MD, PhD, research director, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), Paris, said in an interview.

This is especially critical since there is no cure nor disease-modifying treatments. The medications that are available are aimed at symptom reduction.

“Finding ways to prevent or delay the onset of Parkinson’s is really important, and physical activity seems to be one of the possible strategies to reduce the risk,” Dr. Elbaz said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Direct protective effect?

Results from previous research examining the relationship physical activity and PD has been inconsistent. One meta-analysis showed a statistically significant association among men but a nonsignificant link in women.

The investigators noted that some of the findings from previous studies may have been affected by reverse causation. As nonmotor symptoms such as constipation and subtle motor signs such as tremor and balance issues can present years before a PD diagnosis, patients may reduce their physical activity because of such symptoms.

To address this potential confounder, the researchers used “lag” analyses, where data on physical activity levels in the years close to a PD diagnosis are omitted.

The study relied on data from the E3N, an ongoing cohort study of 98,995 women, born between 1925 and 1950 and recruited in 1990, who were affiliated with a French national health insurance plan that primarily covers teachers. Participants completed a questionnaire on lifestyle and medical history at baseline and follow-up questionnaires every 2-3 years.

In six of the questionnaires, participants provided details about various recreational, sports, and household activities – for example, walking, climbing stairs, gardening, and cleaning. The authors attributed metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values to each activity and multiplied METs by their frequency and duration to obtain a physical activity score.

Definite and probable PD cases were determined through self-reported physician diagnoses, anti-parkinsonian drug claims, and medical records, with diagnoses verified by an expert panel.

Researchers investigated the relationship between physical activity and PD onset in a nested-case control study that included 25,075 women (1,196 PD cases and 23,879 controls) with a mean age of 71.9 years. They found physical activity was significantly lower in cases than in controls throughout follow-up.

The difference between cases and controls began to increase at 10 years before diagnosis (P-interaction = .003). “When we looked at the trajectories of physical activity in PD patients and in controls, we saw that in the 10 years before the diagnosis, physical activity declined at a steeper rate in controls. We think this is because those subtle prodromal symptoms cause people to exercise less,” said Dr. Elbaz.

In the main analysis, which had a 10-year lag, 1,074 women developed incident PD during a mean follow-up of 17.2 years. Those in the highest quartile of physical activity had a 25% lower risk for PD vs. those in the lowest quartile (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.89).

The risk for PD decreased with increasing levels of physical activity in a linear fashion, noted Dr. Elbaz. “So doing even a little bit of physical activity is better than doing nothing at all.”

Analyses that included 15-year and 20-year lag times had similar findings.

Sensitivity analyses that adjusted for the Mediterranean diet and caffeine and dairy intake also yielded comparable results. This was also true for analyses that adjusted for comorbidities such as body mass index, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, all of which can affect PD risk.

“This gives weight to the idea that diabetes or cardiovascular diseases do not explain the relationship between physical activity and PD, which means the most likely hypothesis is that physical activity has a direct protective effect on the brain,” said Dr. Elbaz.

Studies have shown that physical activity affects brain plasticity and can reduce oxidative stress in the brain – a key mechanism involved in PD, he added.

Physical activity is a low-risk, inexpensive, and accessible intervention. But the study was not designed to determine the types of physical activity that are most protective against PD.

The study’s main limitation is that it used self-reported physical activity rather than objective measures such as accelerometers. In addition, the participants were not necessarily representative of the general population.
 

Robust evidence

In an accompanying editorial, Lana M. Chahine, MD, associate professor in the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sirwan K. L. Darweesh, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Center of Expertise for Parkinson and Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said the study “provides robust evidence” that physical activity reduces risk for PD in women.

“These results show that the field is moving in the right direction and provide a clear rationale for exercise trials to prevent or delay the onset of manifest PD in at-risk individuals” they wrote.

The study highlights “gaps” in knowledge that merit closer attention and that “further insight is warranted on how much the effects on PD vary by type, intensity, frequency, and duration of physical activity,” the editorialists noted.

Another gap is how the accuracy of assessment of physical activity can be improved beyond self-report. “Wearable sensor technology now offers the potential to assess physical activity remotely and objectively in prevention trials,” they added.

Other areas that need exploring relate to mechanisms by which physical activity reduces PD risk, and to what extent effects of physical activity vary between individuals, Dr. Chahine and Dr. Darweesh noted.

Commenting for this article, Michael S. Okun, MD, executive director of the Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health, and medical adviser for the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the findings are “significant and important.”

Based on only a handful of previous studies, it was assumed that physical activity was associated with reduced Parkinson’s diagnosis only in men, said Dr. Okun. “The current dataset was larger and included longer-term outcomes, and it informs the field that exercise may be important for reducing the risk of Parkinson’s disease in men as well as in women.”

The investigators, the editorialists, and Dr. Okun reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physical activity has been tied to a significantly decreased risk of Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, results of a large, long-term prospective study show.

Investigators found that among almost 99,000 women participating in the ongoing E3N study, those who exercised the most frequently had up to a 25% lower risk for PD than their less-active counterparts.

The results highlight the importance of exercising early in mid-life to prevent PD later on, study investigator Alexis Elbaz, MD, PhD, research director, French Institute of Health and Medical Research (Inserm), Paris, said in an interview.

This is especially critical since there is no cure nor disease-modifying treatments. The medications that are available are aimed at symptom reduction.

“Finding ways to prevent or delay the onset of Parkinson’s is really important, and physical activity seems to be one of the possible strategies to reduce the risk,” Dr. Elbaz said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Direct protective effect?

Results from previous research examining the relationship physical activity and PD has been inconsistent. One meta-analysis showed a statistically significant association among men but a nonsignificant link in women.

The investigators noted that some of the findings from previous studies may have been affected by reverse causation. As nonmotor symptoms such as constipation and subtle motor signs such as tremor and balance issues can present years before a PD diagnosis, patients may reduce their physical activity because of such symptoms.

To address this potential confounder, the researchers used “lag” analyses, where data on physical activity levels in the years close to a PD diagnosis are omitted.

The study relied on data from the E3N, an ongoing cohort study of 98,995 women, born between 1925 and 1950 and recruited in 1990, who were affiliated with a French national health insurance plan that primarily covers teachers. Participants completed a questionnaire on lifestyle and medical history at baseline and follow-up questionnaires every 2-3 years.

In six of the questionnaires, participants provided details about various recreational, sports, and household activities – for example, walking, climbing stairs, gardening, and cleaning. The authors attributed metabolic equivalent of task (MET) values to each activity and multiplied METs by their frequency and duration to obtain a physical activity score.

Definite and probable PD cases were determined through self-reported physician diagnoses, anti-parkinsonian drug claims, and medical records, with diagnoses verified by an expert panel.

Researchers investigated the relationship between physical activity and PD onset in a nested-case control study that included 25,075 women (1,196 PD cases and 23,879 controls) with a mean age of 71.9 years. They found physical activity was significantly lower in cases than in controls throughout follow-up.

The difference between cases and controls began to increase at 10 years before diagnosis (P-interaction = .003). “When we looked at the trajectories of physical activity in PD patients and in controls, we saw that in the 10 years before the diagnosis, physical activity declined at a steeper rate in controls. We think this is because those subtle prodromal symptoms cause people to exercise less,” said Dr. Elbaz.

In the main analysis, which had a 10-year lag, 1,074 women developed incident PD during a mean follow-up of 17.2 years. Those in the highest quartile of physical activity had a 25% lower risk for PD vs. those in the lowest quartile (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.89).

The risk for PD decreased with increasing levels of physical activity in a linear fashion, noted Dr. Elbaz. “So doing even a little bit of physical activity is better than doing nothing at all.”

Analyses that included 15-year and 20-year lag times had similar findings.

Sensitivity analyses that adjusted for the Mediterranean diet and caffeine and dairy intake also yielded comparable results. This was also true for analyses that adjusted for comorbidities such as body mass index, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, all of which can affect PD risk.

“This gives weight to the idea that diabetes or cardiovascular diseases do not explain the relationship between physical activity and PD, which means the most likely hypothesis is that physical activity has a direct protective effect on the brain,” said Dr. Elbaz.

Studies have shown that physical activity affects brain plasticity and can reduce oxidative stress in the brain – a key mechanism involved in PD, he added.

Physical activity is a low-risk, inexpensive, and accessible intervention. But the study was not designed to determine the types of physical activity that are most protective against PD.

The study’s main limitation is that it used self-reported physical activity rather than objective measures such as accelerometers. In addition, the participants were not necessarily representative of the general population.
 

Robust evidence

In an accompanying editorial, Lana M. Chahine, MD, associate professor in the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, and Sirwan K. L. Darweesh, MD, PhD, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Center of Expertise for Parkinson and Movement Disorders, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, said the study “provides robust evidence” that physical activity reduces risk for PD in women.

“These results show that the field is moving in the right direction and provide a clear rationale for exercise trials to prevent or delay the onset of manifest PD in at-risk individuals” they wrote.

The study highlights “gaps” in knowledge that merit closer attention and that “further insight is warranted on how much the effects on PD vary by type, intensity, frequency, and duration of physical activity,” the editorialists noted.

Another gap is how the accuracy of assessment of physical activity can be improved beyond self-report. “Wearable sensor technology now offers the potential to assess physical activity remotely and objectively in prevention trials,” they added.

Other areas that need exploring relate to mechanisms by which physical activity reduces PD risk, and to what extent effects of physical activity vary between individuals, Dr. Chahine and Dr. Darweesh noted.

Commenting for this article, Michael S. Okun, MD, executive director of the Fixel Institute for Neurological Diseases at University of Florida Health, and medical adviser for the Parkinson’s Foundation, said the findings are “significant and important.”

Based on only a handful of previous studies, it was assumed that physical activity was associated with reduced Parkinson’s diagnosis only in men, said Dr. Okun. “The current dataset was larger and included longer-term outcomes, and it informs the field that exercise may be important for reducing the risk of Parkinson’s disease in men as well as in women.”

The investigators, the editorialists, and Dr. Okun reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Self-reported, regular Internet use, but not overuse, in older adults is linked to a lower dementia risk, new research suggests.

Investigators followed more than 18,000 older individuals and found that regular Internet use was associated with about a 50% reduction in dementia risk, compared with their counterparts who did not use the Internet regularly.

They also found that longer duration of regular Internet use was associated with a reduced risk of dementia, although excessive daily Internet usage appeared to adversely affect dementia risk.

“Online engagement can develop and maintain cognitive reserve – resiliency against physiological damage to the brain – and increased cognitive reserve can, in turn, compensate for brain aging and reduce the risk of dementia,” study investigator Gawon Cho, a doctoral candidate at New York University School of Global Public Health, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
 

Unexamined benefits

Prior research has shown that older adult Internet users have “better overall cognitive performance, verbal reasoning, and memory,” compared with nonusers, the authors note.

However, because this body of research consists of cross-sectional analyses and longitudinal studies with brief follow-up periods, the long-term cognitive benefits of Internet usage remain “unexamined.”

In addition, despite “extensive evidence of a disproportionately high burden of dementia in people of color, individuals without higher education, and adults who experienced other socioeconomic hardships, little is known about whether the Internet has exacerbated population-level disparities in cognitive health,” the investigators add.

Another question concerns whether excessive Internet usage may actually be detrimental to neurocognitive outcomes. However, “existing evidence on the adverse effects of Internet usage is concentrated in younger populations whose brains are still undergoing maturation.”

Ms. Cho said the motivation for the study was the lack of longitudinal studies on this topic, especially those with sufficient follow-up periods. In addition, she said, there is insufficient evidence about how changes in Internet usage in older age are associated with prospective dementia risk.

For the study, investigators turned to participants in the Health and Retirement Study, an ongoing longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of U.S.-based older adults (aged ≥ 50 years).

All participants (n = 18,154; 47.36% male; median age, 55.17 years) were dementia-free, community-dwelling older adults who completed a 2002 baseline cognitive assessment and were asked about Internet usage every 2 years thereafter.

Participants were followed from 2002 to 2018 for a maximum of 17.1 years (median, 7.9 years), which is the longest follow-up period to date. Of the total sample, 64.76% were regular Internet users.

The study’s primary outcome was incident dementia, based on performance on the Modified Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS-M), which was administered every 2 years.

The exposure examined in the study was cumulative Internet usage in late adulthood, defined as “the number of biennial waves where participants used the Internet regularly during the first three waves.”

In addition, participants were asked how many hours they spent using the Internet during the past week for activities other than viewing television shows or movies.

The researchers also investigated whether the link between Internet usage and dementia risk varied by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generational cohort.

Covariates included baseline TICS-M score, health, age, household income, marital status, and region of residence.
 

U-shaped curve

More than half of the sample (52.96%) showed no changes in Internet use from baseline during the study period, while one-fifth (20.54%) did show changes in use.

Investigators found a robust link between Internet usage and lower dementia risk (cause-specific hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.46-0.71]) – a finding that remained even after adjusting for self-selection into baseline usage (csHR, 0.54 [0.41-0.72]) and signs of cognitive decline at baseline (csHR, 0.62 [0.46-0.85]).

Each additional wave of regular Internet usage was associated with a 21% decrease in the risk of dementia (95% CI, 13%-29%), wherein additional regular periods were associated with reduced dementia risk (csHR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.68-0.95]).

“The difference in risk between regular and nonregular users did not vary by educational attainment, race-ethnicity, sex, and generation,” the investigators note.

A U-shaped association was found between daily hours of online engagement, wherein the lowest risk was observed in those with 0.1-2 hours of usage (compared with 0 hours of usage). The risk increased in a “monotonic fashion” after 2 hours, with 6.1-8 hours of usage showing the highest risk.

This finding was not considered statistically significant, but the “consistent U-shaped trend offers a preliminary suggestion that excessive online engagement may have adverse cognitive effects on older adults,” the investigators note.

“Among older adults, regular Internet users may experience a lower risk of dementia compared to nonregular users, and longer periods of regular Internet usage in late adulthood may help reduce the risks of subsequent dementia incidence,” said Ms. Cho. “Nonetheless, using the Internet excessively daily may negatively affect the risk of dementia in older adults.”
 

Bidirectional relationship?

Commenting for this article, Claire Sexton, DPhil, Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific programs and outreach, noted that some risk factors for Alzheimer’s or other dementias can’t be changed, while others are modifiable, “either at a personal or a population level.”

She called the current research “important” because it “identifies a potentially modifiable factor that may influence dementia risk.”

However, cautioned Dr. Sexton, who was not involved with the study, the findings cannot establish cause and effect. In fact, the relationship may be bidirectional.

“It may be that regular Internet usage is associated with increased cognitive stimulation, and in turn reduced risk of dementia; or it may be that individuals with lower risk of dementia are more likely to engage in regular Internet usage,” she said. Thus, “interventional studies are able to shed more light on causation.”

The Health and Retirement Study is sponsored by the National Institute on Aging and is conducted by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Ms. Cho, her coauthors, and Dr. Sexton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: I’m your host, Dr. Andrew Wilner, reporting virtually from the 2023 American Academy of Neurology meeting in Boston. It’s my pleasure today to speak with Dr. Shae Datta, codirector of the NYU Langone Concussion Center.

She’s also a clinical assistant professor of neurology at NYU School of Medicine. Dr. Datta is chair of the AAN Sports Neurology Section, and she’s leading a panel on concussion at this year’s meeting. She’s going to give us an update. Welcome, Dr. Datta.

Shae Datta, MD: Thank you so much, Andrew. I really love the fact that I’m here speaking to you about all of the new, exciting developments in the field.

Dr. Wilner: Before we get too deep, tell us how you got interested in this topic.

Dr. Datta: I initially thought, when I was in training as a resident, that I wanted to do something like neurocritical care or EEG. It also puzzled me why these seemingly smaller head injuries that didn’t end up in the hospital or ICU were bounced from neurology headache clinic to neuro-ophthalmology headache clinic to neurovestibular headache clinic, and nobody seemed to be able to put together the dots about why they’re having so many different issues — but at the same time, nobody could help them.

At that time, this field was very new. I was on a plane to Paris to a neurocritical care conference as a resident, and I saw the movie Concussion with Will Smith.

It featured one of my current mentors who taught at the fellowship that I graduated from, and it was a fascinating field. I just started looking deeply into it, and I saw that there was a new training fellowship for sports neurology and concussion management, and this is basically why we’re here today.
 

New concussion consensus guidelines coming

Dr. Wilner: I think this field has really exploded. It used to be that you banged your head, you did a CT scan – remember, I trained about 45 years ago – and if there was nothing on the CT scan, you were done. If you had headaches, you took Tylenol until they went away.

Now, we do MRI, and we realized that it’s really a syndrome. I understand that there are going to be some formal guidelines that have been put together. Is that correct?

Dr. Datta: That’s correct. The 6th International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport, in Amsterdam, where I attended and presented a poster, was really a meeting of all the best minds – clinicians and researchers in brain injury – to form a consensus on the newest guidelines that are going to direct our treatment going forward.

Dr. Wilner: I’m going to ask you a trick question because the last time I looked it up I did not get a satisfying answer. What is a concussion?

Dr. Datta: That’s a very good question, and everyone always asks. A concussion is an external force that is emitted upon the head or the neck, or the body, in general, that may cause temporary loss of function. It’s a functional problem.

We don’t see much on CT. We can do MRI. We can do SPECT or we can do these very fancy images, sometimes, of high-velocity head injuries and see small microhemorrhages.

Often, we don’t see anything, but still the patient is loopy. They can’t see straight. They are double-visioned. They have vertigo. Why is that happening? On the cellular level, we have an energy deficit in the sodium-potassium-ATPase pump of the neurons themselves.

Dr. Wilner: Suppose you do see diffuse axonal injury; does that take it out of concussion, or can you have a concussion with visible injury?

Dr. Datta: I think you can have overlap in the symptoms. The diffuse axonal injury would put it into a higher grade of head injury as opposed to a mild traumatic brain injury. Definitely, we would need to work together with our trauma doctors to ensure that patients are not on blood thinners or anything until they heal well enough. Obviously, I would pick them up as an outpatient and follow them until we resolve or rehab them as best as possible.

Concussion assessment tools

Dr. Wilner: There are many sports out there where concussions are fairly frequent, like American football and hockey, for example. Are there any statements in the new guidelines?

Dr. Datta: There are no statements for or against a particular sport because that would really make too much of a bold statement about cause and effect. There is a cause and effect in long-term, repetitive exposure, I would say, in terms of someone being able to play or sustain injury.

Right now, at least at the concussion conference I went to and in the upcoming consensus statement, they will not comment on a specific sport. Obviously, we know that the higher-impact sports are a little more dangerous.

Let’s be honest. At the high school, middle school, or even younger level, some kids are not necessarily the most athletic, right? They play because their friends are playing. If they’re repeatedly getting injured, it’s time for an astute clinician, or a coach, and a whole team to assess them to see if maybe this person is just going to continue to get hurt if they’re not taken out of the game and perhaps they should go to a lower-impact sport.

Dr. Wilner: In schools, often there’s a big size and weight difference. There are 14-year-olds who are 6 fett 2 inches and 200 pounds, and there are 14-year-olds who are 5 feet 2 inches and 110 pounds. Obviously, they’re mismatched on the football field.

You mentioned coaches. Is there anything in the guidelines about training coaches?

Dr. Datta: Specifically, there was nothing in the guidelines about that. There’s a tool for coaches at every level to use, which is called the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool, or SCAT, which is going to be updated to the SCAT6. At the NCAA level, they must receive annual training on concussion management and be given an NCAA concussion handout for coaches.

Obviously, there are more rigorous protocols for national-level coaching. As it stands now, it is not mandatory, but they are given tools to assess someone once they’ve gotten a hit to take them out of the game.

Dr. Wilner: I’ve been following the concussion research through the years. They did some neuropsychological testing on athletes who’ve had this many concussions or that many concussions, and they would find deficits here or subtle deficits there, but they had no baseline.

Then, there was a movement to start testing athletes before the season starts so that they could do a repeat test after concussion and see if there is any difference. Is that something we’re recommending?

Dr. Datta: Most of the time, NCAA-level – certainly where I trained – and national-level sports do testing, but it’s not everywhere. Prior guidelines have indicated that preseason testing is not required. That is largely because there has been no standardized neuropsychological testing established.

There are computerized testing options where the validity and reliability are questionable. Also, let’s say it’s a college student; they didn’t sleep all night and then they took this computer test. They would probably do worse than they would if they had received a head hit.

Just to be on the safe side, most places that have collegiate-level sports that are at a high level do preseason testing. If I were to speak personally, aside from the guidelines, I would say that it’s been helpful for me to look at the before and after, in general, overall, to make a decision about my treatment protocol.

Dr. Wilner: Let’s talk about the patient. You have a 20-year-old guy. He’s playing football. There’s a big play. Bonk, he gets hit on the head. He’s on the ground. He’s dazed, staggers a little bit, gets up, and you ask how he is feeling. He says he’s fine and then he wobbles off to the sideline. What do you do with that kid?

Dr. Datta: Obviously, the first thing is to remove him from the play environment to a quiet space. Second, either an athletic trainer or a coach would administer basic screening neurologic tests, such as “where are you, what’s today’s date, what is your name?” and other orientation questions.

They’ll also go through the SCAT – that’ll be SCAT6 starting in July – the SCAT5 symptom questionnaire to see what symptoms they have. Often, they’re using sideline testing software.

There are two things that can be used on a card to test eye movements, to see if they’re slower. They come out of NYU, coincidentally – the Memory Image Completion (MIC) and the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES) – and are used to determine whether eye movements are slower. That way, you can tell whether someone is, compared with before they got their head hit, slower than before.

Based on this composite information, usually the teammates and the head people on the team will know if a player looks different.

They need to be taken out, obviously, if there is nausea or vomiting, any neurologic signs and symptoms, or a neck injury that needs to be stabilized. ABCs first, right? If there’s any vomiting or seizures, they should be taken to the ER right away.

The first thing is to take them out, then do a sideline assessment. Third, see if they need to immediately go to the ED versus follow-up outpatient with me within a day or two.

Dr. Wilner: I think it’s the subtle injuries that are the tough ones. Back to our 20-year-old. He says: “Oh, I’m fine. I want to go back in the game.” Everybody can tell he’s not quite right, even though he passed all the tests. What do you do then?

Dr. Datta: You have to make a judgment call for the safety of the player. They always want to go back, right? This is also an issue when they’re competing for college scholarships and things of that nature. Sometimes they’re sandbagging, where they memorize the answers.

Everything’s on the Internet nowadays, right? We have to make a judgment call as members of the healthcare community and the sports community to keep that player safe.

Just keep them out. Don’t bring them back in the game. Keep them out for a reasonable amount of time. There’s a test called the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test; Dr. John Leddy from University of Buffalo has developed a way for us to put athletes through a screening protocol.

This can be part of their vestibular and ocular rehabilitation, where if they don’t have symptoms when we bring their heart rate to certain levels, then we can slowly clear them for return to play as long as they’re nonsymptomatic.

Dr. Wilner: I spoke with your colleague, Dr. Riggins, who is also on your panel, and we were talking about when they can go back. She said they can go back when they don’t have any symptoms. No more headache, no more dizziness, no more lightheadedness, no more trouble concentrating or with memory – all those things have gone away.

Sometimes these symptoms are stubborn. If you have, say, 100 patients like our 20-year-old who got bonked on the head, has some headaches, and doesn’t feel quite right, what usually happens? How many are back to play the next day, the next week, or the next month? How many are out for the season? How does that play out?

Dr. Datta: It depends on a couple of different factors. One, have they had previous head injuries? Two, do they have preexisting symptoms or signs, or diagnoses like migraines, which are likely to get worse after a head injury? Anything that’s preexisting, like a mood disorder, anxiety, depression, or trouble sleeping, is going to get worse.

If they were compensating for untreated ADD or borderline personality or bipolar, I’ve seen many people who’ve developed them. These are not the norm, but I’m saying that you have to be very careful.

Getting back to the question, you treat them. Reasonably, if they’re healthy and they don’t have preexisting signs and symptoms, I would say more than half are back in about 2 weeks.. I would say 60%-70%. It all depends. If they have preexisting issues, then it’s going to take much longer.
 

From SCAT to SCOAT

Dr. Wilner: This has been very informative. Before we wrap up, tell us what to expect from these guidelines in July. How are they really going to help?

Dr. Datta: The consensus statement is going to come out with something called a SCOAT, which stands for Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool. We’ve been using the SCAT, which was meant for more sideline assessment because that’s all we had, and it’s worked perfectly well.

This will be better because we often see them within 24-48 hours, when the symptoms are sometimes a little bit better.

We also will see the sport and concussion group come up with added athlete perspectives, ethics discussion, power-sport athlete considerations, and development of this new SCOAT.

Dr. Wilner: Dr. Datta, this is very exciting. I look forward to reading these guidelines in July. I want to thank you for your hard work. I also look forward to talking to you at next year’s meeting. Thank you very much for giving us this update.

Dr. Datta: No problem. It’s my pleasure.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: I’m your host, Dr. Andrew Wilner, reporting virtually from the 2023 American Academy of Neurology meeting in Boston. It’s my pleasure today to speak with Dr. Shae Datta, codirector of the NYU Langone Concussion Center.

She’s also a clinical assistant professor of neurology at NYU School of Medicine. Dr. Datta is chair of the AAN Sports Neurology Section, and she’s leading a panel on concussion at this year’s meeting. She’s going to give us an update. Welcome, Dr. Datta.

Shae Datta, MD: Thank you so much, Andrew. I really love the fact that I’m here speaking to you about all of the new, exciting developments in the field.

Dr. Wilner: Before we get too deep, tell us how you got interested in this topic.

Dr. Datta: I initially thought, when I was in training as a resident, that I wanted to do something like neurocritical care or EEG. It also puzzled me why these seemingly smaller head injuries that didn’t end up in the hospital or ICU were bounced from neurology headache clinic to neuro-ophthalmology headache clinic to neurovestibular headache clinic, and nobody seemed to be able to put together the dots about why they’re having so many different issues — but at the same time, nobody could help them.

At that time, this field was very new. I was on a plane to Paris to a neurocritical care conference as a resident, and I saw the movie Concussion with Will Smith.

It featured one of my current mentors who taught at the fellowship that I graduated from, and it was a fascinating field. I just started looking deeply into it, and I saw that there was a new training fellowship for sports neurology and concussion management, and this is basically why we’re here today.
 

New concussion consensus guidelines coming

Dr. Wilner: I think this field has really exploded. It used to be that you banged your head, you did a CT scan – remember, I trained about 45 years ago – and if there was nothing on the CT scan, you were done. If you had headaches, you took Tylenol until they went away.

Now, we do MRI, and we realized that it’s really a syndrome. I understand that there are going to be some formal guidelines that have been put together. Is that correct?

Dr. Datta: That’s correct. The 6th International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport, in Amsterdam, where I attended and presented a poster, was really a meeting of all the best minds – clinicians and researchers in brain injury – to form a consensus on the newest guidelines that are going to direct our treatment going forward.

Dr. Wilner: I’m going to ask you a trick question because the last time I looked it up I did not get a satisfying answer. What is a concussion?

Dr. Datta: That’s a very good question, and everyone always asks. A concussion is an external force that is emitted upon the head or the neck, or the body, in general, that may cause temporary loss of function. It’s a functional problem.

We don’t see much on CT. We can do MRI. We can do SPECT or we can do these very fancy images, sometimes, of high-velocity head injuries and see small microhemorrhages.

Often, we don’t see anything, but still the patient is loopy. They can’t see straight. They are double-visioned. They have vertigo. Why is that happening? On the cellular level, we have an energy deficit in the sodium-potassium-ATPase pump of the neurons themselves.

Dr. Wilner: Suppose you do see diffuse axonal injury; does that take it out of concussion, or can you have a concussion with visible injury?

Dr. Datta: I think you can have overlap in the symptoms. The diffuse axonal injury would put it into a higher grade of head injury as opposed to a mild traumatic brain injury. Definitely, we would need to work together with our trauma doctors to ensure that patients are not on blood thinners or anything until they heal well enough. Obviously, I would pick them up as an outpatient and follow them until we resolve or rehab them as best as possible.

Concussion assessment tools

Dr. Wilner: There are many sports out there where concussions are fairly frequent, like American football and hockey, for example. Are there any statements in the new guidelines?

Dr. Datta: There are no statements for or against a particular sport because that would really make too much of a bold statement about cause and effect. There is a cause and effect in long-term, repetitive exposure, I would say, in terms of someone being able to play or sustain injury.

Right now, at least at the concussion conference I went to and in the upcoming consensus statement, they will not comment on a specific sport. Obviously, we know that the higher-impact sports are a little more dangerous.

Let’s be honest. At the high school, middle school, or even younger level, some kids are not necessarily the most athletic, right? They play because their friends are playing. If they’re repeatedly getting injured, it’s time for an astute clinician, or a coach, and a whole team to assess them to see if maybe this person is just going to continue to get hurt if they’re not taken out of the game and perhaps they should go to a lower-impact sport.

Dr. Wilner: In schools, often there’s a big size and weight difference. There are 14-year-olds who are 6 fett 2 inches and 200 pounds, and there are 14-year-olds who are 5 feet 2 inches and 110 pounds. Obviously, they’re mismatched on the football field.

You mentioned coaches. Is there anything in the guidelines about training coaches?

Dr. Datta: Specifically, there was nothing in the guidelines about that. There’s a tool for coaches at every level to use, which is called the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool, or SCAT, which is going to be updated to the SCAT6. At the NCAA level, they must receive annual training on concussion management and be given an NCAA concussion handout for coaches.

Obviously, there are more rigorous protocols for national-level coaching. As it stands now, it is not mandatory, but they are given tools to assess someone once they’ve gotten a hit to take them out of the game.

Dr. Wilner: I’ve been following the concussion research through the years. They did some neuropsychological testing on athletes who’ve had this many concussions or that many concussions, and they would find deficits here or subtle deficits there, but they had no baseline.

Then, there was a movement to start testing athletes before the season starts so that they could do a repeat test after concussion and see if there is any difference. Is that something we’re recommending?

Dr. Datta: Most of the time, NCAA-level – certainly where I trained – and national-level sports do testing, but it’s not everywhere. Prior guidelines have indicated that preseason testing is not required. That is largely because there has been no standardized neuropsychological testing established.

There are computerized testing options where the validity and reliability are questionable. Also, let’s say it’s a college student; they didn’t sleep all night and then they took this computer test. They would probably do worse than they would if they had received a head hit.

Just to be on the safe side, most places that have collegiate-level sports that are at a high level do preseason testing. If I were to speak personally, aside from the guidelines, I would say that it’s been helpful for me to look at the before and after, in general, overall, to make a decision about my treatment protocol.

Dr. Wilner: Let’s talk about the patient. You have a 20-year-old guy. He’s playing football. There’s a big play. Bonk, he gets hit on the head. He’s on the ground. He’s dazed, staggers a little bit, gets up, and you ask how he is feeling. He says he’s fine and then he wobbles off to the sideline. What do you do with that kid?

Dr. Datta: Obviously, the first thing is to remove him from the play environment to a quiet space. Second, either an athletic trainer or a coach would administer basic screening neurologic tests, such as “where are you, what’s today’s date, what is your name?” and other orientation questions.

They’ll also go through the SCAT – that’ll be SCAT6 starting in July – the SCAT5 symptom questionnaire to see what symptoms they have. Often, they’re using sideline testing software.

There are two things that can be used on a card to test eye movements, to see if they’re slower. They come out of NYU, coincidentally – the Memory Image Completion (MIC) and the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES) – and are used to determine whether eye movements are slower. That way, you can tell whether someone is, compared with before they got their head hit, slower than before.

Based on this composite information, usually the teammates and the head people on the team will know if a player looks different.

They need to be taken out, obviously, if there is nausea or vomiting, any neurologic signs and symptoms, or a neck injury that needs to be stabilized. ABCs first, right? If there’s any vomiting or seizures, they should be taken to the ER right away.

The first thing is to take them out, then do a sideline assessment. Third, see if they need to immediately go to the ED versus follow-up outpatient with me within a day or two.

Dr. Wilner: I think it’s the subtle injuries that are the tough ones. Back to our 20-year-old. He says: “Oh, I’m fine. I want to go back in the game.” Everybody can tell he’s not quite right, even though he passed all the tests. What do you do then?

Dr. Datta: You have to make a judgment call for the safety of the player. They always want to go back, right? This is also an issue when they’re competing for college scholarships and things of that nature. Sometimes they’re sandbagging, where they memorize the answers.

Everything’s on the Internet nowadays, right? We have to make a judgment call as members of the healthcare community and the sports community to keep that player safe.

Just keep them out. Don’t bring them back in the game. Keep them out for a reasonable amount of time. There’s a test called the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test; Dr. John Leddy from University of Buffalo has developed a way for us to put athletes through a screening protocol.

This can be part of their vestibular and ocular rehabilitation, where if they don’t have symptoms when we bring their heart rate to certain levels, then we can slowly clear them for return to play as long as they’re nonsymptomatic.

Dr. Wilner: I spoke with your colleague, Dr. Riggins, who is also on your panel, and we were talking about when they can go back. She said they can go back when they don’t have any symptoms. No more headache, no more dizziness, no more lightheadedness, no more trouble concentrating or with memory – all those things have gone away.

Sometimes these symptoms are stubborn. If you have, say, 100 patients like our 20-year-old who got bonked on the head, has some headaches, and doesn’t feel quite right, what usually happens? How many are back to play the next day, the next week, or the next month? How many are out for the season? How does that play out?

Dr. Datta: It depends on a couple of different factors. One, have they had previous head injuries? Two, do they have preexisting symptoms or signs, or diagnoses like migraines, which are likely to get worse after a head injury? Anything that’s preexisting, like a mood disorder, anxiety, depression, or trouble sleeping, is going to get worse.

If they were compensating for untreated ADD or borderline personality or bipolar, I’ve seen many people who’ve developed them. These are not the norm, but I’m saying that you have to be very careful.

Getting back to the question, you treat them. Reasonably, if they’re healthy and they don’t have preexisting signs and symptoms, I would say more than half are back in about 2 weeks.. I would say 60%-70%. It all depends. If they have preexisting issues, then it’s going to take much longer.
 

From SCAT to SCOAT

Dr. Wilner: This has been very informative. Before we wrap up, tell us what to expect from these guidelines in July. How are they really going to help?

Dr. Datta: The consensus statement is going to come out with something called a SCOAT, which stands for Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool. We’ve been using the SCAT, which was meant for more sideline assessment because that’s all we had, and it’s worked perfectly well.

This will be better because we often see them within 24-48 hours, when the symptoms are sometimes a little bit better.

We also will see the sport and concussion group come up with added athlete perspectives, ethics discussion, power-sport athlete considerations, and development of this new SCOAT.

Dr. Wilner: Dr. Datta, this is very exciting. I look forward to reading these guidelines in July. I want to thank you for your hard work. I also look forward to talking to you at next year’s meeting. Thank you very much for giving us this update.

Dr. Datta: No problem. It’s my pleasure.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Andrew N. Wilner, MD: I’m your host, Dr. Andrew Wilner, reporting virtually from the 2023 American Academy of Neurology meeting in Boston. It’s my pleasure today to speak with Dr. Shae Datta, codirector of the NYU Langone Concussion Center.

She’s also a clinical assistant professor of neurology at NYU School of Medicine. Dr. Datta is chair of the AAN Sports Neurology Section, and she’s leading a panel on concussion at this year’s meeting. She’s going to give us an update. Welcome, Dr. Datta.

Shae Datta, MD: Thank you so much, Andrew. I really love the fact that I’m here speaking to you about all of the new, exciting developments in the field.

Dr. Wilner: Before we get too deep, tell us how you got interested in this topic.

Dr. Datta: I initially thought, when I was in training as a resident, that I wanted to do something like neurocritical care or EEG. It also puzzled me why these seemingly smaller head injuries that didn’t end up in the hospital or ICU were bounced from neurology headache clinic to neuro-ophthalmology headache clinic to neurovestibular headache clinic, and nobody seemed to be able to put together the dots about why they’re having so many different issues — but at the same time, nobody could help them.

At that time, this field was very new. I was on a plane to Paris to a neurocritical care conference as a resident, and I saw the movie Concussion with Will Smith.

It featured one of my current mentors who taught at the fellowship that I graduated from, and it was a fascinating field. I just started looking deeply into it, and I saw that there was a new training fellowship for sports neurology and concussion management, and this is basically why we’re here today.
 

New concussion consensus guidelines coming

Dr. Wilner: I think this field has really exploded. It used to be that you banged your head, you did a CT scan – remember, I trained about 45 years ago – and if there was nothing on the CT scan, you were done. If you had headaches, you took Tylenol until they went away.

Now, we do MRI, and we realized that it’s really a syndrome. I understand that there are going to be some formal guidelines that have been put together. Is that correct?

Dr. Datta: That’s correct. The 6th International Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport, in Amsterdam, where I attended and presented a poster, was really a meeting of all the best minds – clinicians and researchers in brain injury – to form a consensus on the newest guidelines that are going to direct our treatment going forward.

Dr. Wilner: I’m going to ask you a trick question because the last time I looked it up I did not get a satisfying answer. What is a concussion?

Dr. Datta: That’s a very good question, and everyone always asks. A concussion is an external force that is emitted upon the head or the neck, or the body, in general, that may cause temporary loss of function. It’s a functional problem.

We don’t see much on CT. We can do MRI. We can do SPECT or we can do these very fancy images, sometimes, of high-velocity head injuries and see small microhemorrhages.

Often, we don’t see anything, but still the patient is loopy. They can’t see straight. They are double-visioned. They have vertigo. Why is that happening? On the cellular level, we have an energy deficit in the sodium-potassium-ATPase pump of the neurons themselves.

Dr. Wilner: Suppose you do see diffuse axonal injury; does that take it out of concussion, or can you have a concussion with visible injury?

Dr. Datta: I think you can have overlap in the symptoms. The diffuse axonal injury would put it into a higher grade of head injury as opposed to a mild traumatic brain injury. Definitely, we would need to work together with our trauma doctors to ensure that patients are not on blood thinners or anything until they heal well enough. Obviously, I would pick them up as an outpatient and follow them until we resolve or rehab them as best as possible.

Concussion assessment tools

Dr. Wilner: There are many sports out there where concussions are fairly frequent, like American football and hockey, for example. Are there any statements in the new guidelines?

Dr. Datta: There are no statements for or against a particular sport because that would really make too much of a bold statement about cause and effect. There is a cause and effect in long-term, repetitive exposure, I would say, in terms of someone being able to play or sustain injury.

Right now, at least at the concussion conference I went to and in the upcoming consensus statement, they will not comment on a specific sport. Obviously, we know that the higher-impact sports are a little more dangerous.

Let’s be honest. At the high school, middle school, or even younger level, some kids are not necessarily the most athletic, right? They play because their friends are playing. If they’re repeatedly getting injured, it’s time for an astute clinician, or a coach, and a whole team to assess them to see if maybe this person is just going to continue to get hurt if they’re not taken out of the game and perhaps they should go to a lower-impact sport.

Dr. Wilner: In schools, often there’s a big size and weight difference. There are 14-year-olds who are 6 fett 2 inches and 200 pounds, and there are 14-year-olds who are 5 feet 2 inches and 110 pounds. Obviously, they’re mismatched on the football field.

You mentioned coaches. Is there anything in the guidelines about training coaches?

Dr. Datta: Specifically, there was nothing in the guidelines about that. There’s a tool for coaches at every level to use, which is called the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool, or SCAT, which is going to be updated to the SCAT6. At the NCAA level, they must receive annual training on concussion management and be given an NCAA concussion handout for coaches.

Obviously, there are more rigorous protocols for national-level coaching. As it stands now, it is not mandatory, but they are given tools to assess someone once they’ve gotten a hit to take them out of the game.

Dr. Wilner: I’ve been following the concussion research through the years. They did some neuropsychological testing on athletes who’ve had this many concussions or that many concussions, and they would find deficits here or subtle deficits there, but they had no baseline.

Then, there was a movement to start testing athletes before the season starts so that they could do a repeat test after concussion and see if there is any difference. Is that something we’re recommending?

Dr. Datta: Most of the time, NCAA-level – certainly where I trained – and national-level sports do testing, but it’s not everywhere. Prior guidelines have indicated that preseason testing is not required. That is largely because there has been no standardized neuropsychological testing established.

There are computerized testing options where the validity and reliability are questionable. Also, let’s say it’s a college student; they didn’t sleep all night and then they took this computer test. They would probably do worse than they would if they had received a head hit.

Just to be on the safe side, most places that have collegiate-level sports that are at a high level do preseason testing. If I were to speak personally, aside from the guidelines, I would say that it’s been helpful for me to look at the before and after, in general, overall, to make a decision about my treatment protocol.

Dr. Wilner: Let’s talk about the patient. You have a 20-year-old guy. He’s playing football. There’s a big play. Bonk, he gets hit on the head. He’s on the ground. He’s dazed, staggers a little bit, gets up, and you ask how he is feeling. He says he’s fine and then he wobbles off to the sideline. What do you do with that kid?

Dr. Datta: Obviously, the first thing is to remove him from the play environment to a quiet space. Second, either an athletic trainer or a coach would administer basic screening neurologic tests, such as “where are you, what’s today’s date, what is your name?” and other orientation questions.

They’ll also go through the SCAT – that’ll be SCAT6 starting in July – the SCAT5 symptom questionnaire to see what symptoms they have. Often, they’re using sideline testing software.

There are two things that can be used on a card to test eye movements, to see if they’re slower. They come out of NYU, coincidentally – the Memory Image Completion (MIC) and the Mobile Universal Lexicon Evaluation System (MULES) – and are used to determine whether eye movements are slower. That way, you can tell whether someone is, compared with before they got their head hit, slower than before.

Based on this composite information, usually the teammates and the head people on the team will know if a player looks different.

They need to be taken out, obviously, if there is nausea or vomiting, any neurologic signs and symptoms, or a neck injury that needs to be stabilized. ABCs first, right? If there’s any vomiting or seizures, they should be taken to the ER right away.

The first thing is to take them out, then do a sideline assessment. Third, see if they need to immediately go to the ED versus follow-up outpatient with me within a day or two.

Dr. Wilner: I think it’s the subtle injuries that are the tough ones. Back to our 20-year-old. He says: “Oh, I’m fine. I want to go back in the game.” Everybody can tell he’s not quite right, even though he passed all the tests. What do you do then?

Dr. Datta: You have to make a judgment call for the safety of the player. They always want to go back, right? This is also an issue when they’re competing for college scholarships and things of that nature. Sometimes they’re sandbagging, where they memorize the answers.

Everything’s on the Internet nowadays, right? We have to make a judgment call as members of the healthcare community and the sports community to keep that player safe.

Just keep them out. Don’t bring them back in the game. Keep them out for a reasonable amount of time. There’s a test called the Buffalo Concussion Treadmill Test; Dr. John Leddy from University of Buffalo has developed a way for us to put athletes through a screening protocol.

This can be part of their vestibular and ocular rehabilitation, where if they don’t have symptoms when we bring their heart rate to certain levels, then we can slowly clear them for return to play as long as they’re nonsymptomatic.

Dr. Wilner: I spoke with your colleague, Dr. Riggins, who is also on your panel, and we were talking about when they can go back. She said they can go back when they don’t have any symptoms. No more headache, no more dizziness, no more lightheadedness, no more trouble concentrating or with memory – all those things have gone away.

Sometimes these symptoms are stubborn. If you have, say, 100 patients like our 20-year-old who got bonked on the head, has some headaches, and doesn’t feel quite right, what usually happens? How many are back to play the next day, the next week, or the next month? How many are out for the season? How does that play out?

Dr. Datta: It depends on a couple of different factors. One, have they had previous head injuries? Two, do they have preexisting symptoms or signs, or diagnoses like migraines, which are likely to get worse after a head injury? Anything that’s preexisting, like a mood disorder, anxiety, depression, or trouble sleeping, is going to get worse.

If they were compensating for untreated ADD or borderline personality or bipolar, I’ve seen many people who’ve developed them. These are not the norm, but I’m saying that you have to be very careful.

Getting back to the question, you treat them. Reasonably, if they’re healthy and they don’t have preexisting signs and symptoms, I would say more than half are back in about 2 weeks.. I would say 60%-70%. It all depends. If they have preexisting issues, then it’s going to take much longer.
 

From SCAT to SCOAT

Dr. Wilner: This has been very informative. Before we wrap up, tell us what to expect from these guidelines in July. How are they really going to help?

Dr. Datta: The consensus statement is going to come out with something called a SCOAT, which stands for Sport Concussion Office Assessment Tool. We’ve been using the SCAT, which was meant for more sideline assessment because that’s all we had, and it’s worked perfectly well.

This will be better because we often see them within 24-48 hours, when the symptoms are sometimes a little bit better.

We also will see the sport and concussion group come up with added athlete perspectives, ethics discussion, power-sport athlete considerations, and development of this new SCOAT.

Dr. Wilner: Dr. Datta, this is very exciting. I look forward to reading these guidelines in July. I want to thank you for your hard work. I also look forward to talking to you at next year’s meeting. Thank you very much for giving us this update.

Dr. Datta: No problem. It’s my pleasure.

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Stroke is a “disease of disparities,” with racial and ethnic inequities in incidence, prevalence, treatment, and outcomes, and research is needed to identify structural or “upstream” interventions to address the problem, the American Heart Association says in a new scientific statement.

“There are enormous inequities in stroke care, which lead to significant gaps in functional outcomes after stroke for people from historically disenfranchised racial and ethnic groups, including Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples,” writing group chair Amytis Towfighi, MD, professor of neurology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, says in a news release.

“While research has historically focused on describing these inequities, it is critical to develop and test interventions to address them,” Dr. Towfighi adds.

The scientific statement was published online in the journal Stroke.

It follows a 2020 AHA presidential advisory that declared structural racism a fundamental driver of poor health and early death from heart disease and stroke.

Dr. Towfighi and colleagues reviewed the literature on interventions to address racial and ethnic inequities to identify gaps and areas for future research.

They note that various interventions have shown promise in reducing inequities across the stroke continuum of care.

For example, data suggest that careful attention to stroke preparedness among patients, caregivers, and emergency medical services can reduce inequities in getting people suspected of having a stroke to the emergency department quickly, with delivery of prompt treatment.

However, insufficient research attention has been paid to reducing inequities in rehabilitation, recovery, and social reintegration, the writing group says.

In addition, most studies have addressed patient-level factors, such as medication adherence, health literacy, and health behaviors, but not upstream social factors such as structural racism, housing, income, food security, and access to care, which also affect stroke incidence, care, and outcomes.

“Combating the effects of systemic racism will involve upstream interventions, including policy changes, place-based interventions, and engaging with the health care systems that serve predominantly historically disenfranchised populations and the communities they serve, understanding the barriers, and collaboratively developing solutions to address barriers,” the writing group says.

Further research is needed across the stroke continuum of care to tackle racial and ethnic inequities in stroke care and improve outcomes, they say.

“It’s critical for historically disenfranchised communities to participate in research so that researchers may collaborate in addressing the communities’ needs and concerns,” Bernadette Boden-Albala, DrPH, MPH, vice chair of the writing group, says in the news release.

“Opportunities include working with community stakeholder groups and community organizations to advocate for partnerships with hospitals, academic medical centers, local colleges and universities; or joining community advisory boards and volunteering with the American Heart Association,” Dr. Boden-Albala adds.

Dr. Towfighi encourages health care professionals to “think outside the ‘stroke box.’ Sustainable, effective interventions to address inequities will likely require collaboration with patients, their communities, policymakers, and other sectors.”

The scientific statement was prepared by the volunteer writing group on behalf of the AHA Stroke Council, the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, the Council on Hypertension, the Council on the Kidney in Cardiovascular Disease, and the Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.

The research had no commercial funding.
 

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

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Deep sleep may function as a buffer against cognitive decline in older adults with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology by protecting cognitive reserve, new research suggests.

Investigators found that deep sleep, also known as non-REM (NREM) slow-wave sleep, can protect memory function in cognitively normal adults with a high beta-amyloid burden.

“Think of deep sleep almost like a life raft that keeps memory afloat, rather than memory getting dragged down by the weight of Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” senior investigator Matthew Walker, PhD, professor of neuroscience and psychology, University of California, Berkeley, said in a news release.

The study was published online in BMC Medicine.
 

Resilience factor

Studying resilience to existing brain pathology is “an exciting new research direction,” lead author Zsófia Zavecz, PhD, with the Center for Human Sleep Science at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview.

“That is, what factors explain the individual differences in cognitive function despite the same level of brain pathology, and how do some people with significant pathology have largely preserved memory?” she added.

The study included 62 cognitively normal older adults from the Berkeley Aging Cohort Study.

Sleep EEG recordings were obtained over 2 nights in a sleep lab and PET scans were used to quantify beta-amyloid. Half of the participants had high beta-amyloid burden and half were beta-amyloid negative.

After the sleep studies, all participants completed a memory task involving matching names to faces.

The results suggest that deep NREM slow-wave sleep significantly moderates the effect of beta-amyloid status on memory function.

Specifically, NREM slow-wave activity selectively supported superior memory function in adults with high beta-amyloid burden, who are most in need of cognitive reserve (B = 2.694, P = .019), the researchers report.

In contrast, adults without significant beta-amyloid pathological burden – and thus without the same need for cognitive reserve – did not similarly benefit from NREM slow-wave activity (B = –0.115, P = .876).

The findings remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, gray matter atrophy, and previously identified cognitive reserve factors, such as education and physical activity.

Dr. Zavecz said there are several potential reasons why deep sleep may support cognitive reserve.

One is that during deep sleep specifically, memories are replayed in the brain, and this results in a “neural reorganization” that helps stabilize the memory and make it more permanent.

“Other explanations include deep sleep’s role in maintaining homeostasis in the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections and providing an optimal brain state for the clearance of toxins interfering with healthy brain functioning,” she noted.

“The extent to which sleep could offer a protective buffer against severe cognitive impairment remains to be tested. However, this study is the first step in hopefully a series of new research that will investigate sleep as a cognitive reserve factor,” said Dr. Zavecz.
 

Encouraging data

Reached for comment, Percy Griffin, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of scientific engagement, said although the study sample is small, the results are “encouraging because sleep is a modifiable factor and can therefore be targeted.”

“More work is needed in a larger population before we can fully leverage this stage of sleep to reduce the risk of developing cognitive decline,” Dr. Griffin said.

Also weighing in on this research, Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist and researcher in Boston, said the study is “exciting on two fronts – we may have an additional marker for the development of Alzheimer’s disease to predict risk and track disease, but also targets for early intervention with sleep architecture–enhancing therapies, be they drug, device, or digital.”

“For the sake of our brain health, we all must get very familiar with the concept of cognitive or brain reserve,” said Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved in the study.

“Brain reserve refers to our ability to buttress against the threat of dementia and classically it’s been associated with ongoing brain stimulation (i.e., higher education, cognitively demanding job),” he noted.

“This line of research now opens the door that optimal sleep health – especially deep NREM slow wave sleep – correlates with greater brain reserve against Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Lakhan said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Walker serves as an advisor to and has equity interest in Bryte, Shuni, Oura, and StimScience. Dr. Zavecz and Dr. Lakhan report no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

There is a robust link between environmental exposure to the industrial solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) in drinking water and subsequent Parkinson’s disease (PD) in marines attending Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in Jacksonville, N.C.

In one of the best-documented, large-scale contaminations in U.S. history, the drinking water at the Marine Corps base was contaminated with TCE and other volatile organic compounds from about 1953 to 1987.

The new study of more than 340,000 service members found the risk of PD was 70% higher in Marines stationed at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina during the years 1975-1985, compared with Marines stationed at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside, Calif.

“This is by far the largest study to look at the association of TCE and PD and the evidence is pretty strong,” lead investigator Samuel M. Goldman, MD, MPH, with University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.

The link is supported by animal models that show that TCE can induce a neurodegenerative syndrome that is “very similar pathologically to what we see in PD,” Dr. Goldman said.

The study was published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Hundreds of thousands’ at risk

At Camp Lejeune during the years 1975-1985, the period of maximal contamination, the estimated monthly median TCE level was more than 70-fold the Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level. Maximum contaminant levels were also exceeded for perchloroethylene (PCE) and vinyl chloride.

Dr. Goldman and colleagues had health data on 158,122 veterans – 84,824 from Camp Lejeune and 73,298 from Camp Pendleton – who served for at least 3 months between 1975 and 1985, with follow up from Jan. 1, 1997, to Feb. 17, 2021.

Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups; most were White men with an average age of 59 years.

A total of 430 veterans had PD: 279 from Camp Lejeune (prevalence, 0.33%) and 151 from Camp Pendleton (prevalence, 0.21%).

In multivariable models, Camp Lejeune veterans had a 70% higher risk for PD (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.07; P < .001).

“Remarkably,” the researchers noted, among veterans without PD, residence at Camp Lejeune was also associated with a significantly higher risk of having several well-established prodromal features of PD, including tremor, suggesting they may be in a prediagnostic phase of evolving PD pathology.

Importantly, they added, in addition to the exposed service members, “hundreds of thousands of family members and civilian workers exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune may also be at increased risk of PD, cancers, and other health consequences. Continued prospective follow-up of this population is essential.”
 

‘An unreasonable risk’

The new study supports a prior, and much smaller, study by Dr. Goldman and colleagues showing TCE exposure was associated with a sixfold increased risk for PD. 

TCE is a ubiquitous environmental contaminant. The EPA Toxics Release Inventory estimates 2.05 million pounds of TCE was released into the environment from industrial sites in 2017.

In an accompanying editorial, E. Ray Dorsey, MD, with the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and coauthors noted the work of Dr. Goldman and colleagues “increases the certainty” that environmental exposure to TCE and the similar compound PCE “contribute importantly to the cause of the world’s fastest-growing brain disease.” 

In December, the EPA found that PCE posed “an unreasonable risk” to human health, and 1 month later, it reached the same conclusion for TCE.

“These actions could lay the foundation for increased regulation and possibly a ban of these two chemicals that have contributed to immeasurable death and disability for generations,” Dr. Dorsey and colleagues noted.

“A U.S. ban would be a step forward but would not address the tens of thousands of TCE/PCE-contaminated sites in the U.S. and around the world or the rising global use of the toxic solvents,” they added.

This research was supported by Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. Goldman reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dorsey has received personal fees from organizations including the American Neurological Association, Elsevier, International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society, Massachusetts Medical Society, Michael J. Fox Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and WebMD, as well as numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

LOS ANGELES – A new report shows that spin, including signs of exaggeration and mathematical errors, was seen in 21% of 150 randomized traumatic brain injury clinical trials published in leading medical journals.

“This is concerning result,” said general physician Lucas Piason F. Martins, MD, of the Bahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Brazil. “Many of these trials have been included in clinical guidelines and cited extensively in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those related to hypothermia therapy.”

Dr. Martins presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.
 

Defining spin

In recent years, medical researchers have sought to define and identify spin in medical literature. According to a 2017 report in PLOS Biology, “spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favorable light.”

Any spin can be dangerous, Dr. Martins said, because it “can potentially mislead readers and affect the interpretation of study results, which in turn can impact clinical decision-making.”

For the new report, a systematic review, Dr. Martins and colleagues examined 150 studies published in 18 top-ranked journals including the Journal of Neurotrauma (26%), the Journal of Neurosurgery (15%), Critical Care Medicine (9%), and the New England Journal of Medicine (8%).

Studies were published between 1960 and 2020. The review protocol was previously published in BMJ Open.

According to the report, most of the 32 studies with spin (75%) had a “focus on statistically significant results not based on primary outcome.”

For example, Dr. Martins said in an interview that the abstract for a study about drug treatment of brain contusions highlighted a secondary result instead of the main finding that the medication had no effect. Another study of treatment for severe closed head injuries focused on a subgroup outcome.

As Dr. Martins noted, it’s potentially problematic for studies to have several outcomes, measure outcomes in different ways, and have multiple time points without a predefined primary outcome. “A positive finding based on such strategies could potentially be explained by chance alone,” he said.

The researchers also reported that 65% of the studies with spin highlighted “the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically nonsignificant results” and that 9% had incorrect statistical analysis.

The findings are especially noteworthy because “the trials we analyzed were deemed to have the highest quality of methodology,” Dr. Martins said.

The researchers didn’t identify specific studies that they deemed to have spin, and they won’t do so, Dr. Martins said. The authors do plan to reveal which journals were most spin-heavy but only when these findings are published.

Were the study authors trying to mislead readers? Not necessarily. Researchers “may search for positive results to confirm their beliefs, although with good intentions,” Dr. Martins said, adding that the researchers found that “positive research tends to be more cited.”

They also reported that studies with smaller sample sizes were more likely to have spin (P = .04).

At 21%, the percentage of studies with spin was lower than that found in some previous reports that analyzed medical literature in other specialties.

A 2019 study of 93 randomized clinical studies in cardiology, for example, found spin in 57% of abstracts and 67% of full texts. The lower number in the new study may be due to its especially conservative definition of spin, Dr. Martins said.
 

Appropriate methodology

Cardiologist Richard Krasuski, MD, of Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., who coauthored the 2019 study into spin in cardiology studies, told this news organization that the new analysis follows appropriate methodology and appears to be valid.

It makes sense, he said, that smaller studies had more spin: “It is much harder to show statistical significance in small studies and softer endpoints can be harder to predict. Small neutral trials are also much harder to publish in high-level journals. This all increases the tendency to spin the results so the reviewer and eventually the reader is more captivated.”

Why is there so much spin in medical research? “As an investigator, you always hope to positively impact patient health and outcomes, so there is a tendency to look at secondary analyses to have something good to emphasize,” he said. “This is an inherent trait in most of us, to find something good we can focus on. I do believe that much of this is subconscious and perhaps with noble intent.”

Dr. Krasuski said that he advises trainees to look at the methodology of studies, not just the abstract or discussion sections. “You don’t have to be a trained statistician to identify how well the findings match the author’s interpretation.

“Always try to identify what the primary outcome of the study was at the time of the design and whether the investigators achieved their objective. As a reviewer, my own personal experience in research into spin makes me more cognizant of its existence, and I generally require authors to reword and tone down their message if it is not supported by the data.”

What’s next? The investigators want to look for spin in the wider neurosurgery literature, Dr. Martins said, with an eye toward developing “practical strategies to assess spin and give pragmatic recommendations for good practice in clinical research.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Martins has no disclosures, and several study authors reported funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Krasuski has no disclosures.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is linked to almost a twofold increased risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD), new research shows.

Claims data in 55,000 patients with RA and 273,000 age- and sex-matched controls show that those with RA were 1.74 times more likely than controls to be diagnosed with PD.

“If patients with rheumatoid arthritis begin exhibiting motor symptoms such as muscle rigidity, tremors, or slowed movement, it is imperative that they be evaluated by a qualified neurologist to rule out the possibility of developing Parkinson’s disease,” study investigator Hyungjin Kim, MD, PhD, told this news organization.

Dr. Kim is an associate professor in the department of medical humanities at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

Conflicting findings

The investigators note that a number of studies have examined the link between RA and PD, with conflicting results – one even showing a 35% reduced risk for PD for individuals with RA. A more recent population-based study in Taiwan showed a 37% higher rate of PD in patients with rheumatic disease.

However, previous studies did not control for important variables such as body mass index or diabetes.

For the current study, the investigators analyzed claims on about 55,000 patients diagnosed with RA between 2010 and 2017, with follow-up until 2019, and compared the outcomes of this group vs. those of 273,000 controls.

The mean age of claimants was 58 years, and 75% were female.

Results showed that those diagnosed with seropositive RA were about twice as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD. Those with seronegative RA were 1.2 times as likely as controls to be diagnosed with PD.

Dr. Kim noted that although the pathogenic link between RA and PD remains elusive, inflammation probably plays an important role. “Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-6, which are increased in RA patients, can induce microglial activation, leading to neuroinflammation,” he stated.

“These inflammatory cytokines are known to be associated with the dysfunction and degeneration of nigral dopaminergic neurons, which are important in the pathogenesis of PD,” he added.

The investigators noted that patients with RA may have been subject to more frequent health care services than controls and so were more likely to obtain a PD diagnosis.

Another possibility was that because patients with health check-ups were included in the analysis, the findings may have been biased toward those who were older and who had a higher income.

Dr. Kim noted that additional research is required to clarify the pathogenic connection between RA and PD.

“Moreover, additional studies are necessary to explore the potential influence of novel therapeutic treatments for RA on Parkinson’s disease susceptibility in patients with RA,” he said.

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Sulzer, PhD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and pharmacology at Columbia University in New York, said that the study adds to the growing body of evidence showing there is an autoimmune component to PD.

Dr. Sulzer pointed to data in several papers he published with others to this effect, including one showing higher rates of PD in people with inflammatory bowel disease.

The study had no specific funding. The study investigators and Dr. Sulzer report no relevant disclosures.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

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