Literature Review

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Because of the high out-of-pocket costs of new-to-market neurologic drugs that are of similar benefit as older agents, only a small percentage of patients with neurologic disorders have access to these cutting-edge medications, new research shows.

“Our study of people with neurologic conditions found that fewer than 20% were being treated with new medications,” study author Brian C. Callaghan, MD, with University of Michigan Health in Ann Arbor, said in a statement.

“For new, high-cost medications that have similar effectiveness to older drugs, limited use is likely appropriate. However, future studies are needed to look into whether the high costs are barriers to those new medications that can really make a difference for people living with neurologic disease,” Dr. Callaghan said.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Most expensive drugs

Using insurance claims data, the investigators compared the utilization and costs of new-to-market drugs from 2014 to 2018 with those for existing guideline-supported medications for treating 11 neurologic conditions.

The new drugs included:

• erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab for migraine.
• ocrelizumab and peginterferon beta-1a for multiple sclerosis (MS).
• pimavanserin and safinamide for Parkinson’s disease.
• droxidopa for orthostatic hypertension.
• eculizumab for myasthenia gravis (MG).
• edaravone for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
• deutetrabenazine and valbenazine for Huntington’s disease and tardive dyskinesia.
• patisiran and inotersen for transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR).
• eteplirsen and deflazacort for Duchenne disease.
• nusinersen for spinal muscular atrophy (SMA).

Utilization of new drugs was modest – they accounted for one in five prescriptions for every condition except tardive dyskinesia (32% for valbenazine), the researchers noted.

Mean out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for the new medications, although there was large variability among individual drugs.

The two most expensive drugs were edaravone, for ALS, with a mean out-of-pocket cost of $713 for a 30-day supply, and eculizumab, for MG, which costs $91 per month.

“For new-to-market medications, the distribution of out-of-pocket costs were highly variable and the trends over time were unpredictable compared with existing guideline-supported medications,” the authors reported.

They noted that potential reasons for low utilization of newer agents include delay in provider uptake and prescriber and/or patient avoidance because of high cost.

Given that most of the new neurologic agents offer little advantage compared with existing treatments – exceptions being new drugs for SMA and ATTR – drug costs should be a key consideration in prescribing decisions, Dr. Callaghan and colleagues concluded.

One limitation of the study is that follow-up time was short for some of the recently approved medications. Another limitation is that the number of people in the study who had rare diseases was small.
 

Revolution in neurotherapeutics

“We are living in a time when new treatments bring hope to people with neurologic diseases and disorders,” Orly Avitzur, MD, president of the American Academy of Neurology, said in a statement.

“However, even existing prescription medication can be expensive and drug prices continue to rise. In order for neurologists to provide people with the highest quality care, it is imperative that new drugs are accessible and affordable to the people who need them,” Dr. Avitzur added.

Writing in a linked editorial, A. Gordon Smith, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, said there is a revolution in neurotherapeutics, with particularly robust growth in new drug approvals for orphan diseases (those affecting < 200,000 Americans).

“This study adds to a growing literature indicating rising drug prices are a threat to the health care system. No matter how effective a disease-modifying therapy may be, if a patient cannot afford the cost, it doesn’t work,” Dr. Smith wrote.

He added that neurologists must be “diligent in assessing for financial toxicity and appropriately tailor individual treatment recommendations. We must insist on development of point-of-care tools to accurately estimate each patient’s potential financial toxicity including RTBT [real-time benefit tools].

“Neurologists’ primary obligation is to the individual patient, but we are also compelled to support access to high-quality care for all people, which requires advocacy for appropriate policy reforms to ensure value based and fair drug pricing and treatment success,” Dr. Smith added.

The study was funded by the American Academy of Neurology Health Services Research Subcommittee. Dr. Callaghan consults for a PCORI grant, DynaMed, receives research support from the American Academy of Neurology, and performs medical/legal consultations, including consultations for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Dr. Smith has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

An international panel of experts has proposed a new way to classify multiple sclerosis (MS) that would ultimately change the way patients are diagnosed and treated. The goal is to eventually move away from the current system, which classifies MS based on disease progression into distinct relapsing-remitting, secondary progressive, and primary progressive subtypes.

Members of the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials in Multiple Sclerosis, which developed the framework, note the new framework is based on underlying biology of disease and acknowledges the different trajectories of individual patients. “The categorization of patients into distinct subtypes or stages is artificial,” said framework coauthor Jeffrey Cohen, MD, director of experimental therapeutics, Mellen Center for Multiple Sclerosis Treatment and Research, Cleveland Clinic. “The rationale for the new framework was recent studies demonstrating that the biologic processes that underlie relapses and progression are present to varying degrees throughout the disease course, representing a continuum.”

The proposal was published online in The Lancet Neurology.
 

A more responsive system

Since the current MS classification, dubbed the Lublin-Reingold descriptors, was introduced, there have been calls for a different system that is more responsive to biological changes inherent in MS. The committee, which is jointly sponsored by the European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis and the U.S. National Multiple Sclerosis Society, responded by clarifying clinical course descriptions published in 1996 and 2013. The proposed framework grew out of that process.

“One of the main points is the concept that patients don’t evolve into secondary progressive MS,” Dr. Cohen said. “The processes that underlie progression and the findings of proxy measures of progression are present from the earliest stages of the disease.”

In its report, the committee reviews current data on the pathophysiology of injury and compensatory mechanisms in MS, presenting findings that suggest disease progression is caused not by a single disease mechanism, but from a combination of several processes that vary from patient to patient.

Current research studies highlighted in the report include those focused on mechanisms of injury, such as acute and chronic inflammation, myelin loss, nerve fiber and neuron loss, and mitochondrial dysfunction. How the body responds to that injury is likely to determine how MS evolves in each patient, the committee wrote.

Studies point to a range of factors that influence how MS manifests and progresses, including patients’ age at onset, biological sex, genes, race, ethnicity, comorbid health conditions, health behaviors, therapies, and social and environmental exposures.
 

Potential for better treatments

Any new framework for classifying the disease in the future would enable the development and approval of more biologically based treatment approaches, Dr. Cohen said. “One anticipated advantage of the new framework is that treatments should be evaluated based on their efficacy on biologic processes, not in artificial categories of patients.”

Dr. Cohen and other committee members acknowledged that developing the framework is just a first step in what would likely be a long and complicated process. “This proposal is among many initiatives that the committee has supported over the years as part of its overarching aim to constantly improve, update, and enhance clinical trial design and inform clinical care delivery for people living with MS and their health care teams,” committee chair Ruth Ann Marrie, MD, PhD, director of the Multiple Sclerosis Clinic at the University of Manitoba Health Sciences Center, Winnipeg, said in a press release.

Commenting on the proposal, Tony Reder, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Chicago Medicine, said the paper offers a “good framework for all trialists attempting to go beyond the usual markers.”
 

The time is right for reclassifying MS

The authors “have good reasons to propose the need for a new mechanism-driven framework to define MS progression,” wrote Takashi Yamamura, MD, PhD, director and chief of the Neuroimmunology Section and director of Multiple Sclerosis Center, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Kodaira, Tokyo, Japan, in an accompanying commentary.

Adopting biologically based definitions of MS progression will be challenging to implement, the authors admitted. The current subtype classification is woven into clinical care and research models and is the basis for regulatory approval of new therapeutics. Replacing it will take time and require external validation in the clinic and the lab.

“Although the goal is distant and many obstacles might arise (such as reaching a consensus between physicians, academia, and stakeholders), the time seems right to launch initiatives to reframe the classification of MS subtypes,” Dr. Yamamura added.

The study was supported by the German Research Foundation and the Intramural Research Program of NINDS. Dr. Cohen reported personal compensation for consulting for Biogen, Convelo, EMD Serono, Gossamer Bio, Mylan, and PSI. Dr. Yamamura has received support from AMED-CREST, Novartis, and Chiome Bioscience, and speaker honoraria from Novartis, Biogen, Chugai, Alexion, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, and Takeda.

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

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

Black and Latinx older adults are up to three times as likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than non-Latinx White adults and tend to experience onset at a younger age with more severe symptoms, according to Monica Rivera-Mindt, PhD, a professor of psychology at Fordham University and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Looking ahead, that means by 2030, nearly 40% of the 8.4 million Americans affected by Alzheimer’s disease will be Black and/or Latinx, she said. These facts were among the stark disparities in health care outcomes Dr. Rivera-Mindt discussed in her presentation on brain health equity at the 2022 annual meeting of the American Neurological Association.

Dr. Rivera-Mindt’s presentation opened the ANA’s plenary session on health disparities and inequities. The plenary, “Advancing Neurologic Equity: Challenges and Paths Forward,” did not simply enumerate racial and ethnic disparities that exist with various neurological conditions. Rather it went beyond the discussion of what disparities exist into understanding the roots of them as well as tips, tools, and resources that can aid clinicians in addressing or ameliorating them.

“Our most prevalent, most burdensome diseases in neurology disproportionately affect persons from minoritized and marginalized backgrounds,” Roy Hamilton, MD, an associate professor of neurology and physical medicine and rehabilitation at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said. “If clinicians are unaware of these disparities or don’t have any sense of how to start to address or think about them, then they’re really missing out on an important component of their education as persons who take care of patients with brain disorders.”

Dr. Hamilton, who organized the plenary, noted that awareness of these disparities is crucial to comprehensively caring for patients.
 

Missed opportunities

“We’re talking about disadvantages that are structural and large scale, but those disadvantages play themselves out in the individual encounter,” Dr. Hamilton said. “When physicians see patients, they have to treat the whole patient in front of them,” which means being aware of the risks and factors that could affect a patient’s clinical presentation. “Being aware of disparities has practical impacts on physician judgment,” he said.

For example, recent research in multiple sclerosis (MS) has highlighted how clinicians may be missing diagnosis of this condition in non-White populations because the condition has been regarded for so long as a “White person’s” disease, Dr. Hamilton said. In non-White patients exhibiting MS symptoms, then, clinicians may have been less likely to consider MS as a possibility, thereby delaying diagnosis and treatment.

Those patterns may partly explain why the mortality rate for MS is greater in Black patients, who also show more rapid neurodegeneration than White patients with MS, Lilyana Amezcua, MD, an associate professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, reported in the plenary’s second presentation.
 

Transgender issues

The third session, presented by Nicole Rosendale, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and director of the San Francisco General Hospital neurology inpatient services, examined disparities in neurology within the LGBTQ+ community through representative case studies and then offered specific ways that neurologists could make their practices more inclusive and equitable for sexual and gender minorities.

Her first case study was a 52-year-old man who presented with new-onset seizures, right hemiparesis, and aphasia. A brain biopsy consistent with adenocarcinoma eventually led his physician to discover he had metastatic breast cancer. It turned out the man was transgender and, despite a family history of breast cancer, hadn’t been advised to get breast cancer screenings.

“Breast cancer was not initially on the differential as no one had identified that the patient was transmasculine,” Dr. Rosendale said. A major challenge to providing care to transgender patients is a dearth of data on risks and screening recommendations. Another barrier is low knowledge of LGBTQ+ health among neurologists, Dr. Rosendale said while sharing findings from her 2019 study on the topic and calling for more research in LGBTQ+ populations.

Dr. Rosendale’s second case study dealt with a nonbinary patient who suffered from debilitating headaches for decades, first because they lacked access to health insurance and then because negative experiences with providers dissuaded them from seeking care. In data from the Center for American Progress she shared, 8% of LGB respondents and 22% of transgender respondents said they had avoided or delayed care because of fear of discrimination or mistreatment.

“So it’s not only access but also what experiences people are having when they go in and whether they’re actually even getting access to care or being taken care of,” Dr. Rosendale said. Other findings from the CAP found that:

• 8% of LGB patients and 29% of transgender patients reported having a clinician refuse to see them.
• 6% of LGB patients and 12% of transgender patients reported that a clinician refused to give them health care.
• 9% of LGB patients and 21% of transgender patients experienced harsh or abusive language during a health care experience.
• 7% of LGB patients and nearly a third (29%) of transgender patients experienced unwanted physical contact, such as fondling or sexual assault.

Reducing the disparities

Adys Mendizabal, MD, an assistant professor of neurology at the Institute of Society and Genetics at the University of California, Los Angeles, who attended the presentation, was grateful to see how the various lectures enriched the discussion beyond stating the fact of racial/ethnic disparities and dug into the nuances on how to think about and address these disparities. She particularly appreciated discussion about the need to go out of the way to recruit diverse patient populations for clinical trials while also providing them care.

“It is definitely complicated, but it’s not impossible for an individual neurologist or an individual department to do something to reduce some of the disparities,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It starts with just knowing that they exist and being aware of some of the things that may be impacting care for a particular patient.”
 

Tools to counter disparity

In the final presentation, Amy Kind, MD, PhD, the associate dean for social health sciences and programs at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, rounded out the discussion by exploring social determinants of health and their influence on outcomes.

“Social determinants impact brain health, and brain health is not distributed equally,” Dr. Kind told attendees. “We have known this for decades, yet disparities persist.”

Dr. Kind described the “exposome,” a “measure of all the exposures of an individual in a lifetime and how those exposures relate to health,” according to the CDC, and then introduced a tool clinicians can use to better understand social determinants of health in specific geographic areas. The Neighborhood Atlas, which Dr. Kind described in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2018, measures 17 social determinants across small population-sensitive areas and provides an area deprivation index. A high area deprivation index is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including reshopitalization, later diagnoses, less comprehensive diagnostic evaluation, increased risk of postsurgical complications, and decreased life expectancy.

“One of the things that really stood out to me about Dr. Kind’s discussion of the use of the area deprivation index was the fact that understanding and quantifying these kinds of risks and exposures is the vehicle for creating the kinds of social changes, including policy changes, that will actually lead to addressing and mitigating some of these lifelong risks and exposures,” Dr. Hamilton said. “It is implausible to think that a specific group of people would be genetically more susceptible to basically every disease that we know,” he added. “It makes much more sense to think that groups of individuals have been subjected systematically to conditions that impair health in a variety of ways.”
 

Not just race, ethnicity, sex, and gender

Following the four presentations from researchers in health inequities was an Emerging Scholar presentation in which Jay B. Lusk, an MD/MBA candidate at Duke University, Durham, N.C., shared new research findings on the role of neighborhood disadvantage in predicting mortality from coma, stroke, and other neurologic conditions. His findings revealed that living in a neighborhood with greater deprivation substantially increased risk of mortality even after accounting for individual wealth and demographics.

Maria Eugenia Diaz-Ortiz, PhD, of the department of neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said she found the five presentations to be an excellent introduction to people like herself who are in the earlier stages of learning about health equity research.

“I think they introduced various important concepts and frameworks and provided tools for people who don’t know about them,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “Then they asked important questions and provided some solutions to them.”

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz also appreciated seemingly minor but actually important details in how the speakers presented themselves, such as Dr. Rivera-Mindt opening with a land acknowledgment and her disclosures of “positionality.” The former recognized the traditional Native American custodians of the land on which she lives and works, and the latter revealed details about her as an individual – such as being the Afro-Latinx daughter of immigrants yet being cisgender, able-bodied, and U.S.-born – that show where she falls on the axis of adversity and axis of privilege.
 

Implications for research

The biggest takeaway for Dr. Diaz-Ortiz, however, came from the first Q&A session when someone asked how to increase underrepresented populations in dementia research. Dr. Rivera-Mindt described her experience engaging these communities by employing “community-based participatory research practices, which involves making yourself a part of the community and making the community active participants in the research,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said. “It’s an evidence-based approach that has been shown to increase participation in research not only in her work but in the work of others.”

Preaching to the choir

Dr. Diaz-Ortiz was pleased overall with the plenary but disappointed in its placement at the end of the meeting, when attendance is always lower as attendees head home.

“The people who stayed were people who already know and recognize the value of health equity work, so I think that was a missed opportunity where the session could have been included on day one or two to boost attendance and also to educate like a broader group of neurologists,” Dr. Diaz-Ortiz said in an interview.

Dr. Mendizabal felt similarly, appreciating the plenary but noting it was “definitely overdue” and that it should not be the last session. Instead, sessions on health equity should be as easy as possible to attend to bring in larger audiences. “Perhaps having that session on a Saturday or Sunday would have a higher likelihood of greater attendance than on a Tuesday,” she said. That said, Dr. Mendizabal also noticed that greater attention to health care disparities was woven into many other sessions throughout the conference, which is “the best way of addressing health equity instead of trying to just designate a session,” she said.

Dr. Mendizabal hopes that plenaries like this one and the weaving of health equity issues into presentations throughout neurology conferences continue.

“After the racial reckoning in 2020, there was a big impetus and a big wave of energy in addressing health disparities in the field, and I hope that that momentum is not starting to wane,” Dr. Mendizabal said. “It’s important because not talking about is not going to make this issue go away.”

Dr. Hamilton agreed that it is important that the conversation continue and that physicians recognize the importance of understanding health care disparities and determinants of health, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum or whether they choose to get involved in policy or advocacy.

“Irrespective of whether you think race or ethnicity or socioeconomic status are political issues or not, it is the case that you’re obligated to have an objective understanding of the factors that contribute to your patient’s health and as points of intervention,” Dr. Hamilton said. “So even if you don’t want to sit down and jot off that email to your senator, you still have to take these factors into account when you’re treating the person who’s sitting right in front of you, and that’s not political. That’s the promise of being a physician.”

Dr. Amezcua has received personal compensation for consulting, speaking, or serving on steering committees or advisory boards for Biogen Idec, Novartis, Genentech, and EMD Serono, and she has received research support from Biogen Idec and Bristol Myers Squibb Foundation. Dr. Kind reported support from the Alzheimer’s Association. Dr. Diaz-Ortiz is coinventor of a provisional patent submitted by the University of Pennsylvania that relates to a potential therapeutic in Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Lusk reported fellowship support from American Heart Association and travel support from the American Neurological Association. No other speakers or sources had relevant disclosures.
 

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

Of the more than 6 million patients with Alzheimer’s disease in the United States aged 65 or older, nearly two-thirds are women. A new study published online in Cell may help explain the gender gap – and offer clues to new treatments for helping patients of both sexes fight back.

Researchers zeroed in on a gene named USP11, found on the X chromosome. People assigned female at birth have two X chromosomes, while people assigned male at birth have one X and one Y. So while all males have one copy of USP11, females have two.
 

The body’s trash collection system

In the normal course of events, the brain creates waste that must be removed lest it becomes toxic. One waste product is the protein tau. Too little tau can damage nerve cells, explained researchers David Kang, PhD, and Jung-A “Alexa” Woo, PhD, who led the study. But too much becomes toxic and can lead to neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease. In fact, new research suggests that testing for changes in tau may someday help doctors diagnose Alzheimer’s disease earlier.

To manage tau, the brain uses a regulatory protein called ubiquitin to “tag” or signal the body that extra tau should be removed.

USP11’s job is to give instructions to make an enzyme that removes the ubiquitin tag to maintain balance. But if too much of the enzyme is present, too much tau gets untagged – and not enough of it gets cleared.

“Our study showed USP11 is higher in females than males in both humans and in mice,” Dr. Kang said. “That’s already true before the onset of dementia. But once someone has Alzheimer’s disease, USP11 is much higher – regardless of sex.”

The study adds to a growing body of evidence that shows that women may be more vulnerable than men to higher levels of tau, possibly explaining why women are affected by the disease more often than men.

But what if there was a way to “turn off” or deactivate the USP11 gene? Might that help prevent Alzheimer’s disease? And could it be done safely?
 

What happened when the gene was eliminated?

To examine these questions, researchers used a method of gene manipulation to completely delete the USP11 gene in mice. They then examined the mice for changes. The result? The mice seemed fine.

“The mice bred well. Their brains looked fine,” Dr. Woo said.

It would not be possible – or ethical – to remove a gene from humans. But when a medical condition makes a certain gene unhelpful, that gene can be partially blocked or expression of the gene can be reduced with medication. In fact, medications targeting enzymes are common. Examples include statins for cardiovascular disease or HIV treatments that inhibit protease enzymes.

“If we are able to identify some type of medicine that would inhibit USP11, our study suggests it would be well tolerated and benefit women,” Dr. Woo said.

Dr. Kang also cautions that the process for creating such a therapy takes at least 10-15 years. The researchers said they’d like to shorten the timeline and plan to study currently approved FDA medications to see if any might work to target USP11 gene activity – and hopefully bring forth a new treatment for Alzheimer’s disease sooner.

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

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After recovery from acute infection with SARS-CoV-2, major stressful life events such as the death of a loved one or financial insecurity can have a significant impact on the development of long COVID symptoms, new research suggests.

Major life stressors in the year after hospital discharge for COVID-19 are “strongly predictive of a lot of the important outcomes that people may face after COVID,” lead investigator Jennifer A. Frontera, MD, a professor in the department of neurology at New York University Langone Health, said in an interview.

These outcomes include depression, brain fog, fatigue, trouble sleeping, and other long COVID symptoms.

The findings were published online in the Journal of the Neurological Sciences.
 

Major stressful events common

Dr. Frontera and the NYU Neurology COVID-19 study team evaluated 451 adults who survived a COVID hospital stay. Of these, 383 completed a 6-month follow-up, 242 completed a 12-month follow-up, and 174 completed follow-up at both time points. 

Within 1 year of discharge, 77 (17%) patients died and 51% suffered a major stressful life event.

In multivariable analyses, major life stressors – including financial insecurity, food insecurity, death of a close contact, and new disability – were strong independent predictors of disability, trouble with activities of daily living, depression, fatigue, sleep problems, and prolonged post-acute COVID symptoms. The adjusted odds ratios for these outcomes ranged from 2.5 to 20.8. 

The research also confirmed the contribution of traditional risk factors for long COVID symptoms, as shown in past studies. These include older age, poor pre-COVID functional status, and more severe initial COVID-19 infection.

Long-term sequelae of COVID are increasingly recognized as major public health issues. 

It has been estimated that roughly 16 million U.S. adults aged 18-65 years ave long COVID, with the often debilitating symptoms keeping up to 4 million out of work. 
 

Holistic approach

Dr. Frontera said it’s important to realize that “sleep, fatigue, anxiety, depression, even cognition are so interwoven with each other that anything that impacts any one of them could have repercussions on the other.”

She added that it “certainly makes sense that there is an interplay or even a bidirectional relationship between the stressors that people face and how well they can recover after COVID.”

Therapies that lessen the trauma of the most stress-inducing life events need to be a central part of treatment for long COVID, with more research needed to validate the best approaches, Dr. Frontera said.

She also noted that social services or case management resources may be able to help address at least some of the stressors that individuals are under – and it is important to refer them to these resources. Referral to mental health services is also important.

“I think it’s really important to take a holistic approach and try to deal with whatever the problem may be,” said Dr. Frontera.

“I’m a neurologist, but as part of my evaluation, I really need to address if there are life stressors or mental health issues that may be impacting this person’s function,” she added.

The study had no commercial funding. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia prevalence is dropping in the United States, new research shows. New data from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey, show that the prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 65 and older dropped from 12.2% in 2000 to 8.5% in 2016 – a 30.1% decrease. In men, the prevalence of dementia fell from 10.2% to 7.0%, while for women, it declined from 13.6% to 9.7%, researchers reported. Their finding were published online in PNAS.

The study also revealed that the proportion of college-educated men in the sample increased from 21.5% in 2000 to 33.7% in 2016, while the proportion of college-educated women increased from 12.3% in 2000 to 23% in 2016.

The findings also show a decline in the dementia prevalence in non-Hispanic Black men, which dropped from 17.2% to 9.9%, a decrease of 42.6%. In non-Hispanic White men, dementia declined 9.3% to 6.6%, or 29.0%.

The investigators also found a substantial increase in the level of education between 2000 and 2016. In addition, they found that, among 74- to 84-year-old women in 2000, 29.5% had worked for more than 30 years during their lifetime versus 59.0% in 2016.

The investigators speculated that the decline in dementia prevalence reflects larger socioeconomic changes in the United States as well as prevention strategies to reduce cardiovascular disease.

A person born around 1920, for example, would have had greater exposure to the Great Depression, while someone born in 1936 would have benefited more from the changes in living standards in the years following World War II, they noted.

“There’s a need for more research on the effect of employment on cognitive reserve. It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” said study investigator Péter Hudomiet, PhD, from the RAND Corporation, adding that there may also be benefits that extend beyond working years. It’s possible that women’s greater participation in the workforce gives them more chances to establish relationships that in some cases last well into retirement and provide essential social connection. It’s well known that social isolation has a negative impact on cognition.

“It’s plausible that working is good for your mental cognitive abilities,” he added.

The investigators noted that it is beyond the scope of their study to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of the decline, but they observed that positive trends in employment and standard of living make sense. “They would suggest that as schooling levels continue to rise in the U.S. population in younger generations, the prevalence of dementia would continue to decrease.

The investigators report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Understanding of the key mechanisms underlying the progression of type 2 diabetes has been advanced by new research from Oxford (England) University suggesting potential ways to “slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D”.

The study in mice elucidated a “key cause” of T2D by showing that high blood glucose reprograms the metabolism of pancreatic beta-cells, helping to explain the progressive decline in their function in diabetes.

Scientists already knew that chronic hyperglycemia leads to a progressive decline in beta-cell function and, conversely, that the failure of pancreatic beta-cells to produce insulin results in chronically elevated blood glucose. However, the exact cause of beta-cell failure in T2D has remained unclear. T2D typically presents in later adult life, and by the time of diagnosis as much as 50% of beta-cell function has been lost.

In the United Kingdom there are nearly 5 million people diagnosed with T2D, which costs the National Health Service some £10 billion annually.
 

Glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, drives failure of cells to release insulin

The new study, published in Nature Communications, used both an animal model of diabetes and in vitro culture of beta-cells in a high glucose medium. In both cases the researchers showed, for the first time, that it is glucose metabolites, rather than glucose itself, that drives the failure of beta-cells to release insulin and is key to the progression of type 2 diabetes. 

Senior researcher Frances Ashcroft, PhD, of the department of physiology, anatomy and genetics at the University of Oxford said: “This suggests a potential way in which the decline in beta-cell function in T2D might be slowed or prevented.”

Blood glucose concentration is controlled within narrow limits, the team explained. When it is too low for more than few minutes, consciousness is rapidly lost because the brain is starved of fuel. However chronic elevation of blood glucose leads to the serious complications found in poorly controlled diabetes, such as retinopathy, nephropathy, peripheral neuropathy, and cardiac disease. Insulin, released from pancreatic beta-cells when blood glucose levels rise, is the only hormone that can lower the blood glucose concentration, and insufficient secretion results in diabetes. In T2D, the beta-cells are still present (unlike in T1D), but they have a reduced insulin content and the coupling between glucose and insulin release is impaired. 
 

Vicious spiral of hyperglycemia and beta-cell damage

Previous work by the same team had shown that chronic hyperglycemia damages the ability of the beta-cell to produce insulin and to release it when blood glucose levels rise. This suggested that “prolonged hyperglycemia sets off a vicious spiral in which an increase in blood glucose leads to beta-cell damage and less insulin secretion - which causes an even greater increase in blood glucose and a further decline in beta-cell function,” the team explained. 

Lead researcher Elizabeth Haythorne, PhD, said: “We realized that we next needed to understand how glucose damages beta-cell function, so we can think about how we might stop it and so slow the seemingly inexorable decline in beta-cell function in T2D.”

In the new study, they showed that altered glycolysis in T2D occurs, in part, through marked up-regulation of mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1), a protein complex involved in control of cell growth, dysregulation of which underlies a variety of human diseases, including diabetes. Up-regulation of mTORC1 led to changes in metabolic gene expression, oxidative phosphorylation and insulin secretion. Furthermore, they demonstrated that reducing the rate at which glucose is metabolized and at which its metabolites build up could prevent the effects of chronic hyperglycemia and the ensuing beta-cell failure. 

“High blood glucose levels cause an increased rate of glucose metabolism in the beta-cell, which leads to a metabolic bottleneck and the pooling of upstream metabolites,” the team said. “These metabolites switch off the insulin gene, so less insulin is made, as well as switching off numerous genes involved in metabolism and stimulus-secretion coupling. Consequently, the beta-cells become glucose blind and no longer respond to changes in blood glucose with insulin secretion.”
 

Blocking metabolic enzyme could maintain insulin secretion

The team attempted to block the first step in glucose metabolism, and therefore prevent the gene changes from taking place, by blocking the enzyme glucokinase, which regulates the process. They found that this could maintain glucose-stimulated insulin secretion even in the presence of chronic hyperglycemia.

“Our results support the idea that progressive impairment of beta-cell metabolism, induced by increasing hyperglycemia, speeds T2D development, and suggest that reducing glycolysis at the level of glucokinase may slow this progression,” they said.

Dr. Ashcroft said: “This is potentially a useful way to try to prevent beta-cell decline in diabetes. Because glucose metabolism normally stimulates insulin secretion, it was previously hypothesized that increasing glucose metabolism would enhance insulin secretion in T2D and glucokinase activators were trialled, with varying results. 

“Our data suggests that glucokinase activators could have an adverse effect and, somewhat counter-intuitively, that a glucokinase inhibitor might be a better strategy to treat T2D. Of course, it would be important to reduce glucose flux in T2D to that found in people without diabetes – and no further. But there is a very long way to go before we can tell if this approach would be useful for treating beta-cell decline in T2D. 

“In the meantime, the key message from our study if you have type 2 diabetes is that it is important to keep your blood glucose well controlled.”

This study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the John Fell Fund, and the Nuffield Benefaction for Medicine/Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among older adults who use the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), rates of memory decline appear to be slower than among those who don’t use the program, new research shows. Researchers assessed the memory function of more than 3,500 persons who used SNAP or did not use SNAP over a period of 20 years. They found that those who didn’t use the food benefits program experienced 2 more years of cognitive aging compared with program users.

Of the 3,555 individuals included in the study, all were eligible to use the benefits, but only 559 did, leaving 2,996 participants who did not take advantage of the program.

Low program participation levels translate into a missed opportunity to prevent dementia, said study investigator Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Columbia Aging Center at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York.

She said that prior research has shown that stigma may prevent older Americans from using SNAP. “Educational programs are needed to reduce the stigma that the public holds towards SNAP use,” she said.

Policy change could increase usage among older individuals, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri noted. Such changes could include simplifying enrollment and reporting procedures, shortening recertification periods, and increasing benefit levels.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Memory preservation

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri and her team assessed respondents from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a representative sample of Americans aged 50 and older. All respondents who were eligible to participate in SNAP in 1996 were followed every 2 years until 2016.

At each assessment, HRS respondents completed memory tests, including immediate and delayed word recall. For those who were too impaired to complete the interview, proxy informants – typically, their spouses or family members – assessed the memory and cognition of their family members using validated instruments, such as the 16-item Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline.

Investigators used a validated memory function composite score, which is benchmarked against the memory assessments and evaluations of the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS) cohort.

The team found that compared with nonusers, SNAP users were more likely to be women, Black, and born in the southern United States. They were less likely to be married and had more chronic conditions, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, heart problems, psychiatric problems, and arthritis.

One important study limitation was that SNAP use was measured only once during the study, the investigators noted. Ideally, Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri said, future research would examine cumulative SNAP use history and explore the pathways that might account for the association between SNAP use and memory decline.

While findings suggest that there were no significant differences in baseline memory function between SNAP users and nonusers, users experienced approximately 2 fewer years of cognitive aging over a 10-year period than those who didn’t use the program.

Dr. Zeki Al Hazzouri speculated that SNAP benefits may slow cognitive aging by contributing to overall brain health and that, in comparison with nonusers, SNAP users absorb more nutrients, which promote neuronal integrity.

The investigators theorized that SNAP benefits may reduce stress from financial hardship, which has been linked to premature cognitive aging in other research.

“SNAP may also increase the purchasing power and investment in other health preserving behaviors, but also resulting in better access to care, which may in turn result in better disease management and management of risk factors for cognitive function,” the investigators wrote.
 

An underutilized program

In an accompanying editorial, Steven Albert, PhD, Philip B. Hallen Endowed Chair in Community Health and Social Justice at the University of Pittsburgh, noted that in 2020, among households with people aged 50 and older in the United States, more than 9 million Americans experienced food insecurity.

Furthermore, he pointed out, research from 2018 showed that 71% of people aged 60 and older who met income eligibility for SNAP did not participate in the program. “SNAP is an underutilized food security program involving substantial income supplements for older people with low incomes.

“Against the backdrop of so many failures of pharmacotherapy for dementia and the so far inexorable increase in the prevalence of dementia due to population aging, are we missing an opportunity to support cognitive health by failing to enroll the 14 million Americans who are over age 60 and eligible for SNAP but who do not participate?” Dr. Albert asked. He suggested that it would be helpful to determine this through a randomized promotion trial.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exposure to a traffic-related air pollutant significantly increases risk for dementia, new research suggests. Results from a meta-analysis, which included a total of more than 90 million people, showed risk for dementia increased 3% for every 1 mg/m³ rise in fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) exposure.

Particulate matter is a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets from the burning of fossil fuels and nitrogen oxide, and also produced from road traffic exhaust.

While the research only showed an association between this type of air pollution and dementia risk, the estimates were consistent across the different analyses used.

“It’s rather sobering that there is this 3% relationship between incidence of dementia and the particulate matter and that it is such a precise estimate,” senior investigator Janet Martin, PharmD, MSc, associate professor of anesthesia & perioperative medicine and epidemiology & biostatistics at Western University’s, London, Ont., told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Conflicting results in past studies

Air pollution is a known risk factor for dementia, but studies attempting to pinpoint its exact impact have yielded conflicting results.

Researchers analyzed data from 17 studies with a total of 91.4 million individuals, 6% of whom had dementia. In addition to PM_2.5, the investigators also assessed nitrogen oxides, which form smog, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone exposure.

After adjustments for other known risk factors, such as age and gender, results showed that dementia risk increased by 3% for every 1 m³ rise in PM_2.5 exposure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.05).

The associations between dementia and exposure to nitrogen oxides (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13), nitrogen dioxide (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.07) and ozone (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.11) did not reach statistical significance. However, the confidence intervals were wide enough that clinical relevance cannot be ruled out, Dr. Martin said.

The study did not examine how or if the duration of PM_2.5 exposure affected dementia risk. In addition, the investigators were not able to identify a threshold above which dementia risk begins to rise.

The Environmental Pollution Agency considers average yearly exposures up to 12 mcg/m³ to be safe. The World Health Organization sets that limit lower, at 5 mcg/m³.

Dr. Martin noted that more studies are needed to explore those issues, as well as the mechanisms by which air pollutants contribute to the pathology of dementia. However, the clear link between fine particulate matter exposure and increased risk emphasizes the need to address air pollution as a modifiable risk factor for dementia.

“The rising tide of dementia is not something we can easily reverse,” Dr. Martin said. “The evidence has been so elusive for how to treat dementia once you have it, so our biggest opportunity is to prevent it.”

Results from a study published earlier in 2022 estimated that rates of dementia will triple worldwide and double in the United States by 2050 unless steps are taking to mitigate risk factors.

Research also suggests that improving air quality PM_2.5 by just 10% results in a 14% decreased risk for dementia.
 

‘Impressive’ pattern

Paul Rosenberg, MD, codirector of the Memory and Alzheimer’s Treatment Center division of geriatric psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said that air pollution “is the most prominent environmental risk we’ve found” for dementia. It also “adds to many other lifestyle and comorbidity risks, such as lack of exercise, obesity, depression, hearing loss, etc,” said Dr. Rosenberg, who was not involved with the research.

He noted what was “most impressive” was that in most of the pooled studies, small particulate air pollution was associated with dementia. “The overall pattern is most impressive and the effect sizes quite consistent over most of the studies,” Dr. Rosenberg said.

The meta-analysis was unfunded. Dr. Martin and Dr. Rosenberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic individuals, as well as people with less education, based on new U.S. data from The Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

These inequities likely stem from structural racism and income inequality, necessitating a multifaceted response at an institutional level, according to lead author Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, a professor of neuropsychology in neurology at the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center and the Taub Institute for Research in Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease at Columbia University, New York.
 

A more representative dataset

Between 2001 and 2003, a subset of HRS participants underwent extensive neuropsychological assessment in the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS), providing data which have since been cited by hundreds of published studies, the investigators wrote in JAMA Neurology. Those data, however, failed to accurately represent the U.S. population at the time, and have not been updated since.

“The ADAMS substudy was small, and the limited inclusion of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native participants contributed to lack of precision of estimates among minoritized racial and ethnic groups that have been shown to experience a higher burden of cognitive impairment and dementia,” Dr. Manly and colleagues wrote.

The present analysis used a more representative dataset from HRS participants who were 65 years or older in 2016. From June 2016 to October 2017, 3,496 of these individuals underwent comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and informant interview, with dementia and MCI classified based on standard diagnostic criteria.

In total, 393 people were classified with dementia (10%), while 804 had MCI (22%), both of which approximate estimates reported by previous studies, according to the investigators. In further alignment with past research, age was a clear risk factor; each 5-year increment added 17% and 95% increased risk of MCI and dementia, respectively.

Compared with college-educated participants, individuals who did not graduate from high school had a 60% increased risk for both dementia (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) and MCI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Other educational strata were not associated with significant differences in risk.

Compared with White participants, Black individuals had an 80% increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7), but no increased risk of MCI. Conversely, non-White Hispanic individuals had a 40% increased risk of MCI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0), but no increased risk of dementia, compared with White participants.

“Older adults racialized as Black and Hispanic are more likely to develop cognitive impairment and dementia because of historical and current structural racism and income inequality that restrict access to brain-health benefits and increase exposure to harm,” Dr. Manly said in a written comment.

These inequities deserve a comprehensive response, she added.

“Actions and policies that decrease discriminatory and aggressive policing policies, invest in schools that serve children that are racialized as Black and Hispanic, repair housing and economic inequalities, and provide equitable access to mental and physical health, can help to narrow disparities in later life cognitive impairment,” Dr. Manly said. “Two other areas of focus for policy makers are the shortage in the workforce of dementia care specialists, and paid family leave for caregiving.”
 

Acknowledging the needs of the historically underrepresented

Lealani Mae Acosta, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., applauded the investigators for their “conscious effort to expand representation of historically underrepresented minorities.”

The findings themselves support what has been previously reported, Dr. Acosta said in an interview, including the disproportionate burden of cognitive disorders among people of color and those with less education.

Clinicians need to recognize that certain patient groups face increased risks of cognitive disorders, and should be screened accordingly, Dr. Acosta said, noting that all aging patients should undergo such screening. The push for screening should also occur on a community level, along with efforts to build trust between at-risk populations and health care providers.

While Dr. Acosta reiterated the importance of these new data from Black and Hispanic individuals, she noted that gaps in representation remain, and methods of characterizing populations deserve refinement.

“I’m a little bit biased because I’m an Asian physician,” Dr. Acosta said. “As much as I’m glad that they’re highlighting these different disparities, there weren’t enough [participants in] specific subgroups like American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, to be able to identify specific trends within [those groups] that are, again, historically underrepresented patient populations.”

Grouping all people of Asian descent may also be an oversimplification, she added, as differences may exist between individuals originating from different countries.

“We always have to be careful about lumping certain groups together in analyses,” Dr. Acosta said. “That’s just another reminder to us – as clinicians, as researchers – that we need to do better by our patients by expanding research opportunities, and really studying these historically underrepresented populations.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Acosta reported no relevant competing interests.

Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic individuals, as well as people with less education, based on new U.S. data from The Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

These inequities likely stem from structural racism and income inequality, necessitating a multifaceted response at an institutional level, according to lead author Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, a professor of neuropsychology in neurology at the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center and the Taub Institute for Research in Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease at Columbia University, New York.
 

A more representative dataset

Between 2001 and 2003, a subset of HRS participants underwent extensive neuropsychological assessment in the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS), providing data which have since been cited by hundreds of published studies, the investigators wrote in JAMA Neurology. Those data, however, failed to accurately represent the U.S. population at the time, and have not been updated since.

“The ADAMS substudy was small, and the limited inclusion of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native participants contributed to lack of precision of estimates among minoritized racial and ethnic groups that have been shown to experience a higher burden of cognitive impairment and dementia,” Dr. Manly and colleagues wrote.

The present analysis used a more representative dataset from HRS participants who were 65 years or older in 2016. From June 2016 to October 2017, 3,496 of these individuals underwent comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and informant interview, with dementia and MCI classified based on standard diagnostic criteria.

In total, 393 people were classified with dementia (10%), while 804 had MCI (22%), both of which approximate estimates reported by previous studies, according to the investigators. In further alignment with past research, age was a clear risk factor; each 5-year increment added 17% and 95% increased risk of MCI and dementia, respectively.

Compared with college-educated participants, individuals who did not graduate from high school had a 60% increased risk for both dementia (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) and MCI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Other educational strata were not associated with significant differences in risk.

Compared with White participants, Black individuals had an 80% increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7), but no increased risk of MCI. Conversely, non-White Hispanic individuals had a 40% increased risk of MCI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0), but no increased risk of dementia, compared with White participants.

“Older adults racialized as Black and Hispanic are more likely to develop cognitive impairment and dementia because of historical and current structural racism and income inequality that restrict access to brain-health benefits and increase exposure to harm,” Dr. Manly said in a written comment.

These inequities deserve a comprehensive response, she added.

“Actions and policies that decrease discriminatory and aggressive policing policies, invest in schools that serve children that are racialized as Black and Hispanic, repair housing and economic inequalities, and provide equitable access to mental and physical health, can help to narrow disparities in later life cognitive impairment,” Dr. Manly said. “Two other areas of focus for policy makers are the shortage in the workforce of dementia care specialists, and paid family leave for caregiving.”
 

Acknowledging the needs of the historically underrepresented

Lealani Mae Acosta, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., applauded the investigators for their “conscious effort to expand representation of historically underrepresented minorities.”

The findings themselves support what has been previously reported, Dr. Acosta said in an interview, including the disproportionate burden of cognitive disorders among people of color and those with less education.

Clinicians need to recognize that certain patient groups face increased risks of cognitive disorders, and should be screened accordingly, Dr. Acosta said, noting that all aging patients should undergo such screening. The push for screening should also occur on a community level, along with efforts to build trust between at-risk populations and health care providers.

While Dr. Acosta reiterated the importance of these new data from Black and Hispanic individuals, she noted that gaps in representation remain, and methods of characterizing populations deserve refinement.

“I’m a little bit biased because I’m an Asian physician,” Dr. Acosta said. “As much as I’m glad that they’re highlighting these different disparities, there weren’t enough [participants in] specific subgroups like American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, to be able to identify specific trends within [those groups] that are, again, historically underrepresented patient populations.”

Grouping all people of Asian descent may also be an oversimplification, she added, as differences may exist between individuals originating from different countries.

“We always have to be careful about lumping certain groups together in analyses,” Dr. Acosta said. “That’s just another reminder to us – as clinicians, as researchers – that we need to do better by our patients by expanding research opportunities, and really studying these historically underrepresented populations.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Acosta reported no relevant competing interests.

Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic individuals, as well as people with less education, based on new U.S. data from The Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

These inequities likely stem from structural racism and income inequality, necessitating a multifaceted response at an institutional level, according to lead author Jennifer J. Manly, PhD, a professor of neuropsychology in neurology at the Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center and the Taub Institute for Research in Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease at Columbia University, New York.
 

A more representative dataset

Between 2001 and 2003, a subset of HRS participants underwent extensive neuropsychological assessment in the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study (ADAMS), providing data which have since been cited by hundreds of published studies, the investigators wrote in JAMA Neurology. Those data, however, failed to accurately represent the U.S. population at the time, and have not been updated since.

“The ADAMS substudy was small, and the limited inclusion of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska Native participants contributed to lack of precision of estimates among minoritized racial and ethnic groups that have been shown to experience a higher burden of cognitive impairment and dementia,” Dr. Manly and colleagues wrote.

The present analysis used a more representative dataset from HRS participants who were 65 years or older in 2016. From June 2016 to October 2017, 3,496 of these individuals underwent comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and informant interview, with dementia and MCI classified based on standard diagnostic criteria.

In total, 393 people were classified with dementia (10%), while 804 had MCI (22%), both of which approximate estimates reported by previous studies, according to the investigators. In further alignment with past research, age was a clear risk factor; each 5-year increment added 17% and 95% increased risk of MCI and dementia, respectively.

Compared with college-educated participants, individuals who did not graduate from high school had a 60% increased risk for both dementia (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) and MCI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2). Other educational strata were not associated with significant differences in risk.

Compared with White participants, Black individuals had an 80% increased risk of dementia (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.2-2.7), but no increased risk of MCI. Conversely, non-White Hispanic individuals had a 40% increased risk of MCI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-2.0), but no increased risk of dementia, compared with White participants.

“Older adults racialized as Black and Hispanic are more likely to develop cognitive impairment and dementia because of historical and current structural racism and income inequality that restrict access to brain-health benefits and increase exposure to harm,” Dr. Manly said in a written comment.

These inequities deserve a comprehensive response, she added.

“Actions and policies that decrease discriminatory and aggressive policing policies, invest in schools that serve children that are racialized as Black and Hispanic, repair housing and economic inequalities, and provide equitable access to mental and physical health, can help to narrow disparities in later life cognitive impairment,” Dr. Manly said. “Two other areas of focus for policy makers are the shortage in the workforce of dementia care specialists, and paid family leave for caregiving.”
 

Acknowledging the needs of the historically underrepresented

Lealani Mae Acosta, MD, MPH, associate professor of neurology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., applauded the investigators for their “conscious effort to expand representation of historically underrepresented minorities.”

The findings themselves support what has been previously reported, Dr. Acosta said in an interview, including the disproportionate burden of cognitive disorders among people of color and those with less education.

Clinicians need to recognize that certain patient groups face increased risks of cognitive disorders, and should be screened accordingly, Dr. Acosta said, noting that all aging patients should undergo such screening. The push for screening should also occur on a community level, along with efforts to build trust between at-risk populations and health care providers.

While Dr. Acosta reiterated the importance of these new data from Black and Hispanic individuals, she noted that gaps in representation remain, and methods of characterizing populations deserve refinement.

“I’m a little bit biased because I’m an Asian physician,” Dr. Acosta said. “As much as I’m glad that they’re highlighting these different disparities, there weren’t enough [participants in] specific subgroups like American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, to be able to identify specific trends within [those groups] that are, again, historically underrepresented patient populations.”

Grouping all people of Asian descent may also be an oversimplification, she added, as differences may exist between individuals originating from different countries.

“We always have to be careful about lumping certain groups together in analyses,” Dr. Acosta said. “That’s just another reminder to us – as clinicians, as researchers – that we need to do better by our patients by expanding research opportunities, and really studying these historically underrepresented populations.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with the Alzheimer’s Association and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Acosta reported no relevant competing interests.