Literature Review

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

Many adults can achieve remission of type 2 diabetes with a primary intervention consisting of a diet that emphasizes whole, plant-based foods, according to a new publication from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM).

The document was developed to assist clinicians treating adults with type 2 diabetes, with the goal of remission using diet as a primary intervention. A panel of 15 experts from seven societies reached consensus on 69 statements.

“A healthy diet is a foundational component of current lifestyle guidelines for treatment of type 2 diabetes, but it is often overlooked because of the lack of physician training and patient awareness,” Felice A. Caldarella, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), said in a press release from ACLM.

“The consensus statements produced by this panel of experts are invaluable in bringing awareness to the value of diet for diabetes remission in addition to management,” he summarized.

The initiative was cosponsored by the Endocrine Society, endorsed by AACE, and supported by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The expert panel also included representatives from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It was published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine.

“I think many patients would do the challenging work of making lifestyle modifications if it meant remission of [type 2 diabetes] and sparing them the burden and cost of medications or surgery,” said Amy E. Rothberg, MD, PhD, who represented the Endocrine Society on the panel.

“By changing the course of the disease, i.e., if in remission, they are unlikely to get the complications related to [type 2 diabetes],” Dr. Rothberg, professor of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told this news organization.
 

Consensus on 69 statements

The panel members used a modified Delphi process to develop the consensus statement. They identified 49 articles from the literature regarding dietary interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes. They reached consensus on 69 statements that cover seven topics: definitions and basic concepts; diet and remission of type 2 diabetes; dietary specifics and types of diets; adjuvant and alternative interventions; support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; weight loss; and payment and policy.

Dr. Rothberg identified six key areas:

• Definition of remission: Type 2 diabetes remission is defined as A1c < 6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for lowering blood glucose, consistent with the diabetes remission timeline published in 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Remission does not exclude the possibility of recurrence. Remission is a realistic and achievable goal for some adults with type 2 diabetes.
• High-intensity diet, short duration of diabetes: Patients are more likely to attain remission with a high-intensity diet (e.g., high level of restrictions plus frequent patient contact or counseling) accompanied by physical activity and if the patient has had diabetes for 4 years or less. A high-fiber diet is essential.
• Fewer calories, focus on plant-based foods: Calorie reduction could be achieved by reducing food volume, portion sizes, or energy density, or by using liquid meal replacements, or by a combination of these approaches. It should mainly include whole, plant-based foods (whole grains, vegetables, legumes, fruits, nuts, and seeds) and avoid or minimize meat and other animal products, refined foods, ultra-processed foods, and foods with added fats.
• A very low energy diet as initial intervention is optional: There was consensus that this approach can achieve remission, but there was not agreement that low calorie content was essential for achieving remission, Dr. Rothberg noted.
• Beyond type 2 remission: Diet as a primary intervention can also lower the risk of cardiovascular disease and improve lipoprotein profile.
• Self-management, support, and monitoring: The group recognizes the importance of patient education and support. “This can play a vital role and should be part of any comprehensive lifestyle treatment,” said Dr. Rothberg. The diet and lifestyle strategies should be acceptable to most patients, easy to adhere to, accommodate patient preferences and values, and be culturally sensitive.

Intensive lifestyle change can equate to bariatric surgery

Also invited to comment, Yehuda Handelsman, MD, who coauthored a 2020 type 2 diabetes management algorithm by AACE and the American College of Endocrinology, and was not involved with the current initiative, agrees with the importance of lifestyle in the management of type 2 diabetes but takes issue with a few points.

Most clinicians and experts do not believe that diabetes can be reversed, as such, only controlled, noted Dr. Handelsman, medical director of the Metabolic Institute of America, Tarzana, Calif.

“We always have approached type 2 diabetes treatment with lifestyle – diet, exercise, and (as of late) sleep – as the mainstay of therapy,” he said.

However, most patients do not adhere to diet modifications by 6 months and especially by 1 year, which has led to universal recommendations to add medication to lifestyle from inception, he continued.

Most clinicians have not been trained in lifestyle modalities. And many patients with type 2 diabetes are not adherent to medications, which “led to the relative success of bariatric surgery leading to remission (at least for 3-5 years).”

“Remission, which in broad terms implies the disappearance of signs and symptoms, should be a top priority for individuals with type 2 diabetes,” the consensus statement authors wrote.

“While [bariatric surgery] can induce remission in 25% to 80% of targeted patients, it carries risk and its effectiveness wanes as subjects regain lost weight,” and “more dramatic and intensive [lifestyle] change produces remission rates equivalent to bariatric surgery,” they noted.

Need for more randomized trials

Dr. Handelsman also stressed that remission may be temporary. “Three months or 6 months cannot be a measure of success. We must have at least 1 year,” he added. “In fact, there are data to show that remission requires 3 years.”

Nevertheless, the consensus statement does highlight the importance of lifestyle in remission of diabetes, he agreed.

The expert panel also noted that patients can benefit from a healthy lifestyle, even if they do not attain remission, Dr. Rothberg pointed out. 

Moving forward, the statement concludes that “there is ... an ongoing need for additional randomized controlled trials to assess sustainable plant-based dietary interventions with whole or minimally processed foods, as a primary means of treating [type 2 diabetes] with the goal of remission, as well as factors that lead to successful patient adherence and effective dissemination and implementation of such interventions.”

This study was supported by the Lisa Wendel Memorial Foundation. Dr. Rothberg has disclosed being the medical director of  Rewind, a virtual platform created for weight control with the goal to “defeat” type 2 diabetes, and a consultant for a study for which Nestle provides product. Dr. Handelsman has disclosed receiving research grants and consultant and speaker honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Applied Therapeutic, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Esperion, Ionis, Mankind, Merck, Merck-Pfizer, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Regor, Sanofi, and Vertis.

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

A new study questions the conventional wisdom of using steroids and anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen to treat low back pain if exercise and other nondrug therapies don’t work right away.

Those medications offer relief from acute pain but may actually increase a person’s chances of developing chronic pain, said the investigators for a study published in Science Translational Medicine. The study results indicate that inflammation is a normal part of recovering from a painful injury and that inhibiting inflammation may result in more-difficult-to-treat chronic pain.

“For many decades it’s been standard medical practice to treat pain with anti-inflammatory drugs,” Jeffrey Mogil, PhD, a psychology professor at McGill University, Montreal, said in a school news release. “But we found that this short-term fix could lead to longer-term problems.”

Researchers looked at low back pain because it’s so common, with 25% of U.S. adults saying they had low back pain in the previous 3 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute back pain is defined as lasting less than 4 weeks while chronic back pain lasts more than 12 weeks.

By examining blood samples, researchers discovered that people whose low back pain was resolved had high inflammation driven by neutrophils, a type of white blood cell that helps the body fight infection, the study said.

“Neutrophils dominate the early stages of inflammation and set the stage for repair of tissue damage. Inflammation occurs for a reason, and it looks like it’s dangerous to interfere with it,” Dr. Mogil said in the news release.

The research team found that blocking neutrophils in mice prolonged pain in the animals up to 10-fold. Pain also was prolonged when the mice were given anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids, the news release says.

McGill University said other studies support the findings. The school cited an analysis of 500,000 people in the United Kingdom. The analysis found that those taking anti-inflammatory drugs for pain were more likely to have pain 2 to 10 years later.

While saying the study suggests it’s time to reconsider how pain is treated, the researchers called for clinical trials on humans, not just observations of people with low back pain.

Experts warned about accepting the results without further investigation.

“It’s intriguing but requires further study,” Steven J. Atlas, MD, director of the Primary Care Research & Quality Improvement Network at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told The New York Times.

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

A new study questions the conventional wisdom of using steroids and anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen to treat low back pain if exercise and other nondrug therapies don’t work right away.

Those medications offer relief from acute pain but may actually increase a person’s chances of developing chronic pain, said the investigators for a study published in Science Translational Medicine. The study results indicate that inflammation is a normal part of recovering from a painful injury and that inhibiting inflammation may result in more-difficult-to-treat chronic pain.

“For many decades it’s been standard medical practice to treat pain with anti-inflammatory drugs,” Jeffrey Mogil, PhD, a psychology professor at McGill University, Montreal, said in a school news release. “But we found that this short-term fix could lead to longer-term problems.”

Researchers looked at low back pain because it’s so common, with 25% of U.S. adults saying they had low back pain in the previous 3 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute back pain is defined as lasting less than 4 weeks while chronic back pain lasts more than 12 weeks.

By examining blood samples, researchers discovered that people whose low back pain was resolved had high inflammation driven by neutrophils, a type of white blood cell that helps the body fight infection, the study said.

“Neutrophils dominate the early stages of inflammation and set the stage for repair of tissue damage. Inflammation occurs for a reason, and it looks like it’s dangerous to interfere with it,” Dr. Mogil said in the news release.

The research team found that blocking neutrophils in mice prolonged pain in the animals up to 10-fold. Pain also was prolonged when the mice were given anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids, the news release says.

McGill University said other studies support the findings. The school cited an analysis of 500,000 people in the United Kingdom. The analysis found that those taking anti-inflammatory drugs for pain were more likely to have pain 2 to 10 years later.

While saying the study suggests it’s time to reconsider how pain is treated, the researchers called for clinical trials on humans, not just observations of people with low back pain.

Experts warned about accepting the results without further investigation.

“It’s intriguing but requires further study,” Steven J. Atlas, MD, director of the Primary Care Research & Quality Improvement Network at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told The New York Times.

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

A new study questions the conventional wisdom of using steroids and anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen to treat low back pain if exercise and other nondrug therapies don’t work right away.

Those medications offer relief from acute pain but may actually increase a person’s chances of developing chronic pain, said the investigators for a study published in Science Translational Medicine. The study results indicate that inflammation is a normal part of recovering from a painful injury and that inhibiting inflammation may result in more-difficult-to-treat chronic pain.

“For many decades it’s been standard medical practice to treat pain with anti-inflammatory drugs,” Jeffrey Mogil, PhD, a psychology professor at McGill University, Montreal, said in a school news release. “But we found that this short-term fix could lead to longer-term problems.”

Researchers looked at low back pain because it’s so common, with 25% of U.S. adults saying they had low back pain in the previous 3 months, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Acute back pain is defined as lasting less than 4 weeks while chronic back pain lasts more than 12 weeks.

By examining blood samples, researchers discovered that people whose low back pain was resolved had high inflammation driven by neutrophils, a type of white blood cell that helps the body fight infection, the study said.

“Neutrophils dominate the early stages of inflammation and set the stage for repair of tissue damage. Inflammation occurs for a reason, and it looks like it’s dangerous to interfere with it,” Dr. Mogil said in the news release.

The research team found that blocking neutrophils in mice prolonged pain in the animals up to 10-fold. Pain also was prolonged when the mice were given anti-inflammatory drugs and steroids, the news release says.

McGill University said other studies support the findings. The school cited an analysis of 500,000 people in the United Kingdom. The analysis found that those taking anti-inflammatory drugs for pain were more likely to have pain 2 to 10 years later.

While saying the study suggests it’s time to reconsider how pain is treated, the researchers called for clinical trials on humans, not just observations of people with low back pain.

Experts warned about accepting the results without further investigation.

“It’s intriguing but requires further study,” Steven J. Atlas, MD, director of the Primary Care Research & Quality Improvement Network at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told The New York Times.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Type 2 diabetes was associated with a 20% increased risk of tooth loss after adjusting for multiple other risk factors in a meta-analysis of 22 recent observational studies from around the world.

The risk of tooth loss with type 2 diabetes (versus no diabetes) ranged from 15% higher in cross-sectional studies to 29% higher in cohort studies to five times higher in case-control studies.

“For diabetes, there are various known complications that are considered in [patient] treatment and management, including neuropathy, nephropathy, cardiovascular [disease] and hypertension, and kidney disease,” senior author Abdolhalim Rajabi, PhD, told this news organization in an email.

“However, a chronic complication of this disease, which may be less noticeable and less tangible, is missing teeth, which can also exacerbate other complications in patients with diabetes,” Dr. Rajabi, a biostatistician at Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran, continued.

The meta-analysis showed that “physicians should pay attention to [dental health] in the management and control of diabetic patients,” he summarized.

The analysis by Amir Reza Ahmadian, DDS, dean of the Faculty of Dentistry, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, and colleagues was recently published in BMC Endocrine Disorders.

“Our study is the first comprehensive meta-analysis about the association between [type 2 diabetes] and tooth loss,” Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues write. It summarizes articles in dentistry and medicine about “an important question:” the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss.  

Nevertheless, “large-scale prospective studies are needed to validate the current results in the future,” they conclude.
 

Oral complications of diabetes

Diabetes increases the risk of oral disease directly by a gingival inflammatory response and indirectly by decreased saliva production due to antidiabetic medications.

Oral complications arising from this include dry mouth, tooth decay, and periodontal disease (gum disease). The latter ranges from gingivitis (gum inflammation) to severe periodontal disease (periodontitis) that can lead to tooth loss, the authors explain.

About a third of people with diabetes have severe periodontal disease, and the American Diabetes Association estimates that one in five cases of tooth loss in adults is related to diabetes.

Tooth loss has decreased over the past decades but is still a major health problem and is associated with poorer quality of life as well as risk of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, stroke, and cancer.

Previous studies and meta-analyses of the relationship between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss have reported inconsistent findings, and they did not include several more recent studies.

Therefore, Dr. Ahmadian and colleagues performed a meta-analysis of 13 cross-sectional, six cohort, and three case-control studies that investigated the link between type 2 diabetes and tooth loss published from 2007 to 2021.

Eleven studies were from North and South America: Brazil (2), Columbia (1), Mexico (2), and the United States (6). Seven studies were from Europe: Belgium (1), Finland (2), France (1), Germany (2), and Portugal (1). Four studies were from the Middle East and Asia: Saudi Arabia (1), South Korea (1), Thailand (1), and Yemen (1).

Diabetes was diagnosed based on glucose or A1c levels in half the studies and based on self-report in the other studies. Most studies investigated any tooth loss (16 studies) and the rest only considered loss of five or more teeth.

The meta-analysis included 677,532 patients, ranging from 60 to 379,021 patients per study. Most studies (77%) were judged to be of moderate or high quality.

The studies adjusted for confounders, including age, sex, place of residence, education, lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity), use of medications and vitamin supplements, and health insurance.

Overall, after adjusting for confounders, participants with type 2 diabetes had a significantly (20%) greater risk of tooth loss than participants without diabetes (adjusted odds ratio, 1.20; P < 0.001).

The association persisted in the different study types. The risk of tooth loss was highest in the case-control studies (OR, 5.10), but was also significantly higher in the cohort (OR, 1.29) and cross-sectional studies (OR, 1.15).

The association “was also present in other subgroups, including ... method of diagnosing type 2 diabetes, continent, study quality, and number of tooth loss,” the researchers write.

“This event seems to be in line with what has been reported in other epidemiologic studies, as several cases have supported the link between diabetes, periodontal disease, and tooth decay,” which “are two common reasons for the endpoint of the tooth loss parameter,” they note.

The researchers did not find any publication bias. However, most of the studies were cross-sectional, so they cannot determine a causal relationship between diabetes and tooth loss.

The authors have reported no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Use of race-based diabetes screening thresholds could reduce the disparity that arises from current screening guidelines in the United States, new research suggests.

In August 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the recommended age for type 2 diabetes screening from 40 to 35 years among people with a body mass index of 25 kg/m² or greater.

However, the diabetes rate among ethnic minorities aged 35-70 years in the United States is not just higher overall but, in certain populations, also occurs more frequently at a younger age and at lower BMIs, the new study indicates.

Among people with a BMI below 25 kg/m², the diabetes prevalence is two to four times higher among Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans than among the U.S. White population.

And the authors of the new study, led by Rahul Aggarwal, MD, predict that if screening begins at age 35 years, the BMI cut-off equivalent to 25 kg/m² for White Americans would be 18.5 kg/m2 for Hispanic and Black Americans and 20 kg/m² for Asian Americans.

“While diabetes has often been thought of as a disease that primarily affects adults with overweight or [obesity], our findings suggest that normal-weight adults in minority groups have surprisingly high rates of diabetes,” Dr. Aggarwal, senior resident physician in internal medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, told this news organization.

“Assessing diabetes risks in certain racial/ethnic groups will be necessary, even if these adults do not have overweight or [obesity],” he added.

Not screening in this way “is a missed opportunity for early intervention,” he noted.  

And both the authors and an editorialist stress that the issue isn’t just theoretical.

“USPSTF recommendations influence what payers choose to cover, which in turn determines access to preventative services ... Addressing the staggering inequities in diabetes outcomes will require substantial investments in diabetes prevention and treatment, but making screening more equitable is a good place to start,” said senior author Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, of the Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology and director of the Cardiac Critical Care Unit at Beth Israel, Boston.
 

Screen minorities at a younger age if current BMI threshold kept

In their study, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) for 2011-2018, Dr. Aggarwal and colleagues also calculated that, if the BMI threshold is kept at 25 kg/m², then the equivalent age cut-offs for Asian, Black, and Hispanic Americans would be 23, 21, and 25 years, respectively, compared with 35 years for White Americans.

The findings were published online  in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

The prevalence of diabetes in those aged 35-70 years in the NHANES population was 17.3% for Asian Americans and 12.5% for those who were White (odds ratio, 1.51 vs. Whites). Among Black Americans and Mexican Americans, the prevalence was 20.7% and 20.6%, respectively, almost twice the prevalence in Whites (OR, 1.85 and 1.80). For other Hispanic Americans, the prevalence was 16.4% (OR, 1.37 vs. Whites). All of those differences were significant, compared with White Americans.

Undiagnosed diabetes was also significantly more common among minority populations, at 27.6%, 22.8%, 21.2%, and 23.5% for Asian, Black, Mexican, and other Hispanic Americans, respectively, versus 12.5% for White Americans.
 

‘The time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance’

“While there is more work to be done on carefully examining the long-term risk–benefit trade-off of various diabetes screening, I believe the time has come for USPSTF to offer more concrete guidance on the use of lower thresholds for screening higher-risk individuals,” Dr. Kazi told this news organization.

The author of an accompanying editorial agrees, noting that in a recent commentary the USPSTF, itself, “acknowledged the persistent inequalities across the screening-to-treatment continuum that result in racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.”

And the USPSTF “emphasized the need to improve systems of care to ensure equitable and consistent delivery of high-quality preventive and treatment services, with special attention to racial/ethnic groups who may experience worse health outcomes,” continues Quyen Ngo-Metzger, MD, Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.

For other conditions, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, and infectious disease, the USPSTF already recommends risk-based preventive services.

“To address the current inequity in diabetes screening, the USPSTF should apply the same consideration to its diabetes screening recommendation,” she notes.
 

‘Implementation will require an eye for pragmatism’

Asked about how this recommendation might be carried out in the real world, Dr. Aggarwal said in an interview that, because all three minority groups with normal weight had similar diabetes risk profiles to White adults with overweight, “one way for clinicians to easily implement these findings is by screening all Asian, Black, and Hispanic adults ages 35-70 years with normal weight for diabetes, similarly to how all White adults ages 35-70 years with overweight are currently recommended for screening.”

Dr. Kazi said: “I believe that implementation will require an eye for pragmatism,” noting that another option would be to have screening algorithms embedded in the electronic health record to flag individuals who qualify.

In any case, “the simplicity of the current one-size-fits-all approach is alluring, but it is profoundly inequitable. The more I look at the empiric evidence on diabetes burden in our communities, the more the status quo becomes untenable.”

However, Dr. Kazi also noted, “the benefit of any screening program relates to what we do with the information. The key is to ensure that folks identified as having diabetes – or better still prediabetes – receive timely lifestyle and pharmacological interventions to avert its long-term complications.”

This study was supported by institutional funds from the Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology. Dr. Aggarwal, Dr. Kazi, and Dr. Ngo-Metzger have reported no relevant relationships.

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

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term use of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) was associated with an increased risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in a large, population-based case-control study in Italy.

The risk of diabetes increased from 19% to 56% as treatment duration increased from 8 weeks to more than 2 years, and prolonged treatment was associated with an even higher risk of diabetes in the youngest patients (age 40-65) and those with the most comorbidities.

The results suggest that “physicians should therefore avoid unnecessary prescription of this class of drugs, particularly for long-term use,” say Stefano Ciardullo, MD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and colleagues, in their article recently published online in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

“Nonetheless, epidemiologic evidence on the topic remains conflicting,” they acknowledge, adding that “future studies are still needed to validate our findings.”

If the results are confirmed, these “may have important implications for both public health and clinical practice, given the high number of patients being treated with PPIs and the influence of diabetes on morbidity and mortality related to its possible micro- and macrovascular complications,” Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues conclude.
 

Not enough data to support a change in practice

The current findings align with a recent analysis of three prospective cohort studies of U.S. health care workers that showed a progressively increased risk of diabetes with longer treatment with PPIs, David A. Leiman, MD, MSHP, who was not involved with the current study, told this news organization in an email. “But the effect size remains relatively small and may be explained by residual or unmeasured confounding,” he cautioned.

“Ultimately, there do not seem to be enough data to support a change in clinical practice from this study alone, and, as a result, clinicians should continue to inform patients of the best available evidence regarding the benefits and risks of PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

“Recent best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association does not recommend screening for insulin resistance among PPI users [and recommends that the decision to discontinue PPIs] should be based solely on the lack of an indication for PPI use, and not because of concern for PPI-associated adverse events,” he noted.

“Clinicians should be prepared to discuss the described risks associated with PPIs,” said Dr. Leiman, but they should “also feel comfortable affirming their safety profile and substantial efficacy in managing symptoms and preventing complications when prescribed for the appropriate indication.”

First-choice therapy for acid-related disorders

PPIs have become first-choice therapy for patients with acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and peptic ulcer, and to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding while on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), Dr. Ciardullo and colleagues explain.

However, several studies have identified potential fractures, hypomagnesemia, gastric carcinoids, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and Clostridium difficile diarrhea with prolonged use of PPIs, and these agents can cause changes in the gut microbiome that may play a role in diabetes and other metabolic diseases.

To investigate a potential association between PPIs and type 2 diabetes, the researchers analyzed data from 777,420 patients age 40 and older who were newly treated with PPIs between 2010 and 2015 in Lombardy, Italy.

Of these, 50,540 patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during follow-up until 2020 (a mean follow-up of 6.2 years and a diabetes incidence of 10.6 cases per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers matched 50,535 patients diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up with 50,535 control patients who had the same age, sex, and clinical status.

Patients were a mean age of 66 years and half were men. The most prescribed PPIs were pantoprazole and omeprazole, and the patients diagnosed with diabetes were more likely to use antihypertensives and lipid-lowering drugs.

Compared with patients who received PPIs for less than 8 weeks, those who received PPIs for 8 weeks to 6 months had a 19% increased risk of being diagnosed with diabetes during follow-up (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.24), after adjusting for age, clinical profile, comorbidities, medical therapy, and PPI type.

Patients who received PPIs for 6 months to 2 years had a 43% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.38-1.49), and those who received PPIs for more than 2 years had a 56% increased risk of the outcome (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.49-1.64).

The researchers acknowledge limitations including that the study was not a randomized controlled trial, and it lacked information about over-the-counter medications and unmeasured confounders such as body mass index or family history of diabetes that may have affected the outcomes.

Dr. Leiman added that patients may have had prediabetes or undiagnosed diabetes and symptoms such as heartburn or dyspepsia arising from complications of insulin resistance, for which PPIs might have been prescribed.

The study was funded by a grant from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research. Dr. Ciardullo and Dr. Leiman have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher levels of specific carotenoid antioxidants in blood may help guard against age-related dementia, new research suggests.

Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.

Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.

“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release. 

“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.

“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Reduced dementia risk

The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.

They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.

They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.

For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.

For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).

This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.

No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.

Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.

“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.

“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
 

An important step forward

In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”

This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.

The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.

However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.

They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.

“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.

The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.

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

Higher levels of specific carotenoid antioxidants in blood may help guard against age-related dementia, new research suggests.

Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.

Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.

“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release. 

“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.

“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Reduced dementia risk

The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.

They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.

They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.

For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.

For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).

This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.

No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.

Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.

“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.

“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
 

An important step forward

In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”

This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.

The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.

However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.

They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.

“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.

The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.

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

Higher levels of specific carotenoid antioxidants in blood may help guard against age-related dementia, new research suggests.

Investigators found that individuals with the highest serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin at baseline were less likely to have dementia decades later than were their peers with lower levels of these antioxidants.

Lutein and zeaxanthin are found in green leafy vegetables such as kale, spinach, broccoli, and peas. Beta-cryptoxanthin is found in fruits such as oranges, papaya, tangerines, and persimmons.

“Antioxidants may help protect the brain from oxidative stress, which can cause cell damage,” first author May A. Beydoun, PhD, with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), said in a news release. 

“This is the first nationally representative study to analyze blood levels of antioxidants in relation to dementia risk,” NIA scientific director Luigi Ferrucci, MD, said in an interview.

“Blood test results may be more representative of the actual antioxidant level than a person’s report of what kind of foods they regularly consume,” Dr. Ferrucci added.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Reduced dementia risk

The researchers tested associations and interactions of serum vitamins A, C and E, and total and individual serum carotenoids and interactions with incident Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and all-cause dementia.

They analyzed data from 7,283 participants in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) who were at least 45 years old at baseline and followed for an average of 16-17 years.

They found serum levels of lutein + zeaxanthin were associated with reduced risk of all-cause dementia among people aged 65 and older in models adjusted for lifestyle.

For lutein + zeaxanthin, every standard deviation (SD) increase (roughly 15.4 µmol/liter) was associated with a 7% decrease in risk for dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.99, P = .037). This association was attenuated somewhat after adjustment for socioeconomic status.

Serum levels of beta-cryptoxanthin showed a “strong” inverse relationship with all-cause dementia in age- and sex-adjusted models.

For beta-cryptoxanthin, every SD increase (roughly 8.6 µmol/liter) was associated with a 14% reduced risk for dementia in people aged 45 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P < .001) and 65 and older (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93, P = .001).

This relationship remained strong in models adjusted for sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors but attenuated in subsequent models.

No associations were found for lycopene, alpha-carotene, beta-carotene, or vitamins A, C, or E in the fully adjusted models.

Antagonistic interactions were observed for vitamin A and alpha-carotene, vitamin A and beta-carotene, vitamin E and lycopene, and lycopene and beta-carotene, suggesting putative protective effects of one antioxidant at lower levels of the other, the researchers noted.

“This analysis of an observational study found that the most important carotenoids in potentially protecting the brain may be lutein + zeaxanthin and beta-cryptoxanthin. However, randomized controlled trials are needed to prove causality,” said Dr. Ferrucci.

“Experts do not yet know the daily level of antioxidant intake to promote healthy aging of the brain. More research is needed to establish the necessary level of antioxidant intake – through the diet and/or supplements – to promote brain health and healthy aging,” he added.
 

An important step forward

In an accompanying editorial, Babak Hooshmand, MD, PhD, and Miia Kivipelto, MD, PhD, with Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, noted that while nutrition and dietary components are “potential targets” for dementia risk reduction, observational studies to date have reported “inconsistent findings.”

This study is “an important step towards exploring the complex relationship between antioxidants and dementia because it accounts for factors that could possibly influence the associations and considers interactions between different components,” they wrote.

The findings are “challenging,” they added, because they may lead to the hypothesis that inhibition of oxidative damage by antioxidants might have beneficial effects on preventing dementia.

However, clinical trials of antioxidant supplementation have been mainly “disappointing” and a recent Cochrane review found a lack of evidence for supplement use to preserve cognitive function or prevent dementia, Dr. Hooshmand and Dr. Kivipelto noted.

They added that the study contributes to the belief that antioxidants don’t act independently of each other or other factors, including socioeconomic status and lifestyle, in the mediation of dementia risk.

“A careful examination of the evidence is required to learn how antioxidants influence the complex pathology of dementia, because it appears to be more to it than meets the eye,”they concluded.

The research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Beydoun, Dr. Ferrucci, and Dr. Hooshmand report no relevant disclosures. Dr. Kivipelto has supported advisory boards for Combinostics, Roche, and Biogen.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

New surveillance data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) confirm a small but statistically significant increased risk for Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the 3 weeks after receipt of the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine.

The Janssen vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) is a replication-incompetent adenoviral vector vaccine.

The data show no increased risk of GBS with the Pfizer (BNT162b2) or Moderna (mRNA-1273) shots – both mRNA vaccines.

“Our findings support the current guidance from U.S. health officials that preferentially recommend use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for primary and booster doses,” Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, with Kaiser Permanente Vaccine Study Center, Oakland, Calif., told this news organization.

“Individuals who choose to receive Janssen/J&J COVID-19 vaccine should be informed of the potential safety risks, including GBS,” Dr. Klein said.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Eleven cases

Between mid-December 2020 and mid-November 2021, roughly 15.1 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine were administered to nearly 7.9 million adults in the United States.

This includes roughly 483,000 doses of the Janssen vaccine, 8.8 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and 5.8 million doses of the Moderna vaccine.

The researchers confirmed 11 cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine.

The unadjusted incidence of GBS (per 100,000 person-years) was 32.4 in the first 21 days after the Janssen vaccine – substantially higher than the expected background rate of 1 to 2 cases per 100,000 person-years.

There were 36 confirmed cases of GBS after mRNA vaccines. The unadjusted incidence in the first 21 days after mRNA vaccination was 1.3 per 100,000 person-years, similar to the overall expected background rate.

In an adjusted head-to-head comparison, GBS incidence during the 21 days after receipt of the Janssen vaccine was 20.6 times higher than the GBS incidence during the 21 days after the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA vaccines, amounting to 15.5 excess cases per million Janssen vaccine recipients.

Most cases of GBS after the Janssen vaccine occurred during the 1- to 21-day risk interval, with the period of greatest risk in the 1-14 days after vaccination.

The findings of this analysis of surveillance data of COVID-19 vaccines are “consistent with an elevated risk of GBS after primary Ad26.COV2.S vaccination,” the authors wrote.
 

Novel presentation?

The researchers note that nearly all individuals who developed GBS after the Janssen vaccine had facial weakness or paralysis, in addition to weakness and decreased reflexes in the limbs, suggesting that the presentation of GBS after COVID-19 adenoviral vector vaccine may be novel.

“More research is needed to determine if the presentation of GBS after adenoviral vector vaccine differs from GBS after other exposures such as Campylobacter jejuni, and to investigate the mechanism for how adenoviral vector vaccines may cause GBS,” Dr. Klein and colleagues said.

“The Vaccine Safety Datalink continues to conduct safety surveillance for all COVID-19 vaccines, including monitoring for GBS and other serious health outcomes after vaccination,” Dr. Klein said in an interview.

This study was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Klein reported receiving grants from Pfizer research support for a COVID vaccine clinical trial as well as other unrelated studies, grants from Merck, grants from GlaxoSmithKline, grants from Sanofi Pasteur, and grants from Protein Science (now Sanofi Pasteur) outside the submitted work.

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

Elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) due to air pollution increases the risk of epileptic seizures, a unique new study suggests.

The link between daily outdoor CO exposure and seizure risk was particularly evident for subclinical seizures – those in patients with abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) signals but no clinical symptoms.

“Our findings suggest that people with epilepsy should avoid high CO exposure to reduce potential seizure risk,” said study investigator Zhuying Chen, PhD candidate, department of biomedical engineering, University of Melbourne.

The study was published online in Epilepsia.
 

Pollution’s impact on brain health

Emerging evidence indicates air pollution affects brain health and may increase the risk of hospitalization or outpatient visits for epilepsy. However, little is known about the effect of pollution on the occurrence of epileptic seizures.

The study used two independent long-term seizure datasets – the NeuroVista (NV) study and the Seer App seizure diary (SD). In the NeuroVista study, researchers recorded continuous intracranial iEEG from patients with refractory focal epilepsy who had been implanted with a personal seizure advisory device that wirelessly recorded seizures on an external device.

The SD dataset included diaries documenting self-reported seizures, seizure cycles, and medication adherence.

Researchers collected data on hourly concentrations of outdoor CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), particulate matter of 10 μm or less in diameter (PM₁₀), ozone (O₃), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). The levels were measured at air quality monitoring stations in Australia.

Investigators aggregated hourly observations into daily mean data. All daily concentrations of CO and SO₂ and at least 95% of daily concentrations of NO₂, O₃, and PM₁₀ were within Australian air quality standards, said Mr. Chen.

The study included 49 participants, with epilepsy data on 15 patients in the NeuroVista study and on 34 from the SD dataset.

Overall, 6,692 epileptic seizures on 3,639 seizure days were recorded during 23,349 follow-up days from 2010 to 2012 (NV dataset) and 2018 to 2021 (SD dataset).

The investigators found a significant positive association between CO concentrations and epileptic seizure risks. The relative risk (RR) was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.07; P < .01) for an interquartile range (IQR) increase of CO (0.13 parts per million).
 

Sex differences

There were no significant relationships for the other four air pollutants. However, Mr. Chen noted that Australia has very low air pollution levels; most usually are within World Health Organization air quality guidelines.

“Our findings may not be generalized to other countries with high air pollution levels,” said Mr. Chen. He noted that the relatively small number of patients in the study may limit the statistical power to detect some associations.

The study showed that females had a significantly increased risk of epileptic seizures when exposed to elevated CO (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.08; P < .05) and NO₂ (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.16; P < .05) concentrations. There were no significant associations in males for any air pollutants.

Differences in outdoor activities and behaviors such as smoking and exercise may lead to variations in environmental exposure and help explain the sex differences, said Mr. Chen. These differences may also be due to the study’s limited sample size.

Analyzing the two datasets separately, the researchers found there was a significant association between CO concentration and epileptic seizure risk in the NV dataset (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17; P < .01).

There were no significant associations in the SD dataset for any air pollutants. This may be because only clinical seizures – those associated with evident symptoms – are self-reported, said Mr. Chen. He also noted that seizure diaries may be unreliable.

In the NV dataset, the epileptic seizure risk was significantly increased when only subclinical seizures were considered (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28; P < .001) for an IQR increase of CO concentration.

The risk was significantly decreased by 13% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of PM₁₀ and by 9% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of SO₂ concentrations.

These negative associations should be interpreted with caution, inasmuch as the associations were not robust in subsequent subgroup and sensitivity analyses, said Mr. Chen.

There were no significant associations when considering clinical seizures for any air pollutants.

The positive association for subclinical but not clinical seizures suggests that low-level CO exposure may not be strong enough to directly trigger clinical seizures, said Mr. Chen.

Although previous research has demonstrated adverse neurologic effects of exposure to air pollutants, most studies were based on hospital databases or registers. Thus, they may have missed seizures that did not lead to hospital admission.
 

Unclear mechanism

The exact mechanisms linking air pollution to seizures are unclear but probably involve the synergistic interaction of multiple pathways, said Mr. Chen. “Air pollution may affect brain metabolism, alter the immune response of the brain, and induce oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, causing the brain to be more susceptible to seizures,” he noted.

This is the first study to investigate seizure rates through intracranial EEG signals and self-reported seizure diaries. It’s also the first to look into the impact of pollutants at low concentration levels on subclinical seizures.

However, the study has some limitations. Self-reported seizures in the SD dataset might underestimate the influence of air pollution on seizures. The study used postal codes as proxies for exposure to pollution, which could introduce measurement errors and underestimate associations.

In addition, Mr. Chen noted that seizures from the NeuroVista dataset were recorded from patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. “Whether our findings can be generalized to other epilepsy types needs further investigation.”

The study could have important clinical and public health implications. For example, said Mr. Chen, it’s possible that seizure risk could be reduced through behavioral interventions, such as avoiding being outside or using an air filtration system when pollutant levels are high.

“Clinicians could counsel their patients to avoid the potential risk of high carbon monoxide exposure,” he said.

CO exposure could be a new factor for seizure risk forecasting, which could reduce the uncertainty of seizures and help guide epilepsy management, Mr. Chen added.

The study was supported by the Melbourne Monash Consciousness Research Seed Funding and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Ideas grant. Mr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) due to air pollution increases the risk of epileptic seizures, a unique new study suggests.

The link between daily outdoor CO exposure and seizure risk was particularly evident for subclinical seizures – those in patients with abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) signals but no clinical symptoms.

“Our findings suggest that people with epilepsy should avoid high CO exposure to reduce potential seizure risk,” said study investigator Zhuying Chen, PhD candidate, department of biomedical engineering, University of Melbourne.

The study was published online in Epilepsia.
 

Pollution’s impact on brain health

Emerging evidence indicates air pollution affects brain health and may increase the risk of hospitalization or outpatient visits for epilepsy. However, little is known about the effect of pollution on the occurrence of epileptic seizures.

The study used two independent long-term seizure datasets – the NeuroVista (NV) study and the Seer App seizure diary (SD). In the NeuroVista study, researchers recorded continuous intracranial iEEG from patients with refractory focal epilepsy who had been implanted with a personal seizure advisory device that wirelessly recorded seizures on an external device.

The SD dataset included diaries documenting self-reported seizures, seizure cycles, and medication adherence.

Researchers collected data on hourly concentrations of outdoor CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), particulate matter of 10 μm or less in diameter (PM₁₀), ozone (O₃), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). The levels were measured at air quality monitoring stations in Australia.

Investigators aggregated hourly observations into daily mean data. All daily concentrations of CO and SO₂ and at least 95% of daily concentrations of NO₂, O₃, and PM₁₀ were within Australian air quality standards, said Mr. Chen.

The study included 49 participants, with epilepsy data on 15 patients in the NeuroVista study and on 34 from the SD dataset.

Overall, 6,692 epileptic seizures on 3,639 seizure days were recorded during 23,349 follow-up days from 2010 to 2012 (NV dataset) and 2018 to 2021 (SD dataset).

The investigators found a significant positive association between CO concentrations and epileptic seizure risks. The relative risk (RR) was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.07; P < .01) for an interquartile range (IQR) increase of CO (0.13 parts per million).
 

Sex differences

There were no significant relationships for the other four air pollutants. However, Mr. Chen noted that Australia has very low air pollution levels; most usually are within World Health Organization air quality guidelines.

“Our findings may not be generalized to other countries with high air pollution levels,” said Mr. Chen. He noted that the relatively small number of patients in the study may limit the statistical power to detect some associations.

The study showed that females had a significantly increased risk of epileptic seizures when exposed to elevated CO (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.08; P < .05) and NO₂ (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.16; P < .05) concentrations. There were no significant associations in males for any air pollutants.

Differences in outdoor activities and behaviors such as smoking and exercise may lead to variations in environmental exposure and help explain the sex differences, said Mr. Chen. These differences may also be due to the study’s limited sample size.

Analyzing the two datasets separately, the researchers found there was a significant association between CO concentration and epileptic seizure risk in the NV dataset (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17; P < .01).

There were no significant associations in the SD dataset for any air pollutants. This may be because only clinical seizures – those associated with evident symptoms – are self-reported, said Mr. Chen. He also noted that seizure diaries may be unreliable.

In the NV dataset, the epileptic seizure risk was significantly increased when only subclinical seizures were considered (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28; P < .001) for an IQR increase of CO concentration.

The risk was significantly decreased by 13% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of PM₁₀ and by 9% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of SO₂ concentrations.

These negative associations should be interpreted with caution, inasmuch as the associations were not robust in subsequent subgroup and sensitivity analyses, said Mr. Chen.

There were no significant associations when considering clinical seizures for any air pollutants.

The positive association for subclinical but not clinical seizures suggests that low-level CO exposure may not be strong enough to directly trigger clinical seizures, said Mr. Chen.

Although previous research has demonstrated adverse neurologic effects of exposure to air pollutants, most studies were based on hospital databases or registers. Thus, they may have missed seizures that did not lead to hospital admission.
 

Unclear mechanism

The exact mechanisms linking air pollution to seizures are unclear but probably involve the synergistic interaction of multiple pathways, said Mr. Chen. “Air pollution may affect brain metabolism, alter the immune response of the brain, and induce oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, causing the brain to be more susceptible to seizures,” he noted.

This is the first study to investigate seizure rates through intracranial EEG signals and self-reported seizure diaries. It’s also the first to look into the impact of pollutants at low concentration levels on subclinical seizures.

However, the study has some limitations. Self-reported seizures in the SD dataset might underestimate the influence of air pollution on seizures. The study used postal codes as proxies for exposure to pollution, which could introduce measurement errors and underestimate associations.

In addition, Mr. Chen noted that seizures from the NeuroVista dataset were recorded from patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. “Whether our findings can be generalized to other epilepsy types needs further investigation.”

The study could have important clinical and public health implications. For example, said Mr. Chen, it’s possible that seizure risk could be reduced through behavioral interventions, such as avoiding being outside or using an air filtration system when pollutant levels are high.

“Clinicians could counsel their patients to avoid the potential risk of high carbon monoxide exposure,” he said.

CO exposure could be a new factor for seizure risk forecasting, which could reduce the uncertainty of seizures and help guide epilepsy management, Mr. Chen added.

The study was supported by the Melbourne Monash Consciousness Research Seed Funding and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Ideas grant. Mr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) due to air pollution increases the risk of epileptic seizures, a unique new study suggests.

The link between daily outdoor CO exposure and seizure risk was particularly evident for subclinical seizures – those in patients with abnormal electroencephalography (EEG) signals but no clinical symptoms.

“Our findings suggest that people with epilepsy should avoid high CO exposure to reduce potential seizure risk,” said study investigator Zhuying Chen, PhD candidate, department of biomedical engineering, University of Melbourne.

The study was published online in Epilepsia.
 

Pollution’s impact on brain health

Emerging evidence indicates air pollution affects brain health and may increase the risk of hospitalization or outpatient visits for epilepsy. However, little is known about the effect of pollution on the occurrence of epileptic seizures.

The study used two independent long-term seizure datasets – the NeuroVista (NV) study and the Seer App seizure diary (SD). In the NeuroVista study, researchers recorded continuous intracranial iEEG from patients with refractory focal epilepsy who had been implanted with a personal seizure advisory device that wirelessly recorded seizures on an external device.

The SD dataset included diaries documenting self-reported seizures, seizure cycles, and medication adherence.

Researchers collected data on hourly concentrations of outdoor CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), particulate matter of 10 μm or less in diameter (PM₁₀), ozone (O₃), and sulfur dioxide (SO₂). The levels were measured at air quality monitoring stations in Australia.

Investigators aggregated hourly observations into daily mean data. All daily concentrations of CO and SO₂ and at least 95% of daily concentrations of NO₂, O₃, and PM₁₀ were within Australian air quality standards, said Mr. Chen.

The study included 49 participants, with epilepsy data on 15 patients in the NeuroVista study and on 34 from the SD dataset.

Overall, 6,692 epileptic seizures on 3,639 seizure days were recorded during 23,349 follow-up days from 2010 to 2012 (NV dataset) and 2018 to 2021 (SD dataset).

The investigators found a significant positive association between CO concentrations and epileptic seizure risks. The relative risk (RR) was 1.04 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.07; P < .01) for an interquartile range (IQR) increase of CO (0.13 parts per million).
 

Sex differences

There were no significant relationships for the other four air pollutants. However, Mr. Chen noted that Australia has very low air pollution levels; most usually are within World Health Organization air quality guidelines.

“Our findings may not be generalized to other countries with high air pollution levels,” said Mr. Chen. He noted that the relatively small number of patients in the study may limit the statistical power to detect some associations.

The study showed that females had a significantly increased risk of epileptic seizures when exposed to elevated CO (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.08; P < .05) and NO₂ (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01–1.16; P < .05) concentrations. There were no significant associations in males for any air pollutants.

Differences in outdoor activities and behaviors such as smoking and exercise may lead to variations in environmental exposure and help explain the sex differences, said Mr. Chen. These differences may also be due to the study’s limited sample size.

Analyzing the two datasets separately, the researchers found there was a significant association between CO concentration and epileptic seizure risk in the NV dataset (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17; P < .01).

There were no significant associations in the SD dataset for any air pollutants. This may be because only clinical seizures – those associated with evident symptoms – are self-reported, said Mr. Chen. He also noted that seizure diaries may be unreliable.

In the NV dataset, the epileptic seizure risk was significantly increased when only subclinical seizures were considered (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28; P < .001) for an IQR increase of CO concentration.

The risk was significantly decreased by 13% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of PM₁₀ and by 9% for subclinical seizures with an IQR increase of SO₂ concentrations.

These negative associations should be interpreted with caution, inasmuch as the associations were not robust in subsequent subgroup and sensitivity analyses, said Mr. Chen.

There were no significant associations when considering clinical seizures for any air pollutants.

The positive association for subclinical but not clinical seizures suggests that low-level CO exposure may not be strong enough to directly trigger clinical seizures, said Mr. Chen.

Although previous research has demonstrated adverse neurologic effects of exposure to air pollutants, most studies were based on hospital databases or registers. Thus, they may have missed seizures that did not lead to hospital admission.
 

Unclear mechanism

The exact mechanisms linking air pollution to seizures are unclear but probably involve the synergistic interaction of multiple pathways, said Mr. Chen. “Air pollution may affect brain metabolism, alter the immune response of the brain, and induce oxidative stress and neuroinflammation, causing the brain to be more susceptible to seizures,” he noted.

This is the first study to investigate seizure rates through intracranial EEG signals and self-reported seizure diaries. It’s also the first to look into the impact of pollutants at low concentration levels on subclinical seizures.

However, the study has some limitations. Self-reported seizures in the SD dataset might underestimate the influence of air pollution on seizures. The study used postal codes as proxies for exposure to pollution, which could introduce measurement errors and underestimate associations.

In addition, Mr. Chen noted that seizures from the NeuroVista dataset were recorded from patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy. “Whether our findings can be generalized to other epilepsy types needs further investigation.”

The study could have important clinical and public health implications. For example, said Mr. Chen, it’s possible that seizure risk could be reduced through behavioral interventions, such as avoiding being outside or using an air filtration system when pollutant levels are high.

“Clinicians could counsel their patients to avoid the potential risk of high carbon monoxide exposure,” he said.

CO exposure could be a new factor for seizure risk forecasting, which could reduce the uncertainty of seizures and help guide epilepsy management, Mr. Chen added.

The study was supported by the Melbourne Monash Consciousness Research Seed Funding and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Ideas grant. Mr. Chen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Rates of premature return to play (RTP) among student athletes following a sport-related concussion (SRC) have dropped substantially since 2011, according to a recent chart review. Rates of premature return to learn (RTL) are essentially unchanged, however.

“Delay in recovery is the major reason why it’s important not to RTL or RTP prematurely,” said James Carson, MD, associate professor of family and community medicine, University of Toronto.

“That delay in recovery only sets students further back in terms of the stress they get from being delayed with their schoolwork – they could lose their year in school, lose all their social contacts. So, there are a number of psychosocial issues that come into play if recovery is delayed, and that is what premature RTL and premature RTP will do – they delay the student’s recovery,” he emphasized.

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

The study involved 241 students who had 258 distinct cases of SRC. The researchers defined premature RTP and RTL as chart records documenting the relapse, recurrence, or worsening of concussion symptoms that accompanied the patient’s RTP or RTL. Between 2011 and 2016, 26.7% of students had evidence of premature RTP, while 42.6% of them had evidence of premature RTL, the authors noted.

Compared with findings from an earlier survey of data from 2006 to 2011, the incidence of premature RTP dropped by 38.6% (P = .0003). In contrast, symptoms associated with premature RTL dropped by only 4.7% from the previous survey. This change was not statistically significant.

There was also a significant difference between males and females in the proportion of SRC cases with relapse of symptoms. Relapse occurred in 43.4% of female athletes with SRC versus 29.7% of male athletes with SRC (P = .023).

Female athletes also had significantly longer times before being cleared for RTP. The mean time was 74.5 days for females, compared with a mean of 42.3 days for male athletes (P < .001). “The median time to RTP clearance was nearly double [for female athletes] at 49 days versus 25 days [for male athletes],” wrote the authors.

The rate of premature RTL was also higher among secondary school students (48.8%), compared with 28% among elementary students and 42% among postsecondary students.
 

More concussions coming?

Before the first consensus conference, organized by the Concussion in Sport Group in 2001, management of concussion was based on rating and grading scales that had no medical evidence to support them, said Dr. Carson. After the consensus conference, it was recommended that physicians manage each concussion individually and, when it came to RTP, recommendations were based upon symptom resolution.

In contrast, there was nothing in the literature regarding how student athletes who sustain a concussion should RTL. Some schools made generous accommodations, and others none. This situation changed around 2011, when experts started publishing data about how better to accommodate student athletes who have a temporary disability for which schools need to introduce temporary accommodations to help them recover.

“Recommendations for RTP essentially had a 12-year head-start,” Dr. Carson emphasized, “and RTL had a much slower start.” Unfortunately, Dr. Carson foresees more athletes sustaining concussions as pandemic restrictions ease over the next few months. “As athletes RTP after the pandemic, they just will not be in game shape,” he said.

“In other words, athletes may not have the neuromuscular control to avoid these injuries as easily,” he added. Worse, athletes may not realize they are not quite ready to return to the expected level of participation so quickly. “I believe this scenario will lead to more concussions that will be difficult to manage in the context of an already strained health care system,” said Dr. Carson.

A limitation of the study was that it was difficult to assess whether all patients followed medical advice consistently.
 

“Very positive shifts”

Commenting on the findings, Nick Reed, PhD, Canada research chair in pediatric concussion and associate professor of occupational science and occupational therapy, University of Toronto, said that sports medicine physicians are seeing “very positive shifts” in concussion awareness and related behaviors such as providing education, support, and accommodations to students within the school environment. “More and more teachers are seeking education to learn what a concussion is and what to do to best support their students with concussion,” he said. Dr. Reed was not involved in the current study.

Indeed, this increasing awareness led to the development of a concussion education tool for teachers – SCHOOLFirst – although Dr. Reed did acknowledge that not all teachers have either the knowledge or the resources they need to optimally support their students with concussion. In the meantime, to reduce the risk of injury, Dr. Reed stressed that it is important for students to wear equipment appropriate for the game being played and to play by the rules.

“It is key to play sports in a way that is fair and respectful and not [engage] in behaviors with the intent of injuring an opponent,” he stressed. It is also important for athletes themselves to know the signs and symptoms of concussion and, if they think they have a concussion, to immediately stop playing, report how they are feeling to a coach, teacher, or parent, and to seek medical assessment to determine if they have a concussion or not.

“The key here is to focus on what the athlete can do after a concussion rather than what they can’t do,” Dr. Reed said. After even a few days of complete rest, students with a concussion can gradually introduce low levels of physical and cognitive activity that won’t make their symptoms worse. This activity can include going back to school with temporary accommodations in place, such as shorter school days and increased rest breaks. “When returning to school and to sport after a concussion, it is important to follow a stepwise and gradual return to activities so that you aren’t doing too much too fast,” Dr. Reed emphasized.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Carson and Dr. Reed reported no conflicts of interest. 

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

Rates of premature return to play (RTP) among student athletes following a sport-related concussion (SRC) have dropped substantially since 2011, according to a recent chart review. Rates of premature return to learn (RTL) are essentially unchanged, however.

“Delay in recovery is the major reason why it’s important not to RTL or RTP prematurely,” said James Carson, MD, associate professor of family and community medicine, University of Toronto.

“That delay in recovery only sets students further back in terms of the stress they get from being delayed with their schoolwork – they could lose their year in school, lose all their social contacts. So, there are a number of psychosocial issues that come into play if recovery is delayed, and that is what premature RTL and premature RTP will do – they delay the student’s recovery,” he emphasized.

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

The study involved 241 students who had 258 distinct cases of SRC. The researchers defined premature RTP and RTL as chart records documenting the relapse, recurrence, or worsening of concussion symptoms that accompanied the patient’s RTP or RTL. Between 2011 and 2016, 26.7% of students had evidence of premature RTP, while 42.6% of them had evidence of premature RTL, the authors noted.

Compared with findings from an earlier survey of data from 2006 to 2011, the incidence of premature RTP dropped by 38.6% (P = .0003). In contrast, symptoms associated with premature RTL dropped by only 4.7% from the previous survey. This change was not statistically significant.

There was also a significant difference between males and females in the proportion of SRC cases with relapse of symptoms. Relapse occurred in 43.4% of female athletes with SRC versus 29.7% of male athletes with SRC (P = .023).

Female athletes also had significantly longer times before being cleared for RTP. The mean time was 74.5 days for females, compared with a mean of 42.3 days for male athletes (P < .001). “The median time to RTP clearance was nearly double [for female athletes] at 49 days versus 25 days [for male athletes],” wrote the authors.

The rate of premature RTL was also higher among secondary school students (48.8%), compared with 28% among elementary students and 42% among postsecondary students.
 

More concussions coming?

Before the first consensus conference, organized by the Concussion in Sport Group in 2001, management of concussion was based on rating and grading scales that had no medical evidence to support them, said Dr. Carson. After the consensus conference, it was recommended that physicians manage each concussion individually and, when it came to RTP, recommendations were based upon symptom resolution.

In contrast, there was nothing in the literature regarding how student athletes who sustain a concussion should RTL. Some schools made generous accommodations, and others none. This situation changed around 2011, when experts started publishing data about how better to accommodate student athletes who have a temporary disability for which schools need to introduce temporary accommodations to help them recover.

“Recommendations for RTP essentially had a 12-year head-start,” Dr. Carson emphasized, “and RTL had a much slower start.” Unfortunately, Dr. Carson foresees more athletes sustaining concussions as pandemic restrictions ease over the next few months. “As athletes RTP after the pandemic, they just will not be in game shape,” he said.

“In other words, athletes may not have the neuromuscular control to avoid these injuries as easily,” he added. Worse, athletes may not realize they are not quite ready to return to the expected level of participation so quickly. “I believe this scenario will lead to more concussions that will be difficult to manage in the context of an already strained health care system,” said Dr. Carson.

A limitation of the study was that it was difficult to assess whether all patients followed medical advice consistently.
 

“Very positive shifts”

Commenting on the findings, Nick Reed, PhD, Canada research chair in pediatric concussion and associate professor of occupational science and occupational therapy, University of Toronto, said that sports medicine physicians are seeing “very positive shifts” in concussion awareness and related behaviors such as providing education, support, and accommodations to students within the school environment. “More and more teachers are seeking education to learn what a concussion is and what to do to best support their students with concussion,” he said. Dr. Reed was not involved in the current study.

Indeed, this increasing awareness led to the development of a concussion education tool for teachers – SCHOOLFirst – although Dr. Reed did acknowledge that not all teachers have either the knowledge or the resources they need to optimally support their students with concussion. In the meantime, to reduce the risk of injury, Dr. Reed stressed that it is important for students to wear equipment appropriate for the game being played and to play by the rules.

“It is key to play sports in a way that is fair and respectful and not [engage] in behaviors with the intent of injuring an opponent,” he stressed. It is also important for athletes themselves to know the signs and symptoms of concussion and, if they think they have a concussion, to immediately stop playing, report how they are feeling to a coach, teacher, or parent, and to seek medical assessment to determine if they have a concussion or not.

“The key here is to focus on what the athlete can do after a concussion rather than what they can’t do,” Dr. Reed said. After even a few days of complete rest, students with a concussion can gradually introduce low levels of physical and cognitive activity that won’t make their symptoms worse. This activity can include going back to school with temporary accommodations in place, such as shorter school days and increased rest breaks. “When returning to school and to sport after a concussion, it is important to follow a stepwise and gradual return to activities so that you aren’t doing too much too fast,” Dr. Reed emphasized.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Carson and Dr. Reed reported no conflicts of interest. 

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

Rates of premature return to play (RTP) among student athletes following a sport-related concussion (SRC) have dropped substantially since 2011, according to a recent chart review. Rates of premature return to learn (RTL) are essentially unchanged, however.

“Delay in recovery is the major reason why it’s important not to RTL or RTP prematurely,” said James Carson, MD, associate professor of family and community medicine, University of Toronto.

“That delay in recovery only sets students further back in terms of the stress they get from being delayed with their schoolwork – they could lose their year in school, lose all their social contacts. So, there are a number of psychosocial issues that come into play if recovery is delayed, and that is what premature RTL and premature RTP will do – they delay the student’s recovery,” he emphasized.

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

The study involved 241 students who had 258 distinct cases of SRC. The researchers defined premature RTP and RTL as chart records documenting the relapse, recurrence, or worsening of concussion symptoms that accompanied the patient’s RTP or RTL. Between 2011 and 2016, 26.7% of students had evidence of premature RTP, while 42.6% of them had evidence of premature RTL, the authors noted.

Compared with findings from an earlier survey of data from 2006 to 2011, the incidence of premature RTP dropped by 38.6% (P = .0003). In contrast, symptoms associated with premature RTL dropped by only 4.7% from the previous survey. This change was not statistically significant.

There was also a significant difference between males and females in the proportion of SRC cases with relapse of symptoms. Relapse occurred in 43.4% of female athletes with SRC versus 29.7% of male athletes with SRC (P = .023).

Female athletes also had significantly longer times before being cleared for RTP. The mean time was 74.5 days for females, compared with a mean of 42.3 days for male athletes (P < .001). “The median time to RTP clearance was nearly double [for female athletes] at 49 days versus 25 days [for male athletes],” wrote the authors.

The rate of premature RTL was also higher among secondary school students (48.8%), compared with 28% among elementary students and 42% among postsecondary students.
 

More concussions coming?

Before the first consensus conference, organized by the Concussion in Sport Group in 2001, management of concussion was based on rating and grading scales that had no medical evidence to support them, said Dr. Carson. After the consensus conference, it was recommended that physicians manage each concussion individually and, when it came to RTP, recommendations were based upon symptom resolution.

In contrast, there was nothing in the literature regarding how student athletes who sustain a concussion should RTL. Some schools made generous accommodations, and others none. This situation changed around 2011, when experts started publishing data about how better to accommodate student athletes who have a temporary disability for which schools need to introduce temporary accommodations to help them recover.

“Recommendations for RTP essentially had a 12-year head-start,” Dr. Carson emphasized, “and RTL had a much slower start.” Unfortunately, Dr. Carson foresees more athletes sustaining concussions as pandemic restrictions ease over the next few months. “As athletes RTP after the pandemic, they just will not be in game shape,” he said.

“In other words, athletes may not have the neuromuscular control to avoid these injuries as easily,” he added. Worse, athletes may not realize they are not quite ready to return to the expected level of participation so quickly. “I believe this scenario will lead to more concussions that will be difficult to manage in the context of an already strained health care system,” said Dr. Carson.

A limitation of the study was that it was difficult to assess whether all patients followed medical advice consistently.
 

“Very positive shifts”

Commenting on the findings, Nick Reed, PhD, Canada research chair in pediatric concussion and associate professor of occupational science and occupational therapy, University of Toronto, said that sports medicine physicians are seeing “very positive shifts” in concussion awareness and related behaviors such as providing education, support, and accommodations to students within the school environment. “More and more teachers are seeking education to learn what a concussion is and what to do to best support their students with concussion,” he said. Dr. Reed was not involved in the current study.

Indeed, this increasing awareness led to the development of a concussion education tool for teachers – SCHOOLFirst – although Dr. Reed did acknowledge that not all teachers have either the knowledge or the resources they need to optimally support their students with concussion. In the meantime, to reduce the risk of injury, Dr. Reed stressed that it is important for students to wear equipment appropriate for the game being played and to play by the rules.

“It is key to play sports in a way that is fair and respectful and not [engage] in behaviors with the intent of injuring an opponent,” he stressed. It is also important for athletes themselves to know the signs and symptoms of concussion and, if they think they have a concussion, to immediately stop playing, report how they are feeling to a coach, teacher, or parent, and to seek medical assessment to determine if they have a concussion or not.

“The key here is to focus on what the athlete can do after a concussion rather than what they can’t do,” Dr. Reed said. After even a few days of complete rest, students with a concussion can gradually introduce low levels of physical and cognitive activity that won’t make their symptoms worse. This activity can include going back to school with temporary accommodations in place, such as shorter school days and increased rest breaks. “When returning to school and to sport after a concussion, it is important to follow a stepwise and gradual return to activities so that you aren’t doing too much too fast,” Dr. Reed emphasized.

The study was conducted without external funding. Dr. Carson and Dr. Reed reported no conflicts of interest. 

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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