User login
Postmenopausal stress linked to mood, cognitive symptoms
PHILADELPHIA – , according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.
The study involved collecting hair and saliva samples from 43 healthy women in late perimenopause or early postmenopause with an average age of 51. The participants were predominantly white and college educated. The hair sample was taken within 2 cm of the scalp, and the saliva samples were collected the day after the hair sample collection, at the start and end of a 30-minute rest period that took place between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. local time.
All the participants had an intact uterus and at least one ovary. None of the participants were current smokers or had recent alcohol or drug dependence, and none had used hormones within the previous 6 months. The study also excluded women who were pregnant or breastfeeding, who had bleached hair or no hair, who were taking steroids, beta blockers or opioid medication, and who had recently taken NSAIDS.
Measuring hair cortisol more feasible
The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).
Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).
Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).
Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.
The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
Monitor symptoms in midlife
Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.
“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”
Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.
“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”
The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.
The study involved collecting hair and saliva samples from 43 healthy women in late perimenopause or early postmenopause with an average age of 51. The participants were predominantly white and college educated. The hair sample was taken within 2 cm of the scalp, and the saliva samples were collected the day after the hair sample collection, at the start and end of a 30-minute rest period that took place between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. local time.
All the participants had an intact uterus and at least one ovary. None of the participants were current smokers or had recent alcohol or drug dependence, and none had used hormones within the previous 6 months. The study also excluded women who were pregnant or breastfeeding, who had bleached hair or no hair, who were taking steroids, beta blockers or opioid medication, and who had recently taken NSAIDS.
Measuring hair cortisol more feasible
The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).
Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).
Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).
Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.
The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
Monitor symptoms in midlife
Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.
“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”
Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.
“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”
The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.
PHILADELPHIA – , according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly the North American Menopause Society).
“This work suggests that markers of hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activation that capture total cortisol secretion over multiple months, [such as] hair cortisol, strongly correlate with cognitive performance on attention and working memory tasks, whereas measures of more acute cortisol, [such as] salivary cortisol, may be more strongly associated with depression symptom severity and verbal learning,” Christina Metcalf, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry in the Colorado Center for Women’s Behavioral Health and Wellness at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, told attendees. “Given the associations with chronic stress, there’s a lot of potential here to increase our knowledge about how women are doing and managing stress and life stressors during this life transition,” she said.
The study involved collecting hair and saliva samples from 43 healthy women in late perimenopause or early postmenopause with an average age of 51. The participants were predominantly white and college educated. The hair sample was taken within 2 cm of the scalp, and the saliva samples were collected the day after the hair sample collection, at the start and end of a 30-minute rest period that took place between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. local time.
All the participants had an intact uterus and at least one ovary. None of the participants were current smokers or had recent alcohol or drug dependence, and none had used hormones within the previous 6 months. The study also excluded women who were pregnant or breastfeeding, who had bleached hair or no hair, who were taking steroids, beta blockers or opioid medication, and who had recently taken NSAIDS.
Measuring hair cortisol more feasible
The study was conducted remotely, with participants using video conferencing to communicate with the study personnel and then completing study procedures at home, including 2 days of cognitive testing with the California Verbal Learning Test – Third Edition and the n-back and continuous performance tasks. The participants also completed the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D).
Participants with higher levels of hair cortisol and salivary cortisol also had more severe depression symptoms (P < .001). Hair cortisol was also significantly associated with attention and working memory: Women with higher levels had fewer correct answers on the 0-back and 1-back trials (P < .01) and made more mistakes on the 2-back trial (P < .001). They also scored with less specificity on the continuous performance tasks (P = .022).
Although no association existed between hair cortisol levels and verbal learning or verbal memory (P > .05), participants with higher hair cortisol did score worse on the immediate recall trials (P = .034). Salivary cortisol levels, on the other hand, showed no association with memory recall trials, attention or working memory (P > .05).
Measuring cortisol from hair samples is more feasible than using saliva samples and may offer valuable insights regarding hypothalamic-pituitary-axis activity “to consider alongside the cognitive and mental health of late peri-/early postmenopausal women,” Dr. Metcalf told attendees. The next step is to find out whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-axis axis is a modifiable biomarker that can be used to improve executive function.
The study was limited by its small population, its cross-sectional design, and the lack of covariates in the current analyses.
Monitor symptoms in midlife
Hadine Joffe, MD, MSc, a professor of psychiatry and executive director of the Mary Horrigan Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said the study findings were not surprising given how common the complaints of stress and depressive symptoms are.
“Mood changes are linked with acute, immediate cortisol levels at the same point in time, and cognitive symptoms were linked to more chronically elevated cortisol levels,” Dr. Joffe said in an interview. “Women and their providers should monitor for these challenging brain symptoms in midlife as they affect performance and quality of life and are linked with changes in the HPA axis as stress biomarkers.”
Because the study is small and has a cross-sectional design, it’s not possible to determine the direction of the associations or to make any inferences about causation, Dr. Joffe said.
“We cannot make the conclusion that stress is adversely affecting mood and cognitive performance given the design limitations. It is possible that mood and cognitive issues contributed to these stress markers,” Dr. Joffe said.“However, it is known that the experience of stress is linked with vulnerability to mood and cognitive symptoms, and also that mood and cognitive symptoms induce significant stress.”
The research was funded by the Menopause Society, Colorado University, the Ludeman Family Center for Women’s Health Research, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Institute of Aging. Dr. Metcalf had no disclosures. Dr. Joffe has received grant support from Merck, Pfizer and Sage, and has been a consultant or advisor for Bayer, Merck and Hello Therapeutics.
AT NAMS 2023
When digestive symptoms signal Parkinson’s disease
The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.
Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.
Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
Large combined study
The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.
Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
A ‘second brain’
This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.
Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.
It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.
Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.
In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.
This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.
Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.
Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
Large combined study
The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.
Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
A ‘second brain’
This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.
Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.
It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.
Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.
In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.
This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The enteric nervous system (ENS), which is regarded as our second brain, is the part of the autonomic nervous system that controls the digestive tract. Housed along the entire length of the digestive tract, it is made up of more than 100 million neurons. It plays a central role in controlling the regulation of gastrointestinal motility, absorption of nutrients, and control of the intestinal barrier that protects the body from external pathogens.
Braak’s hypothesis suggests that the digestive tract could be the starting point for Parkinson’s disease. The fact that nearly all patients with Parkinson’s disease experience digestive problems and have neuropathological lesions in intrinsic and extrinsic innervation of the gastrointestinal tract suggests that Parkinson’s disease also has a gastrointestinal component.
Besides the ascending pathway formulated by Braak, a descending etiology in which gastrointestinal symptoms are present in early stages when neurological signposts have not yet been noticed is supported by evidence from trials. These gastrointestinal symptoms then represent a risk factor. Links have also been described between a history of gastrointestinal symptoms and Alzheimer’s disease and cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), thus justifying studies on a larger scale.
Large combined study
The authors have conducted a combined case-control and cohort study using TriNetX, a national network of medical records based in the United States. They identified 24,624 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease in the case-control analysis and compared them with control subjects without neurological disease. They also identified subjects with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, to study previous gastrointestinal signs. Secondly, 18 cohorts with each exposure (various gastrointestinal symptoms, appendectomy, vagotomy) were compared with their negative controls (NC) for the development of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or CVD in 5 years.
Gastroparesis, dysphagia, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) without diarrhea or constipation were shown to have specific associations with Parkinson’s disease (vs. NC, Alzheimer’s disease, and CVD) in both case-controls (odds ratios all P < .0001) and cohort analyses (relative risks all P < .05). While functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not specific to Parkinson’s disease, IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed specificity to Parkinson’s disease in the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort (RR, 1.84) analyses. Appendectomy reduced the risk of Parkinson’s disease in the cohort study (RR, 0.48). Neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with Parkinson’s disease.
A ‘second brain’
This broad study attempted to explore the gut-brain axis by looking for associations between neurological diagnoses and prior gastrointestinal symptoms and later development of Parkinson’s disease. After adjustment to account for multiple comparisons and acknowledgment of the initial risk in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and CVD, only dysphagia, gastroparesis, IBS without diarrhea, and isolated constipation were significantly and specifically associated with Parkinson’s disease.
Numerous literature reviews mention that ENS lesions are responsible for gastrointestinal disorders observed in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Tests on gastrointestinal autopsy and biopsy specimens have established that alpha synuclein clusters, which are morphologically similar to Lewy bodies in the CNS, are seen in the vagus nerve and in the ENS in most subjects with Parkinson’s disease. However, these studies have not shown any loss of neurons in the ENS in Parkinson’s disease, and the presence of alpha synuclein deposits in the ENS is not sufficient in itself to explain these gastrointestinal disorders.
It therefore remains to be determined whether vagal nerve damage alone can explain gastrointestinal disorders or whether dysfunction of enteric neurons without neuronal loss is occurring. So, damage to the ENS from alpha synuclein deposits would be early and would precede damage to the CNS, thus affording evidence in support of Braak’s hypothesis, which relies on autopsy data that does not allow for longitudinal monitoring in a single individual.
Appendectomy appeared to be protective, leading to additional speculation about its role in the pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease. Additional mechanistic studies are therefore needed to establish causality and confirm the gut-brain axis or the role of dysbiosis and of intestinal permeability problems.
In conclusion, this large, first-of-its-kind multicenter study conducted on a national scale shows that Subject to future longitudinal mechanistic studies, early detection of these gastrointestinal disorders could aid in identifying patients at risk of Parkinson’s, and it could then be assumed that disease-modifying treatments could, at this early stage, halt progression of the disease linked to toxic clusters of alpha synuclein.
This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Playing board games may slow cognitive decline, improve QoL
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“For patients who are elderly and suffer from social isolation and mild cognitive issues, I would definitely recommend board games,” study investigator Frederico Emanuele Pozzi, MD, a neurology resident at Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori in Monza, Italy, told this news organization.
The findings were presented at the virtual XXVI World Congress of Neurology (WCN).
After searching the published literature, Dr. Pozzi and his colleagues selected 15 studies for the review. The studies assessed the impact of board games on older individuals at risk of or with cognitive impairment, or those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) at any age.
The studies included different board games including chess, Mah-jongg, and Go, a two-player game popular in China, Japan, and Korea that involves moving board pieces to surround and capture as much territory as possible.
Most interventions lasted about an hour and were held once or twice per week for 3-4 months.
Which games are best?
Researchers found that board games improved cognitive function, as measured by improved scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (P = .003) and Mini-Mental State Examination (P = .02).
Playing Go was linked with improved working memory, as measured by the Trail Making Test-A. Those who played Mah-jongg reported improved executive functioning and a temporary decrease in depressive symptoms. And chess players reported improved quality of life on the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale from playing chess (P < .00001).
In general, cognition improved across different populations. For example, some studies looked at unimpaired elderly while others looked at MCI, said Dr. Pozzi.
Playing board games in a social context appeared to be especially good at boosting brain power. One Japanese study included a control group that just did tai chi, a group that did Go alone on tablets, and another group that did Go in groups. Both Go groups improved cognitively, but participants who played together improved the most.
The results also seemed to suggest that Go and chess have different biological effects. “For example, Go increased [brain-derived neurotrophic factor] (BDNF) levels and metabolism in areas key for cognition like the middle temporal gyrus,” Dr. Pozzi said.
He noted that the methodology of the studies was generally “not bad,” although in some cases the analyses were per protocol and in others intention-to-treat. Outcomes varied across studies, there were a lot of dropouts, and some were not randomized, meaning reverse causality can’t be ruled out.
Dr. Pozzi has started a randomized controlled trial at a Go and chess club in Italy. He’s enrolling patients aged 60 and over with subjective cognitive decline or MCI and separating participants into a control group, a group that plays chess, another that plays Go, and another that plays both Go and chess.
In addition to the standard cognitive tests, and measures of depression and quality of life, Dr. Pozzi aims to assess cognitive reserve and is in the process of validating a questionnaire that will look at leisure activities and lifestyle.
Social and cognitive value
Commenting on the research for this news organization, Vladimir Hachinski, MD, a professor of clinical neurological sciences at Western University in London, Ont., said the results make sense.
Playing a board game involves concentration, strategy, and intermittent rewards – all of which are good for the brain and may involve the prefrontal cortex, he noted. Board games are also typically timed, which involves brain speed processing, and they have a winner and loser so emotions can run high, which also affects the brain, Dr. Hachinski added.
There may also be social value in playing a board game with someone else, added Dr. Hachinski.
“It’s encouraging that people can improve what they’re doing, and the longer they’re at it, the more of the brain they use,” he said. “There might be a long-term effect because players are building up networks.”
But Dr. Hachinski cautioned that playing a lot of chess does not necessarily make you a better thinker, just as learning to play one instrument doesn’t mean you can automatically play others.
“Learning one skill will translate only partially to another, and only if it’s related,” he said. “It increases cognition in the area you’re practicing in, but it doesn’t spread to other areas.”
Dr. Pozzi and Dr. Hachinski report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
From failure to hope: Tracking the changing landscape of Alzheimer’s therapies
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
In 2014 neurologist Jeffrey L. Cummings, MD, startled the Alzheimer’s disease research world with a paper that laid bare the alarmingly high failure rate of Alzheimer’s disease therapies in development.
Publishing in the journal Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, Dr. Cummings and his colleagues determined that 99.6% of all therapies tested between 2002 and 2012 had failed. Since downloaded some 75,000 times, Dr. Cumming’s “99% paper,” as it came to be nicknamed, led him to look more deeply and thoroughly at Alzheimer’s disease drugs in the pipeline, and describe them in a readable, user-friendly way.
His “Alzheimer’s Drug Development Pipeline” report, in the journal Alzheimer’s & Dementia, classifies therapies by their targets, their mechanisms of action, and where they stand in the development process.
Heavy on color-coded visuals, this snapshot of Alzheimer’s disease therapies is widely consulted by industry, researchers, and clinicians. Over time this report – which first documented a crisis – has come to show something more optimistic: an increasingly crowded pipeline reflecting a broad array of treatment approaches. Dr. Cummings wants more people to know that Alzheimer’s disease drug research, which now includes the first two Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibodies against amyloid-beta, is not the bleak landscape that it was in recent memory.
Lately, with the help of a grant from the National Institute on Aging, Dr. Cummings and his group have been working to expand on their reports to build an even more user-friendly database that can be searched by people in all corners of the neurodegenerative disease world. Dr. Cummings says he plans for this public-facing database to be up and running by year end.
Neurology Reviews spoke with Dr. Cummings, who is a member of the publication’s Editorial Advisory Board, about the genesis of his influential drug-tracking effort, how it has evolved, and what has been learned from it over the years.
How did all this begin?
Already in 2014 there was a dialogue going on was about the high failure rate for Alzheimer’s drugs. And I thought: “there’s probably a number that can be assigned to that.” And when it turned out to be 99.6%, that generated a huge amount of interest. That’s when I realized what interests me also interests the world. And that I was uniquely positioned after that point to do something annually.
How do you create your annual report, and how do you classify the drugs in it when some might act on little-understood pathways or mechanisms?
We capture information available on clinicaltrials.gov. We are notified immediately of any new Alzheimer-related trials, and we automate everything that is possible to automate. But there is still some human curation required. Most of that is around mechanisms. If it’s a monoclonal antibody directed at amyloid-beta, that’s not difficult to categorize. But with the small molecules especially, it can be more complicated.
We often look to see how the sponsor describes the drug and what their perception of the primary target is. A resource of great importance to us is CADRO, Common Alzheimer’s and Related Dementias Disease Research Ontology, which describes about 20 mechanisms that a group of scientists sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer’s Association have agreed on. Inflammation, epigenetics, and oxidation are just a few that most people know. CADRO is organized in a very specific way that allows us to go to the mechanism and relate it to the target. But we do try to be humble and acknowledge we probably make some errors in this.
Are you able to capture every Alzheimer’s drug in development globally?
If they’re on clinicaltrials.gov, they’re in our database. But we think there’s about 15% of drugs in the world that aren’t for some reason on clinicaltrials.gov – so we know we are comprehensive, but not quite exhaustive. I’m in kind of quandary about whether to search for that other 15%. But we do always acknowledge that we’re not 100% exhaustive.
Who are the report’s main readers?
Drug developers use it for investor discussions, and also to understand the competition and the landscape. The competition might be a drug with the same mechanism, and the landscape might be drugs coming into the Alzheimer’s disease world. So if someone is developing a PDE-5 inhibitor for mild dementia, for example, they can see that other people are working on a PDE-5 inhibitor for moderate dementia, and there’s no overlap. Investors use the report to make decisions about which horse in the race to bet on. And of course it’s used by academics and clinicians to learn which are the new drugs in the pipeline, which drugs have fallen out of the pipeline, how are biomarkers changing trials, what are the new outcomes.
It’s really become a community project. Investigators will email me and say “Jeff, we’re in phase 1, make sure it’s on your map.” Or, “you forgot our agent! We’re disappointed.” When that occurs it’s because they were not in a trial on the index date – the 1 day in our publication when everything we say in the paper is true. A trial initiated 1 day later won’t make the report for that year.
What about patients and families? Are they able to use the report as well?
One of the things we want to expand with the new database is its usefulness for patients. Among the new data display approaches that we have is a world map where you can go click on a dot near your home and find active trials. That’s something patients and families want to know, right? There’s 140 drugs in clinical trials, there must be one for me, how would I get to it? Soon we will have quite a good public portal so if you want to go in and see what new monoclonal antibodies are in phase 2, you can do that with drop-down menus. It’s a very easy to use site that anyone can explore.
Looking back at your last decade tracking drugs, what are some lessons learned and what are some of the more exciting drug categories to emerge?
My answer to this question is: Biologics rule. The main successes have been in biologics, in the monoclonal antibodies against amyloid, like the two FDA-approved agents lecanemab and aducanumab. But I think that the monoclonals, while I’m really happy to have them, are a first step. If you look back at tacrine, the first drug approved in 1993 for Alzheimer’s disease, it was a very difficult drug with lots of side effects. But then within 3 years we had donepezil, which was a very benign drug. I feel that a similar evolution is likely with regard to these antibodies. The first ones, we know, have big challenges, and you learn from those challenges and you just keep improving them. But you have to start somewhere, and you have to validate that target. Now I think that amyloid is validated.
What other approaches are interesting to you?
We have seen dramatic imaging results with marked reductions in neurofibrillary tangles from an antisense oligonucleotide aimed at tau protein. And there are two very active areas in the pipeline: inflammation and synaptic plasticity. Each has roughly 20 drugs apiece in development across all phases. And as you know, both synaptic plasticity and inflammation are represented across neurodegenerative conditions.
Your annual report has always focused on drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease. Will the new database cover other types of dementia and neurodegenerative diseases?
That’s an obvious next step. I’m hoping that late this year we will have funding to expand the database into frontotemporal lobar degenerations, which will include all the tauopathies. And there’s also an overlap with TDP-43 diseases, so we’ll bring all of that in too. We have a new initiative on Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies that I hope will materialize by next year. My goal is that this will eventually become a neurodegenerative disease therapies database. The really interesting drugs right now are being tested in more than one neurodegenerative disease, and we should look at those more carefully. It will be more feasible to do that if they’re on the same data set.
What about other therapy classes?
We aim to be more serious about devices.
What will you call the database?
The Clinical Trial Observatory. We may start by calling it the Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trial Observatory. But the intention, obviously, is to go way beyond Alzheimer’s disease. The database is managed by a terrific team of data scientists at Cleveland Clinic, led by Feixiong Cheng, PhD.
The annual pipeline report is very much associated with you. Is the database going to be different?
Right now, I’m like the grandfather of this project. I won’t be around forever. This will have to pass on, and we’re already talking about succession. We’re thinking about how to make sure this community resource continues to be a community resource. Also, over all these years the annual report reflected my perspective. But with a database, many more people will be able to share their perspectives. I happen to think that “biologics rule,” but others might look at the data, see different scientific currents, and draw different conclusions. That will create a rich dialogue.
Do you think your reports have changed people’s perspectives on Alzheimer’s disease therapies? There’s a widely held idea that the field is exclusively focused on amyloid, or even dead-ended, but the papers seem to show something different.
We think this effort has helped, and will continue to help and foster investment and growth in treatments for our patients. It really does show how diverse the clinical trials landscape is now. People are surprised to learn of the number and diversity of approaches. Just last week I was presenting at the Center for Brain Health in Dallas and there was a doctor in the audience who was a caregiver to his wife with Alzheimer’s disease. He came up afterwards and said, “I had no idea there were so many drugs in clinical trials,” because there’s no way to find out if you don’t know about this resource.
Dr. Cummings discloses consulting for a range of companies working in Alzheimer’s therapies and diagnostics, including Acadia, Alkahest, AlphaCognition, AriBio, Avanir, Axsome, Behren, Biogen, Biohaven, Cassava, Cerecin, Cortexyme, Diadem, EIP Pharma, Eisai, GemVax, Genentech, Green Valley, Grifols, Janssen, LSP, Merck, NervGen, Novo Nordisk, Oligomerix, Ono, Otsuka, PRODEO, ReMYND, Renew, Resverlogix, Roche, Signant Health, Suven, United Neuroscience, and Unlearn AI. He has received several grants from the National Institute on Aging.
High and low HDL cholesterol levels linked to dementia risk
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High and low levels of HDL cholesterol but not levels of LDL cholesterol are associated with an increased risk for dementia in older adults, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Electronic health record and survey data on 184,367 Kaiser Permanente Northern California participants (median age, 69.5 years) with no history of dementia were taken.
- Cholesterol levels were measured within 2 years of survey completion.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 25,214 incident cases of dementia reported over an average follow-up of 8.77 years.
- Dementia risk was significantly higher in people with low HDL cholesterol (11-41 mg/dL; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11) and high HDL cholesterol (> 65 mg/dL; aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.20).
- The study demonstrates an association between low and high levels of “good” cholesterol but not a causal link.
- There was no significant association between LDL cholesterol and dementia risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results support the conclusion that some lipoproteins may be modifiable risk factors for dementia, even in late life,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Erin L. Ferguson, MPH, department of epidemiology & biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, and was funded by the National Institutes of Health. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
There were no adjustments for apo E status and confounding and selection bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors report no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Proton pump inhibitors linked to increased dementia risk
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
and was highest among those diagnosed before age 70 years regardless of when PPI treatment was initiated.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers used four Danish registries to collect data on dementia diagnoses and prescription PPI use among 1,983,785 individuals aged 60-75 years between 2000 and 2018.
- The median follow-up time was 10.3 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- There were 99,384 (5.0%) cases of all-cause dementia during follow-up, with a median age of diagnosis of 79 years.
- Twenty-one-point-two percent of dementia cases and 18.9% of controls reported a history of PPI use.
- Risk for all-cause dementia before age 90 years was 36% higher with PPI use in people aged 60-69 years at baseline (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.43) and 6% higher in those who were age 80-89 years at baseline (aIRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09).
- Investigators found significant increased dementia risk before age 90 years with PPI use regardless of when PPI treatment began and found no link between PPI use and dementia diagnoses after age 90 years.
IN PRACTICE:
“The association between PPI use and dementia was unambiguously largest among the youngest cases of dementia, potentially suggestive of a critical window of exposure where midlife PPI use affects dementia risk to a larger degree compared to late-life use,” the authors wrote. “Further, the finding could signify a declining impact of individual risk factors with advancing age owing to lengthy ongoing neuropathological processes.”
SOURCE:
Lead author of the study was Nelsan Pourhadi, MD, Danish Dementia Research Centre, department of neurology, Copenhagen University Hospital–Rigshospitalet. It was published online in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The study did not include data on PPI prescriptions before 1995, over-the-counter PPI use, and in-hospital intravenous use of PPI during the study period.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Danish Ministry of Health. The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
History of depression, stress tied to Alzheimer’s, MCI risk
TOPLINE:
compared with those without either condition, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
- Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
- Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
- Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
- Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).
IN PRACTICE:
“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
LIMITATIONS:
Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
compared with those without either condition, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
- Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
- Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
- Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
- Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).
IN PRACTICE:
“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
LIMITATIONS:
Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
compared with those without either condition, a new study found.
METHODOLOGY:
- Longitudinal cohort study of 1,362,548 people with records in the Region Stockholm administrative health care database with a diagnosis of stress-induced exhaustion disorder (SED), depression, or both between 2012 and 2013.
- Cohort followed for diagnosis of MCI or AD between 2014 and 2022.
TAKEAWAY:
- SED diagnosed in 0.3%, depression in 2.9% and both SED and depression in 0.1%
- Compared with people without SED or depression, AD risk was more than double in patients with SED (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-4.91) or depression (aOR, 2.32; 99% CI, 1.85-2.90) and four times higher in patients with both SED and depression (aOR, 4.00; 99% CI, 1.67-9.58)
- Risk for MCI was also higher in people with SED (aOR, 1.87; 99% CI,1.20-2.91), depression (aOR, 2.85; 99% CI, 2.53-3.22) or both SED and depression (aOR, 3.87; 99% CI, 2.39-6.27) vs patients with no history of SED or depression.
- Only patients with depression had a higher risk for another dementia type (aOR, 2.39; 99% CI, 1.92-2.96).
IN PRACTICE:
“Future studies should examine the possibility that symptoms of depression and/or chronic stress could be prodromal symptoms of dementia rather than risk factors,” study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Johanna Wallensten, doctoral student, department of clinical sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, and colleagues and funded by the Karolinska Institute. It was published online in Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy.
LIMITATIONS:
Use of a health care registry could have led to over- or underestimation of depression, MCI and AD. The study probably captures most people with depression but not most people with depressive symptoms.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported no relevant conflicts.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Do new Alzheimer’s drugs get us closer to solving the Alzheimer’s disease riddle?
Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.
Implications for the amyloid hypothesis
The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.
In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.
A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.
These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.
Of note, To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
Time to switch gears
The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.
Building up cognitive reserve
It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.
Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.
Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.
In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.
This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.
Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.
Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.
Implications for the amyloid hypothesis
The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.
In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.
A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.
These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.
Of note, To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
Time to switch gears
The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.
Building up cognitive reserve
It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.
Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.
Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.
In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.
This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.
Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.
Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Two antiamyloid drugs were recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating early-stage Alzheimer’s disease (AD). In trials of both lecanemab (Leqembi) and donanemab, a long-held neuropharmacologic dream was realized: Most amyloid plaques – the primary pathologic marker for AD – were eliminated from the brains of patients with late pre-AD or early AD.
Implications for the amyloid hypothesis
The reduction of amyloid plaques has been argued by many scientists and clinical authorities to be the likely pharmacologic solution for AD. These trials are appropriately viewed as a test of the hypothesis that amyloid bodies are a primary cause of the neurobehavioral symptoms we call AD.
In parallel with that striking reduction in amyloid bodies, drug-treated patients had an initially slower progression of neurobehavioral decline than did placebo-treated control patients. That slowing in symptom progression was accompanied by a modest but statistically significant difference in neurobehavioral ability. After several months in treatment, the rate of decline again paralleled that recorded in the control group. The sustained difference of about a half point on cognitive assessment scores separating treatment and control participants was well short of the 1.5-point difference typically considered clinically significant.
A small number of unexpected and unexplained deaths occurred in the treatment groups. Brain swelling and/or micro-hemorrhages were seen in 20%-30% of treated individuals. Significant brain shrinkage was recorded. These adverse findings are indicative of drug-induced trauma in the target organ for these drugs (i.e., the brain) and were the basis for a boxed warning label for drug usage. Antiamyloid drug treatment was not effective in patients who had higher initial numbers of amyloid plaques, indicating that these drugs would not measurably help the majority of AD patients, who are at more advanced disease stages.
These drugs do not appear to be an “answer” for AD. A modest delay in progression does not mean that we’re on a path to a “cure.” Treatment cost estimates are high – more than $80,000 per year. With requisite PET exams and high copays, patient accessibility issues will be daunting.
Of note, To the contrary, they add strong support for the counterargument that the emergence of amyloid plaques is an effect and not a fundamental cause of that progressive loss of neurologic function that we ultimately define as “Alzheimer’s disease.”
Time to switch gears
The more obvious path to winning the battle against this human scourge is prevention. A recent analysis published in The Lancet argued that about 40% of AD and other dementias are potentially preventable. I disagree. I believe that 80%-90% of prospective cases can be substantially delayed or prevented. Studies have shown that progression to AD or other dementias is driven primarily by the progressive deterioration of organic brain health, expressed by the loss of what psychologists have termed “cognitive reserve.” Cognitive reserve is resilience arising from active brain usage, akin to physical resilience attributable to a physically active life. Scientific studies have shown us that an individual’s cognitive resilience (reserve) is a greater predictor of risk for dementia than are amyloid plaques – indeed, greater than any combination of pathologic markers in dementia patients.
Building up cognitive reserve
It’s increasingly clear to this observer that cognitive reserve is synonymous with organic brain health. The primary factors that underlie cognitive reserve are processing speed in the brain, executive control, response withholding, memory acquisition, reasoning, and attention abilities. Faster, more accurate brains are necessarily more physically optimized. They necessarily sustain brain system connectivity. They are necessarily healthier. Such brains bear a relatively low risk of developing AD or other dementias, just as physically healthier bodies bear a lower risk of being prematurely banished to semi-permanent residence in an easy chair or a bed.
Brain health can be sustained by deploying inexpensive, self-administered, app-based assessments of neurologic performance limits, which inform patients and their medical teams about general brain health status. These assessments can help doctors guide their patients to adopt more intelligent brain-healthy lifestyles, or direct them to the “brain gym” to progressively exercise their brains in ways that contribute to rapid, potentially large-scale, rejuvenating improvements in physical and functional brain health.
Randomized controlled trials incorporating different combinations of physical exercise, diet, and cognitive training have recorded significant improvements in physical and functional neurologic status, indicating substantially advanced brain health. Consistent moderate-to-intense physical exercise, brain- and heart-healthy eating habits, and, particularly, computerized brain training have repeatedly been shown to improve cognitive function and physically rejuvenate the brain. With cognitive training in the right forms, improvements in processing speed and other measures manifest improving brain health and greater safety.
In the National Institutes of Health–funded ACTIVE study with more than 2,800 older adults, just 10-18 hours of a specific speed of processing training (now part of BrainHQ, a program that I was involved in developing) reduced the probability of a progression to dementia over the following 10 years by 29%, and by 48% in those who did the most training.
This approach is several orders of magnitude less expensive than the pricey new AD drugs. It presents less serious issues of accessibility and has no side effects. It delivers far more powerful therapeutic benefits in older normal and at-risk populations.
Sustained wellness supporting prevention is the far more sensible medical way forward to save people from AD and other dementias – at a far lower medical and societal cost.
Dr. Merzenich is professor emeritus, department of neuroscience, University of California, San Francisco. He reported conflicts of interest with Posit Science, Stronger Brains, and the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Loneliness tied to increased risk for Parkinson’s disease
TOPLINE:
Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
- The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
- Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
- Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
- Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
- In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25).
- The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
- Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online in JAMA Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
- The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
- Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
- Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
- Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
- In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25).
- The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
- Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online in JAMA Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Loneliness is associated with a higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease (PD) across demographic groups and independent of other risk factors, data from nearly 500,000 U.K. adults suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- Loneliness is associated with illness and death, including higher risk of neurodegenerative diseases, but no study has examined whether the association between loneliness and detrimental outcomes extends to PD.
- The current analysis included 491,603 U.K. Biobank participants (mean age, 56; 54% women) without a diagnosis of PD at baseline.
- Loneliness was assessed by a single question at baseline and incident PD was ascertained via health records over 15 years.
- Researchers assessed whether the association between loneliness and PD was moderated by age, sex, or genetic risk and whether the association was accounted for by sociodemographic factors; behavioral, mental, physical, or social factors; or genetic risk.
TAKEAWAY:
- Roughly 19% of the cohort reported being lonely. Compared with those who were not lonely, those who did report being lonely were slightly younger and were more likely to be women. They also had fewer resources, more health risk behaviors (current smoker and physically inactive), and worse physical and mental health.
- Over 15+ years of follow-up, 2,822 participants developed PD (incidence rate: 47 per 100,000 person-years). Compared with those who did not develop PD, those who did were older and more likely to be male, former smokers, have higher BMI and PD polygenetic risk score, and to have diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction or stroke, anxiety, or depression.
- In the primary analysis, individuals who reported being lonely had a higher risk for PD (hazard ratio, 1.37) – an association that remained after accounting for demographic and socioeconomic status, social isolation, PD polygenetic risk score, smoking, physical activity, BMI, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, myocardial infarction, depression, and having ever seen a psychiatrist (fully adjusted HR, 1.25).
- The association between loneliness and incident PD was not moderated by sex, age, or polygenetic risk score.
- Contrary to expectations for a prodromal syndrome, loneliness was not associated with incident PD in the first 5 years after baseline but was associated with PD risk in the subsequent 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.32).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our findings complement other evidence that loneliness is a psychosocial determinant of health associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality [and] supports recent calls for the protective and healing effects of personally meaningful social connection,” the authors write.
SOURCE:
The study, with first author Antonio Terracciano, PhD, of Florida State University College of Medicine, Tallahassee, was published online in JAMA Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
This observational study could not determine causality or whether reverse causality could explain the association. Loneliness was assessed by a single yes/no question. PD diagnosis relied on hospital admission and death records and may have missed early PD diagnoses.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Multivitamins and dementia: Untangling the COSMOS study web
I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.
Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.
Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention
The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.
And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.
Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.
The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind
But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.
COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.
There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.
In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.
A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.
Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
COSMOS-Web and replication
The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.
The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.
COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).
Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
One of these studies is not like the others
Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.
The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.
Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative.
Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.
Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.
Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention
The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.
And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.
Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.
The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind
But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.
COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.
There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.
In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.
A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.
Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
COSMOS-Web and replication
The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.
The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.
COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).
Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
One of these studies is not like the others
Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.
The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.
Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative.
Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.
Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.
Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention
The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.
And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.
Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.
The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind
But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.
COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.
There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.
In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.
A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.
Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
COSMOS-Web and replication
The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.
The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.
COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).
Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
One of these studies is not like the others
Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.
The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.
Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative.
Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.
Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
