Search

AimsTo examine among Hispanics in the U.S., a population with increased reliance on informal healthcare support structures, (1) the association between cognitive function and control of diabetes; and (2) whether this association is modified by family support.MethodsThe Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), word fluency, and learning and delayed recall components of the Spanish English Verbal Learning Test were administered to 1794 Hispanic adults aged 45-76years with diagnosed diabetes. An executive function index and global cognitive function index (GCFI) were derived. Uncontrolled diabetes (HbA1c⩾7% [53mmol/mol]) was compared across quartiles of cognitive function using multivariable logit models with interaction terms for cognitive function and family support.ResultsAfter adjustment, lower DSST scores were associated with uncontrolled diabetes (P=0.03). Family support modified the relationship between other measures of cognition and diabetes control (Pinteraction: 0.002, 0.09). Among individuals with low family support, as cognitive function declined, the odds of uncontrolled diabetes increased (P-trend across quartiles of the GCFI, 0.015). Among those with low family support, persons in the lowest quartile of global cognitive function were more than twice as likely to have uncontrolled diabetes as those in the highest performing quartile (OR=2.31; 95% CI: 1.17, 4.55). There was no similar effect among those with high family support.ConclusionsFamily support may buffer the negative association between low cognitive functioning and diabetes control in US Hispanics/Latinos. Educational programs targeted at family members of middle-age and older persons with diabetes regardless of neurocognitive status may help improve population-level glycemic control.

ObjectiveTo examine sex differences in the relationship between clinical symptoms related to Alzheimer disease (AD) (verbal memory deficits) and neurodegeneration (hippocampal volume/intracranial volume ratio [HpVR]) across AD stages.MethodsThe sample included 379 healthy participants, 694 participants with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), and 235 participants with AD and dementia from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who completed the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT). Cross-sectional analyses were conducted using linear regression to examine the interaction between sex and HpVR on RAVLT across and within diagnostic groups adjusting for age, education, and APOE ε4 status.ResultsAcross groups, there were significant sex × HpVR interactions for immediate and delayed recall (p < 0.01). Women outperformed men among individuals with moderate to larger HpVR, but not among individuals with smaller HpVR. In diagnosis-stratified analyses, the HpVR × sex interaction was significant in the aMCI group, but not in the control or AD dementia groups, for immediate and delayed recall (p < 0.01). Among controls, women outperformed men on both outcomes irrespective of HpVR (p < 0.001). In AD dementia, better RAVLT performance was independently associated with female sex (immediate, p = 0.04) and larger HpVR (delayed, p = 0.001).ConclusionWomen showed an advantage in verbal memory despite evidence of moderate hippocampal atrophy. This advantage may represent a sex-specific form of cognitive reserve delaying verbal memory decline until more advanced disease stages.

IntroductionPre-clinical markers of Parkinson's Disease (PD) are needed, and to be relevant in pre-clinical disease, they should be quantifiably abnormal in early disease as well. Handwriting is impaired early in PD and can be evaluated using computerized analysis of drawn spirals, capturing kinematic, dynamic, and spatial abnormalities and calculating indices that quantify motor performance and disability. Digitized spiral drawing correlates with motor scores and may be more sensitive in detecting early changes than subjective ratings. However, whether changes in spiral drawing are abnormal compared with controls and whether changes are detected in early PD are unknown.Methods138 PD subjects (50 with early PD) and 150 controls drew spirals on a digitizing tablet, generating x, y, z (pressure) data-coordinates and time. Derived indices corresponded to overall spiral execution (severity), shape and kinematic irregularity (second order smoothness, first order zero-crossing), tightness, mean speed and variability of spiral width. Linear mixed effect adjusted models comparing these indices and cross-validation were performed. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was applied to examine discriminative validity of combined indices.ResultsAll indices were significantly different between PD cases and controls, except for zero-crossing. A model using all indices had high discriminative validity (sensitivity = 0.86, specificity = 0.81). Discriminative validity was maintained in patients with early PD.ConclusionSpiral analysis accurately discriminates subjects with PD and early PD from controls supporting a role as a promising quantitative biomarker. Further assessment is needed to determine whether spiral changes are PD specific compared with other disorders and if present in pre-clinical PD.

Objective: To analyze data from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes‐International (CaMEO‐I) Study in order to characterize preventive medication use and identify preventive usage gaps among people with migraine across multiple countries. Background: Guidelines for the preventive treatment of migraine are available from scientific organizations in various countries. Although these guidelines differ among countries, eligibility for preventive treatment is generally based on monthly headache day (MHD) frequency and associated disability. The overwhelming majority of people with migraine who are eligible for preventive treatment do not receive it. Methods: The CaMEO‐I Study was a cross‐sectional, observational, web‐based panel survey study performed in six countries: Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. People were invited to complete an online survey in their national language(s) to identify those with migraine according to modified International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition, criteria. People classified with migraine answered questions about current and ever use of both acute and preventive treatments for migraine. Available preventive medications for migraine differed by country. MHD frequency and associated disability data were collected. The American Headache Society (AHS) 2021 Consensus Statement algorithm was used to determine candidacy for preventive treatment (i.e., ≥3 monthly MHDs with severe disability, ≥4 MHDs with some disability, or ≥6 MHDs regardless of level of disability). Results: Among 90,613 valid completers of the screening survey, 14,492 met criteria for migraine and completed the full survey, with approximately 2400 respondents from each country. Based on the AHS consensus statement preventive treatment candidacy algorithm, averaging across countries, 36.2% (5246/14,492) of respondents with migraine qualified for preventive treatment. Most respondents (84.5% [4431/5246]) who met criteria for preventive treatment according to the AHS consensus statement were not using a preventive medication at the time of the survey. Moreover, 19.3% (2799/14,492) of respondents had ever used preventive medication (ever users); 58.1% (1625/2799) of respondents who reported ever using a preventive medication for migraine were still taking it. Of the respondents who were currently using a preventive medication, 50.2% (815/1625) still met the criteria for needing preventive treatment based on the AHS consensus statement. Conclusions: Most people with migraine who qualify for preventive treatment are not currently taking it. Additionally, many people currently taking preventive pharmacologic treatment still meet the algorithm criteria for needing preventive treatment, suggesting inadequate benefit from their current regimen. Plain Language Summary: People with migraine who experience frequent headaches or some level of disability may benefit from using a preventive medication for migraine. We collected data on the use of preventive medication for migraine in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These data demonstrated that many people who qualified for the use of a preventive treatment in the six participating countries were not currently taking a preventive medication for migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study reviewed migraine prevalence and disability gathered through epidemiologic survey studies in the United States conducted over the past three decades. We summarized these studies and evaluated changing patterns of disease prevalence and disability. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of US studies addressing the prevalence, disability, and/or burden of migraine, including both episodic migraine (EM) and chronic migraine (CM). A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was used in conjunction with the PubMed search engine. Eligible studies were published before February 2022, were conducted in the United States, included representative samples, and used a case definition of migraine based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD). The primary measure of disease burden was the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS). The MIDAS measures days lost due to migraine over 3 months in three domains and defines groups with moderate (Grade III) or severe disability (Grade IV) using cut‐scores. Results: Of the 1609 identified records, 26 publications from 11 US population‐based studies met eligibility criteria. The prevalence of migraine in the population has remained relatively consistent for the past 30 years: ranging from 11.7% to 14.7% overall, 17.1% to 19.2% in women, and 5.6% to 7.2% in men in the studies reviewed. CM prevalence is 0.91% (1.3% among women and 0.5% of men) in adults and 0.8% in adolescents. The proportion of people with migraine and moderate‐to‐severe MIDAS disability (Grades III–IV), has trended upward across studies from 22.0% in 2005 to 39.0% in 2012, to 43.2% in 2016, and 42.4% in 2018. A consistently higher proportion of women were assigned MIDAS Grades III/IV relative to men. Conclusion: The prevalence of migraine in the United States has remained stable over the past three decades while migraine‐related disability has increased. The disability trend could reflect changes in reporting, study methodology, social and societal changes, or changes in exacerbating or remediating factors that make migraine more disabling, among other hypotheses. These issues merit further investigation. Plain Language Summary: We reviewed 11 population‐based studies that adhered to the International Classification of Headache Disorders to examine the prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States. While the prevalence of migraine has remained stable at ~12% of adults for the past 30 years (with higher rates in women), the burden of migraine, including disability and impact on work, academics, and social life, appears to be increasing. The escalating burden of migraine may result from factors like increased headache frequency or changes in study methodology, indicating a need for more population studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The extent to which the Big Five personality traits and subjective well‐being (SWB) are discriminatory predictors of clinical manifestation of dementia versus dementia‐related neuropathology is unclear. METHODS: Using data from eight independent studies (Ntotal= 44,531; Ndementia= 1703; baseline Mage= 49 to 81 years, 26 to 61% female; Mfollow‐up range = 3.53 to 21.00 years), Bayesian multilevel models tested whether personality traits and SWB differentially predicted neuropsychological and neuropathological characteristics of dementia. RESULTS: Synthesized and individual study results indicate that high neuroticism and negative affect and low conscientiousness, extraversion, and positive affect were associated with increased risk of long‐term dementia diagnosis. There were no consistent associations with neuropathology. DISCUSSION: This multistudy project provides robust, conceptually replicated and extended evidence that psychosocial factors are strong predictors of dementia diagnosis but not consistently associated with neuropathology at autopsy. Highlights: N(+), C(−), E(−), PA(−), and NA(+) were associated with incident diagnosis.Results were consistent despite self‐report versus clinical diagnosis of dementia.Psychological factors were not associated with neuropathology at autopsy.Individuals with higher conscientiousness and no diagnosis had less neuropathology.High C individuals may withstand neuropathology for longer before death. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) are of growing interest in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias. Objective: This study aimed to assess the ability of plasma biomarkers to 1) predict disease progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to dementia and 2) improve the predictive ability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) measures when combined. Methods: We used data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Machine learning models were trained using the data from participants who remained cognitively stable (CN-s) and with Dementia diagnosis at 2-year follow-up visit. The models were used to predict progression to dementia in MCI individuals. We assessed the performance of models with plasma biomarkers against those with CSF and MRI measures, and also in combination with them. Results: Our models with plasma biomarkers classified CN-s individuals from AD with an AUC of 0.75±0.03 and could predict conversion to dementia in MCI individuals with an AUC of 0.64±0.03 (17.1% BP, base prevalence). Models with plasma biomarkers performed better when combined with CSF and MRI measures (CN versus AD: AUC of 0.89±0.02; MCI-to-AD: AUC of 0.76±0.03, 21.5% BP). Conclusions: Our results highlight the potential of plasma biomarkers in predicting conversion to dementia in MCI individuals. While plasma biomarkers could improve the predictive ability of CSF and MRI measures when combined, they also show the potential to predict non-progression to AD when considered alone. The predictive ability of plasma biomarkers is crucially linked to reducing the costly and effortful collection of CSF and MRI measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]