Neurology

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the first in vitro diagnostic to aid in the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

The Lumipulse G β-Amyloid Ratio 1-42/1-40 (Fujirebio Diagnostics) test detects amyloid plaques associated with AD in adults age 55 or older who are under investigation for AD and other causes of cognitive decline.

“The availability of an in vitro diagnostic test that can potentially eliminate the need for time-consuming and expensive [positron emission tomography (PET)] scans is great news for individuals and families concerned with the possibility of an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“With the Lumipulse test, there is a new option that can typically be completed the same day and can give doctors the same information regarding brain amyloid status, without the radiation risk, to help determine if a patient’s cognitive impairment is due to Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In its statement, the FDA notes that there is an “unmet need for a reliable and safe test that can accurately identify patients with amyloid plaques consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.”

The agency goes on to state that this new test may eliminate the need to use PET brain scans, a “potentially costly and cumbersome option” to visualize amyloid plaques for the diagnosis of AD.

The Lumipulse test measures the ratio of β-amyloid 1-42 and β-amyloid 1-40 concentrations in human cerebral spinal fluid (CSF). A positive Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test result is consistent with the presence of amyloid plaques, similar to that revealed in a PET scan. A negative result is consistent with a negative amyloid PET scan result.

However, the FDA notes that the test is not a stand-alone assay and should be used in conjunction with other clinical evaluations and additional tests to determine treatment options.

The FDA reports that it evaluated the safety and efficacy of the test in a clinical study of 292 CSF samples from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative sample bank.

The samples were tested by the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) and compared with amyloid PET scan results. In this clinical study, 97% of individuals with Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) positive results had the presence of amyloid plaques by PET scan and 84% of individuals with negative results had a negative amyloid PET scan.

The risks associated with the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test are mainly the possibility of false-positive and false-negative test results.

False-positive results, in conjunction with other clinical information, could lead to an inappropriate diagnosis of, and unnecessary treatment for AD.

False-negative test results could result in additional unnecessary diagnostic tests and potential delay in effective treatment for AD.

The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

The agency says this action “creates a new regulatory classification, which means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process, whereby devices can obtain marketing authorization by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.”

The Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) was granted Breakthrough Device designation, a process designed to expedite the development and review of devices that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the first in vitro diagnostic to aid in the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

The Lumipulse G β-Amyloid Ratio 1-42/1-40 (Fujirebio Diagnostics) test detects amyloid plaques associated with AD in adults age 55 or older who are under investigation for AD and other causes of cognitive decline.

“The availability of an in vitro diagnostic test that can potentially eliminate the need for time-consuming and expensive [positron emission tomography (PET)] scans is great news for individuals and families concerned with the possibility of an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“With the Lumipulse test, there is a new option that can typically be completed the same day and can give doctors the same information regarding brain amyloid status, without the radiation risk, to help determine if a patient’s cognitive impairment is due to Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In its statement, the FDA notes that there is an “unmet need for a reliable and safe test that can accurately identify patients with amyloid plaques consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.”

The agency goes on to state that this new test may eliminate the need to use PET brain scans, a “potentially costly and cumbersome option” to visualize amyloid plaques for the diagnosis of AD.

The Lumipulse test measures the ratio of β-amyloid 1-42 and β-amyloid 1-40 concentrations in human cerebral spinal fluid (CSF). A positive Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test result is consistent with the presence of amyloid plaques, similar to that revealed in a PET scan. A negative result is consistent with a negative amyloid PET scan result.

However, the FDA notes that the test is not a stand-alone assay and should be used in conjunction with other clinical evaluations and additional tests to determine treatment options.

The FDA reports that it evaluated the safety and efficacy of the test in a clinical study of 292 CSF samples from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative sample bank.

The samples were tested by the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) and compared with amyloid PET scan results. In this clinical study, 97% of individuals with Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) positive results had the presence of amyloid plaques by PET scan and 84% of individuals with negative results had a negative amyloid PET scan.

The risks associated with the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test are mainly the possibility of false-positive and false-negative test results.

False-positive results, in conjunction with other clinical information, could lead to an inappropriate diagnosis of, and unnecessary treatment for AD.

False-negative test results could result in additional unnecessary diagnostic tests and potential delay in effective treatment for AD.

The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

The agency says this action “creates a new regulatory classification, which means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process, whereby devices can obtain marketing authorization by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.”

The Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) was granted Breakthrough Device designation, a process designed to expedite the development and review of devices that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. 

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

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the first in vitro diagnostic to aid in the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD).

The Lumipulse G β-Amyloid Ratio 1-42/1-40 (Fujirebio Diagnostics) test detects amyloid plaques associated with AD in adults age 55 or older who are under investigation for AD and other causes of cognitive decline.

“The availability of an in vitro diagnostic test that can potentially eliminate the need for time-consuming and expensive [positron emission tomography (PET)] scans is great news for individuals and families concerned with the possibility of an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis,” Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a statement.

“With the Lumipulse test, there is a new option that can typically be completed the same day and can give doctors the same information regarding brain amyloid status, without the radiation risk, to help determine if a patient’s cognitive impairment is due to Alzheimer’s disease,” he added.

In its statement, the FDA notes that there is an “unmet need for a reliable and safe test that can accurately identify patients with amyloid plaques consistent with Alzheimer’s disease.”

The agency goes on to state that this new test may eliminate the need to use PET brain scans, a “potentially costly and cumbersome option” to visualize amyloid plaques for the diagnosis of AD.

The Lumipulse test measures the ratio of β-amyloid 1-42 and β-amyloid 1-40 concentrations in human cerebral spinal fluid (CSF). A positive Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test result is consistent with the presence of amyloid plaques, similar to that revealed in a PET scan. A negative result is consistent with a negative amyloid PET scan result.

However, the FDA notes that the test is not a stand-alone assay and should be used in conjunction with other clinical evaluations and additional tests to determine treatment options.

The FDA reports that it evaluated the safety and efficacy of the test in a clinical study of 292 CSF samples from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative sample bank.

The samples were tested by the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) and compared with amyloid PET scan results. In this clinical study, 97% of individuals with Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) positive results had the presence of amyloid plaques by PET scan and 84% of individuals with negative results had a negative amyloid PET scan.

The risks associated with the Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) test are mainly the possibility of false-positive and false-negative test results.

False-positive results, in conjunction with other clinical information, could lead to an inappropriate diagnosis of, and unnecessary treatment for AD.

False-negative test results could result in additional unnecessary diagnostic tests and potential delay in effective treatment for AD.

The FDA reviewed the device through the De Novo premarket review pathway, a regulatory pathway for low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type.

The agency says this action “creates a new regulatory classification, which means that subsequent devices of the same type with the same intended use may go through FDA’s 510(k) premarket process, whereby devices can obtain marketing authorization by demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device.”

The Lumipulse G β-amyloid Ratio (1-42/1-40) was granted Breakthrough Device designation, a process designed to expedite the development and review of devices that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. 

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

Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.

The first comprehensive meta-analysis of all biomarkers quantified to date in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of individuals with unipolar depression showed that several could be “clinically meaningful” because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.

However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.

Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Multiple pathways to depression

The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers. 

Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.

Depression was also associated with:

• Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
• Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
• Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
• Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
• Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
• Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.

Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.

“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.

However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.

Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.

“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted. 
 

Which ones hold water?

Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.

“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.

Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”

When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression. 

“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.

Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.

The first comprehensive meta-analysis of all biomarkers quantified to date in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of individuals with unipolar depression showed that several could be “clinically meaningful” because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.

However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.

Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Multiple pathways to depression

The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers. 

Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.

Depression was also associated with:

• Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
• Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
• Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
• Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
• Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
• Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.

Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.

“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.

However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.

Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.

“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted. 
 

Which ones hold water?

Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.

“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.

Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”

When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression. 

“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.

Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Multiple biomarkers of depression involved in several brain circuits are altered in patients with unipolar depression.

The first comprehensive meta-analysis of all biomarkers quantified to date in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of individuals with unipolar depression showed that several could be “clinically meaningful” because they suggest neuroimmunological alterations, disturbances in the blood-brain-barrier, hyperactivity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and impaired neuroplasticity as factors in depression pathophysiology.

However, said study investigator Michael E. Benros, MD, PhD, professor and head of research at Mental Health Centre Copenhagen and University of Copenhagen, this is on a group level. “So in order to be relevant in a clinical context, the results need to be validated by further high-quality studies identifying subgroups with different biological underpinnings,” he told this news organization.

Identification of potential subgroups of depression with different biomarkers might help explain the diverse symptomatology and variability in treatment response observed in patients with depression, he noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Multiple pathways to depression

The systematic review and meta-analysis included 97 studies investigating 165 CSF biomarkers. 

Of the 42 biomarkers investigated in at least two studies, patients with unipolar depression had higher CSF levels of interleukin 6, a marker of chronic inflammation; total protein, which signals blood-brain barrier dysfunction and increased permeability; and cortisol, which is linked to psychological stress, compared with healthy controls.

Depression was also associated with:

• Lower CSF levels of homovanillic acid, the major terminal metabolite of dopamine.
• Gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the CNS thought to play a vital role in the control of stress and depression.
• Somatostatin, a neuropeptide often coexpressed with GABA.
• Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein involved in neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity, and neurotransmission.
• Amyloid-β 40, implicated in Alzheimer’s disease.
• Transthyretin, involved in transport of thyroxine across the blood-brain barrier.

Collectively, the findings point toward a “dysregulated dopaminergic system, a compromised inhibitory system, HPA axis hyperactivity, increased neuroinflammation and blood-brain barrier permeability, and impaired neuroplasticity as important factors in depression pathophysiology,” the investigators wrote.

“It is notable that we did not find significant difference in the metabolite levels of serotonin and noradrenalin, which are the most targeted neurotransmitters in modern antidepressant treatment,” said Dr. Benros.

However, this could be explained by substantial heterogeneity between studies and the fact that quantification of total CSF biomarker concentrations does not reflect local alteration within the brain, he explained.

Many of the studies had small cohorts and most quantified only a few biomarkers, making it hard to examine potential interactions between biomarkers or identify specific phenotypes of depression.

“Novel high-quality studies including larger cohorts with an integrative approach and extensive numbers of biomarkers are needed to validate these potential biomarkers of depression and set the stage for the development of more effective and precise treatments,” the researchers noted. 
 

Which ones hold water?

Reached for comment, Dean MacKinnon, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, noted that this analysis “extracts the vast amount of knowledge” gained from different studies on biomarkers in the CSF for depression.

“They were able to identify 97 papers that have enough information in them that they could sort of lump them together and see which ones still hold water. It’s always useful to be able to look at patterns in the research and see if you can find some consistent trends,” he told this news organization.

Dr. MacKinnon, who was not part of the research team, also noted that “nonreplicability” is a problem in psychiatry and psychology research, “so being able to show that at least some studies were sufficiently well done, to get a good result, and that they could be replicated in at least one other good study is useful information.”

When it comes to depression, Dr. MacKinnon said, “We just don’t know enough to really pin down a physiologic pathway to explain it. The fact that some people seem to have high cortisol and some people seem to have high permeability of blood-brain barrier, and others have abnormalities in dopamine, is interesting and suggests that depression is likely not a unitary disease with a single cause.”

He cautioned, however, that the findings don’t have immediate clinical implications for individual patients with depression. 

“Theoretically, down the road, if you extrapolate from what they found, and if it’s truly the case that this research maps to something that could suggest a different clinical approach, you might be able to determine whether one patient might respond better to an SSRI or an SNRI or something like that,” Dr. MacKinnon said.

Dr. Benros reported grants from Lundbeck Foundation during the conduct of the study. Dr. MacKinnon has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Consistently sleeping 7 hours per night was associated with optimal cognitive function and mental health for middle-aged adults, a new study found.

Sleep disturbances are common in older age, and previous studies have shown associations between too much or too little sleep and increased risk of cognitive decline, but the ideal amount of sleep for preserving mental health has not been well described, according to the authors of the new paper.

In the study published in Nature Aging, the team of researchers from China and the United Kingdom reviewed data from the UK Biobank, a national database of individuals in the United Kingdom that includes cognitive assessments, mental health questionnaires, and brain imaging data, as well as genetic information.

Sleep is important for physical and psychological health, and also serves a neuroprotective function by clearing waste products from the brain, lead author Yuzhu Li of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues wrote.

The study population included 498,277 participants, aged 38-73 years, who completed touchscreen questionnaires about sleep duration between 2006 and 2010. The average age at baseline was 56.5 years, 54% were female, and the mean sleep duration was 7.15 hours.

The researchers also reviewed brain imaging data and genetic data from 39,692 participants in 2014 to examine the relationships between sleep duration and brain structure and between sleep duration and genetic risk. In addition, 156,884 participants completed an online follow-up mental health questionnaire in 2016-2017 to assess the longitudinal impact of sleep on mental health.

Both excessive and insufficient sleep was associated with impaired cognitive performance, evidenced by the U-shaped curve found by the researchers in their data analysis, which used quadratic associations.

Specific cognitive functions including pair matching, trail making, prospective memory, and reaction time were significantly impaired with too much or too little sleep, the researchers said. “This demonstrated the positive association of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration with inferior performance on cognitive tasks.”

When the researchers analyzed the association between sleep duration and mental health, sleep duration also showed a U-shaped association with symptoms of anxiety, depression, mental distress, mania, and self-harm, while well-being showed an inverted U-shape. All associations between sleep duration and mental health were statistically significant after controlling for confounding variables (P < .001).

On further analysis (using two-line tests), the researchers determined that consistent sleep duration of approximately 7 hours per night was optimal for cognitive performance and for good mental health.

The researchers also used neuroimaging data to examine the relationship between sleep duration and brain structure. Overall, greater changes were seen in the regions of the brain involved in cognitive processing and memory.

“The most significant cortical volumes nonlinearly associated with sleep duration included the precentral cortex, the superior frontal gyrus, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, the pars orbitalis, the frontal pole, and the middle temporal cortex,” the researchers wrote (P < .05 for all).

The association between sleep duration and cognitive function diminished among individuals older than 65 years, compared with those aged approximately 40 years, which suggests that optimal sleep duration may be more beneficial in middle age, the researchers noted. However, no similar impact of age was seen for mental health. For brain structure, the nonlinear relationship between sleep duration and cortical volumes was greatest in those aged 44-59 years, and gradually flattened with older age.
 

Research supports sleep discussions with patients

“Primary care physicians can use this study in their discussions with middle-aged and older patients to recommend optimal sleep duration and measures to achieve this sleep target,” Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“This study is important because it demonstrated that both inadequate and excessive sleep patterns were associated with cognitive and mental health changes,” said Dr. Deep. “It supported previous observations of cognitive decline and mental health disorders being linked to disturbed sleep. But this study was unique because it provides data supporting an optimal sleep duration of 7 hours and the ill effects of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration.

“The usual thought process has been to assume that older individuals may not require as much sleep as the younger individuals, but this study supports an optimal time duration of sleep of 7 hours that benefits the older individuals. It was also interesting to note the mental health effects caused by the inadequate and excessive sleep durations,” he added.

As for additional research, “I would like to look into the quality of the sleep, in addition to the duration of sleep,” said Dr. Deep. For example, whether the excessive sleep was caused by poor quality sleep or fragmented sleep leading to the structural and subsequent cognitive decline.
 

Study limitations

“The current study relied on self-reporting of the sleep duration and was not observed and recorded data,” Dr. Deep noted. “It would also be beneficial to not only rely on healthy volunteers reporting the sleep duration, but also obtain sleep data from individuals with known brain disorders.”

The study findings were limited by several other factors, including the use of total sleep duration only, without other measures of sleep hygiene, the researchers noted. More research is needed to investigate the mechanisms driving the association between too much and not enough sleep and poor mental health and cognitive function.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Shanghai Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Technology, the 111 Project, the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China and the Shanghai Rising Star Program.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Consistently sleeping 7 hours per night was associated with optimal cognitive function and mental health for middle-aged adults, a new study found.

Sleep disturbances are common in older age, and previous studies have shown associations between too much or too little sleep and increased risk of cognitive decline, but the ideal amount of sleep for preserving mental health has not been well described, according to the authors of the new paper.

In the study published in Nature Aging, the team of researchers from China and the United Kingdom reviewed data from the UK Biobank, a national database of individuals in the United Kingdom that includes cognitive assessments, mental health questionnaires, and brain imaging data, as well as genetic information.

Sleep is important for physical and psychological health, and also serves a neuroprotective function by clearing waste products from the brain, lead author Yuzhu Li of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues wrote.

The study population included 498,277 participants, aged 38-73 years, who completed touchscreen questionnaires about sleep duration between 2006 and 2010. The average age at baseline was 56.5 years, 54% were female, and the mean sleep duration was 7.15 hours.

The researchers also reviewed brain imaging data and genetic data from 39,692 participants in 2014 to examine the relationships between sleep duration and brain structure and between sleep duration and genetic risk. In addition, 156,884 participants completed an online follow-up mental health questionnaire in 2016-2017 to assess the longitudinal impact of sleep on mental health.

Both excessive and insufficient sleep was associated with impaired cognitive performance, evidenced by the U-shaped curve found by the researchers in their data analysis, which used quadratic associations.

Specific cognitive functions including pair matching, trail making, prospective memory, and reaction time were significantly impaired with too much or too little sleep, the researchers said. “This demonstrated the positive association of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration with inferior performance on cognitive tasks.”

When the researchers analyzed the association between sleep duration and mental health, sleep duration also showed a U-shaped association with symptoms of anxiety, depression, mental distress, mania, and self-harm, while well-being showed an inverted U-shape. All associations between sleep duration and mental health were statistically significant after controlling for confounding variables (P < .001).

On further analysis (using two-line tests), the researchers determined that consistent sleep duration of approximately 7 hours per night was optimal for cognitive performance and for good mental health.

The researchers also used neuroimaging data to examine the relationship between sleep duration and brain structure. Overall, greater changes were seen in the regions of the brain involved in cognitive processing and memory.

“The most significant cortical volumes nonlinearly associated with sleep duration included the precentral cortex, the superior frontal gyrus, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, the pars orbitalis, the frontal pole, and the middle temporal cortex,” the researchers wrote (P < .05 for all).

The association between sleep duration and cognitive function diminished among individuals older than 65 years, compared with those aged approximately 40 years, which suggests that optimal sleep duration may be more beneficial in middle age, the researchers noted. However, no similar impact of age was seen for mental health. For brain structure, the nonlinear relationship between sleep duration and cortical volumes was greatest in those aged 44-59 years, and gradually flattened with older age.
 

Research supports sleep discussions with patients

“Primary care physicians can use this study in their discussions with middle-aged and older patients to recommend optimal sleep duration and measures to achieve this sleep target,” Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“This study is important because it demonstrated that both inadequate and excessive sleep patterns were associated with cognitive and mental health changes,” said Dr. Deep. “It supported previous observations of cognitive decline and mental health disorders being linked to disturbed sleep. But this study was unique because it provides data supporting an optimal sleep duration of 7 hours and the ill effects of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration.

“The usual thought process has been to assume that older individuals may not require as much sleep as the younger individuals, but this study supports an optimal time duration of sleep of 7 hours that benefits the older individuals. It was also interesting to note the mental health effects caused by the inadequate and excessive sleep durations,” he added.

As for additional research, “I would like to look into the quality of the sleep, in addition to the duration of sleep,” said Dr. Deep. For example, whether the excessive sleep was caused by poor quality sleep or fragmented sleep leading to the structural and subsequent cognitive decline.
 

Study limitations

“The current study relied on self-reporting of the sleep duration and was not observed and recorded data,” Dr. Deep noted. “It would also be beneficial to not only rely on healthy volunteers reporting the sleep duration, but also obtain sleep data from individuals with known brain disorders.”

The study findings were limited by several other factors, including the use of total sleep duration only, without other measures of sleep hygiene, the researchers noted. More research is needed to investigate the mechanisms driving the association between too much and not enough sleep and poor mental health and cognitive function.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Shanghai Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Technology, the 111 Project, the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China and the Shanghai Rising Star Program.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Consistently sleeping 7 hours per night was associated with optimal cognitive function and mental health for middle-aged adults, a new study found.

Sleep disturbances are common in older age, and previous studies have shown associations between too much or too little sleep and increased risk of cognitive decline, but the ideal amount of sleep for preserving mental health has not been well described, according to the authors of the new paper.

In the study published in Nature Aging, the team of researchers from China and the United Kingdom reviewed data from the UK Biobank, a national database of individuals in the United Kingdom that includes cognitive assessments, mental health questionnaires, and brain imaging data, as well as genetic information.

Sleep is important for physical and psychological health, and also serves a neuroprotective function by clearing waste products from the brain, lead author Yuzhu Li of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues wrote.

The study population included 498,277 participants, aged 38-73 years, who completed touchscreen questionnaires about sleep duration between 2006 and 2010. The average age at baseline was 56.5 years, 54% were female, and the mean sleep duration was 7.15 hours.

The researchers also reviewed brain imaging data and genetic data from 39,692 participants in 2014 to examine the relationships between sleep duration and brain structure and between sleep duration and genetic risk. In addition, 156,884 participants completed an online follow-up mental health questionnaire in 2016-2017 to assess the longitudinal impact of sleep on mental health.

Both excessive and insufficient sleep was associated with impaired cognitive performance, evidenced by the U-shaped curve found by the researchers in their data analysis, which used quadratic associations.

Specific cognitive functions including pair matching, trail making, prospective memory, and reaction time were significantly impaired with too much or too little sleep, the researchers said. “This demonstrated the positive association of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration with inferior performance on cognitive tasks.”

When the researchers analyzed the association between sleep duration and mental health, sleep duration also showed a U-shaped association with symptoms of anxiety, depression, mental distress, mania, and self-harm, while well-being showed an inverted U-shape. All associations between sleep duration and mental health were statistically significant after controlling for confounding variables (P < .001).

On further analysis (using two-line tests), the researchers determined that consistent sleep duration of approximately 7 hours per night was optimal for cognitive performance and for good mental health.

The researchers also used neuroimaging data to examine the relationship between sleep duration and brain structure. Overall, greater changes were seen in the regions of the brain involved in cognitive processing and memory.

“The most significant cortical volumes nonlinearly associated with sleep duration included the precentral cortex, the superior frontal gyrus, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex, the pars orbitalis, the frontal pole, and the middle temporal cortex,” the researchers wrote (P < .05 for all).

The association between sleep duration and cognitive function diminished among individuals older than 65 years, compared with those aged approximately 40 years, which suggests that optimal sleep duration may be more beneficial in middle age, the researchers noted. However, no similar impact of age was seen for mental health. For brain structure, the nonlinear relationship between sleep duration and cortical volumes was greatest in those aged 44-59 years, and gradually flattened with older age.
 

Research supports sleep discussions with patients

“Primary care physicians can use this study in their discussions with middle-aged and older patients to recommend optimal sleep duration and measures to achieve this sleep target,” Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in group practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

“This study is important because it demonstrated that both inadequate and excessive sleep patterns were associated with cognitive and mental health changes,” said Dr. Deep. “It supported previous observations of cognitive decline and mental health disorders being linked to disturbed sleep. But this study was unique because it provides data supporting an optimal sleep duration of 7 hours and the ill effects of both insufficient and excessive sleep duration.

“The usual thought process has been to assume that older individuals may not require as much sleep as the younger individuals, but this study supports an optimal time duration of sleep of 7 hours that benefits the older individuals. It was also interesting to note the mental health effects caused by the inadequate and excessive sleep durations,” he added.

As for additional research, “I would like to look into the quality of the sleep, in addition to the duration of sleep,” said Dr. Deep. For example, whether the excessive sleep was caused by poor quality sleep or fragmented sleep leading to the structural and subsequent cognitive decline.
 

Study limitations

“The current study relied on self-reporting of the sleep duration and was not observed and recorded data,” Dr. Deep noted. “It would also be beneficial to not only rely on healthy volunteers reporting the sleep duration, but also obtain sleep data from individuals with known brain disorders.”

The study findings were limited by several other factors, including the use of total sleep duration only, without other measures of sleep hygiene, the researchers noted. More research is needed to investigate the mechanisms driving the association between too much and not enough sleep and poor mental health and cognitive function.

The study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Shanghai Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Technology, the 111 Project, the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China and the Shanghai Rising Star Program.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News.
 

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

Cognitive impairment from severe COVID-19 is equivalent to 20 years of aging, report scientists behind a new study, adding that the impairment is “equivalent to losing 10 IQ points.”

In their study, published in eClinicalMedicine, a team of scientists from the University of Cambridge and Imperial College London said there is growing evidence that COVID-19 can cause lasting cognitive and mental health problems. Patients report fatigue, “brain fog,” problems recalling words, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and even posttraumatic stress disorder months after infection.

The researchers analyzed data from 46 individuals who received critical care for COVID-19 at Addenbrooke’s Hospital between March and July 2020 (27 females, 19 males, mean age 51 years, 16 of whom had mechanical ventilation) and were recruited to the NIHR COVID-19 BioResource project.

At an average of 6 months after acute COVID-19 illness, the study participants underwent detailed computerized cognitive tests via the Cognitron platform,  comprising eight tasks deployed on an iPad measuring mental function such as memory, attention, and reasoning. Also assessed were anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder via standard mood, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress scales – specifically the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7), the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), and the PTSD Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (PCL-5). Their data were compared against 460 controls – matched for age, sex, education, and first language – and the pattern of deficits across tasks was qualitatively compared with normal age-related decline and early-stage dementia.
 

Less accurate and slower response times

The authors highlighted how this was the first time a “rigorous assessment and comparison” had been carried out in relation to the after-effects of severe COVID-19.

“Cognitive impairment is common to a wide range of neurological disorders, including dementia, and even routine aging, but the patterns we saw – the cognitive ‘fingerprint’ of COVID-19 – was distinct from all of these,” said David Menon, MD, division of anesthesia at the University of Cambridge, England, and the study’s senior author.

The scientists found that COVID-19 survivors were less accurate and had slower response times than the control population, and added that survivors scored particularly poorly on verbal analogical reasoning and showed slower processing speeds.

Critically, the scale of the cognitive deficits correlated with acute illness severity, but not fatigue or mental health status at the time of cognitive assessment, said the authors.
 

Recovery ‘at best gradual’

The effects were strongest for those with more severe acute illness, and who required mechanical ventilation, said the authors, who found that acute illness severity was “better at predicting the cognitive deficits.”

The authors pointed out how these deficits were still detectable when patients were followed up 6 months later, and that, although patients’ scores and reaction times began to improve over time, any recovery was “at best gradual” and likely to be influenced by factors such as illness severity and its neurological or psychological impacts.

“We followed some patients up as late as 10 months after their acute infection, so were able to see a very slow improvement,” Dr. Menon said. He explained how, while this improvement was not statistically significant, it was “at least heading in the right direction.”

However, he warned it is very possible that some of these individuals “will never fully recover.”

The cognitive deficits observed may be due to several factors in combination, said the authors, including inadequate oxygen or blood supply to the brain, blockage of large or small blood vessels due to clotting, and microscopic bleeds. They highlighted how the most important mechanism, however, may be “damage caused by the body’s own inflammatory response and immune system.”

Adam Hampshire, PhD, of the department of brain sciences at Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, described how around 40,000 people have been through intensive care with COVID-19 in England alone, with many more despite having been very sick not admitted to hospital. This means there is a “large number of people out there still experiencing problems with cognition many months later,” he said. “We urgently need to look at what can be done to help these people.”

A version of this article first appeared on Univadis.

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. However, a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD-only at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, told this news organization. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings April 30 at the Heart Rhythm Society 2022 Scientific Sessions, conducted virtually and live in San Francisco.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

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

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

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

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

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

More concussions coming?

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

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

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

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

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

“Very positive shifts”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

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

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

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

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

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

More concussions coming?

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

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

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

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

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

“Very positive shifts”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Differences by sex

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

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

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

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

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

More concussions coming?

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

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

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

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

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

“Very positive shifts”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

The risk for dementia goes up in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), but some evidence suggests that risk can be blunted with therapies that restore sinus rhythm. But a new cohort study suggests that the treatment effect’s magnitude might depend on the rhythm control strategy. It hinted that AFib catheter ablation might be more effective than pharmacologic rhythm control alone at cutting the risk for dementia.

The case-matched study of more than 38,000 adults with AFib saw a 41% reduction (P < .0001) in risk for dementia among those who underwent catheter ablation after attempted rhythm control with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD), compared with those managed with pharmacologic rhythm control therapy alone.

The observational study comprising 20 years of data comes with big limitations and can’t say for sure whether catheter ablation is better than AAD alone at cutting the dementia risk in AFib. But it and other evidence support the idea, which has yet to be explored in a randomized fashion.

In a secondary finding, the analysis showed a similar reduction in dementia risk from catheter ablation, compared with AAD, in women and in men by 40% and 45%, respectively (P < .0001 for both). The findings are particularly relevant “given the higher life-long risk of dementia among women and the lower likelihood that women will be offered ablation, which has been demonstrated repeatedly,” Emily P. Zeitler, MD, MHS, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, N.H., said in an interview. “I think this is another reason to try to be more generous in offering ablation to women.”

Management of AFib certainly evolved in important ways from 2000 to 2021, the period covered by the study. But a sensitivity analysis based on data from 2010 to 2021 showed “no meaningful differences” in the results, said Dr. Zeitler, who is slated to present the findings at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society.

Dr. Zeitler acknowledged that the observational study, even with its propensity-matched ablation and AAD cohorts, can only hint at a preference for ablation over AAD for lowering risk for AFib-associated dementia. “We know there’s unmeasured and unfixable confounding between those two groups, so we see this really as hypothesis-generating.”

It was “a well-done analysis,” and the conclusion that the dementia risk was lower with catheter ablation is “absolutely correct,” but only as far as the study and its limitations allow, agreed David Conen, MD, MPH, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who is not a coauthor.

“Even with propensity matching, you can get rid of some sorts of confounding, but you can never get rid of all selection bias issues.” That, he said when interviewed, takes randomized trials.

Dr. Conen, who is studying cognitive decline in AFib as a SWISS-AF trial principal investigator, pointed to a secondary finding of the analysis as evidence for such confounding. He said the ablation group’s nearly 50% drop (P < .0001) in competing risk for death, compared with patients managed with AAD, isn’t plausible.

The finding “strongly suggests these people were healthier and that there’s some sort of selection bias. They were at lower risk of death, they were at lower risk of dementia, and they were probably also at lower risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, and cancer because they were just probably a little healthier than the others,” Dr. Conen said. The ablation and AAD groups “were two very different populations from the get-go.”

The analysis was based on U.S. insurance and Medicare claims data from AFib patients who either underwent catheter ablation after at least one AAD trial or filled prescriptions for at least two different antiarrhythmic agents in the year after AFib diagnosis. Patients with history of dementia, catheter or surgical AFib ablation, or a valve procedure were excluded.

The ablation and AAD-only groups each consisted of 19,066 patients after propensity matching, and the groups were balanced with respect to age, sex, type of insurance, CHA2DS2-VASc scores, and use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and antiplatelets.

The overall risk for dementia was 1.9% for the ablation group and 3.3% for AAD-only patients (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.67). Corresponding HRs by sex were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.46-0.66) for men and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for women.

The competing risk for death was also significantly decreased in the ablation group (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.46-0.55).

Dr. Zeitler pointed to a randomized trial now in the early stages called Neurocognition and Greater Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Atrial Fibrillation, or NOGGIN-AF, which will explore relationships between rhythm control therapy and dementia in patients with AFib, whether catheter ablation or AAD can mitigate that risk, and whether either strategy works better than the other, among other goals.

“I’m optimistic,” she said, “and I think it’s going to add to the growing motivations to get patients ablated more quickly and more broadly.”

The analysis was funded by Biosense-Webster. Dr. Zeitler disclosed consulting for Biosense-Webster and Arena Pharmaceuticals (now Pfizer); fees for speaking from Medtronic; and receiving research support from Boston Scientific, Sanofi, and Biosense-Webster. Dr. Conen has previously reported receiving speaker fees from Servier Canada.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) is linked to a significantly increased risk for a host of subsequent cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and psychiatric disorders, new research shows.

Incidence of hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, depression, and dementia all began to increase soon after the brain injury and persisted over a decade in both mild and moderate to severe TBI.

Researchers found the multisystem comorbidities in all age groups, including in patients as young as 18. They also found that patients who developed multiple postinjury problems had higher mortality during the decade-long follow-up.

The findings suggest patients with TBI may require longer follow-up and proactive screening for multisystem disease, regardless of age or injury severity.

“The fact that both patients with mild and moderate to severe injuries both had long-term ongoing associations with comorbidities that continued over time and that they are cardiovascular, endocrine, neurologic, and behavioral health oriented was pretty striking,” study author Ross Zafonte, DO, PhD, president of Spaulding Rehab Hospital and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehab at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Injury severity not a factor

An estimated 2.8 million individuals in the United States experience TBI every year. Worldwide, the figure may be as high as 74 million.

Studies have long suggested a link between brain injury and subsequent neurologic disorders, but research suggesting a possible link to cardiovascular and endocrine problems has recently gained attention.

Building on a 2021 study that showed increased incidence of cardiovascular issues following a concussion, the researchers examined medical records of previously healthy patients treated for TBI between 2000 and 2015 who also had at least 1 follow-up visit between 6 months and 10 years after the initial injury.

Researchers analyzed data from 13,053 individuals – 4,351 with mild injury (mTBI), 4351 with moderate to severe injury (msTBI), and 4351 with no TBI. The most common cause of injury was a fall. Patients with sports-related injuries were excluded.

Incidence of hypertension was significantly higher among patients with mTBI (hazard ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 2.1-2.9) and msTBI (HR, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.0-2.9), compared with the unaffected group. Risk for other cardiovascular problems, including hyperlipidemia, obesity, and coronary artery disease, were also higher in the affected groups.

TBI patients also reported higher incidence of endocrine diseases, including diabetes (mTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7; msTBI: HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6). Elevated risk for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack was also increased (mTBI: HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3; msTBI: HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.3).

Regardless of injury severity, patients with TBI had a higher risk for neurologic and psychiatric diseases, particularly depression, dementia, and psychotic disorders. “This tells us that mild TBI is not clean of events,” Dr. Zafonte said.

Surprising rate of comorbidity in youth

Investigators found increased risk for posttrauma comorbidities in all age groups, but researchers were struck by the high rates in younger patients, aged 18-40. Compared with age-matched individuals with no TBI history, hypertension risk was nearly six times higher in those with mTBI (HR, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.9-9.1) and nearly four times higher in patients with msTBI (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.5-6.1).

Rates of hyperlipidemia and diabetes were also higher in younger patients in the mTBI group and posttraumatic seizures and psychiatric disorders were elevated regardless of TBI severity.

Overall, patients with msTBI, but not those with mTBI, were at higher risk for mortality, compared with the unexposed group (432 deaths [9.9%] vs. 250 deaths [5.7%]; P < .001).

“It’s clear that what we may be dealing with is that it holds up even for the younger people,” Dr. Zafonte said. “We used to think brain injury risk is worse in the severe cases, which it is, and it’s worse later on among those who are older, which it is. But our younger folks don’t get away either.”

While the study offers associations between TBI and multisystem health problems, Dr. Zafonte said it’s impossible to say at this point whether the brain injury caused the increased risk for cardiovascular or endocrine problems. Other organ injuries sustained in the trauma may be a contributing factor.

“Further data is needed to elucidate the mechanism and the causative relationships, which we do not have here,” he said.

Many of the postinjury comorbidities emerged a median of 3.5 years after TBI, regardless of severity. But some of the cardiovascular and psychiatric conditions emerged far sooner than that.

That’s important because research suggests less than half of patients with TBI receive follow-up care.

“It does make sense for folks who are interacting with people who’ve had a TBI to be suspicious of medical comorbidities relatively early on, within the first couple of years,” Dr. Zafonte said.

In an invited commentary, Vijay Krishnamoorthy, MD, MPH, PhD, Duke University, Durham, N.C., and Monica S. Vavilala, MD, University of Washington, Seattle, highlight some of the study’s limitations, including a lack of information on comorbidity severity and the lack of a matched group of patients who experienced non-head trauma.

Despite those limitations, the study offers important information on how TBI may affect organs beyond the brain, they noted.

“These observations, if replicated in future studies, raise intriguing implications in the future care of patients with TBI, including heightened chronic disease-screening measures and possibly enhanced guidelines for chronic extracranial organ system care for patients who experience TBI,” Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala wrote.

The study received no specific funding. Dr. Zafonte reported having received personal fees from Springer/Demos, serving on scientific advisory boards for Myomo and OnCare and has received funding from the Football Players Health Study at Harvard, funded in part by the National Football League Players Association. Dr. Krishnamoorthy and Dr. Vavilala disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As a regular viewer of Jeopardy! I find it both interesting and educational. But the psychiatric neuroscientist in me marvels at the splendid cerebral attributes embedded in the brains of Jeopardy! champions.

Back in my college days, I participated in what were then called “general knowledge contests” and won a couple of trophies, the most gratifying of which was when our team of medical students beat the faculty team! Later, when my wife and I had children, Trivial Pursuit was a game frequently played in our household. So it is no wonder I have often thought of the remarkable, sometimes stunning intellectual performances of Jeopardy! champions.

What does it take to excel at Jeopardy!?

Watching contestants successfully answer a bewildering array of questions across an extensive spectrum of topics is simply dazzling and prompts me to ask: Which neurologic structures play a central role in the brains of Jeopardy! champions? So I channeled my inner neurobiologist and came up with the following prerequisites to excel at Jeopardy!:

• A hippocampus on steroids! Memory is obviously a core ingredient for responding to Jeopardy! questions. Unlike ordinary mortals, Jeopardy! champions appear to retain and instantaneously, accurately recall everything they have read, saw, or heard.
• A sublime network of dendritic spines, where learning is immediately transduced to biological memories, thanks to the wonders of experiential neuroplasticity in homo sapiens.
• A superlative frontal lobe, which provides the champion with an ultra-rapid abstraction ability in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, along with razor-sharp concentration and attention.
• An extremely well-myelinated network of the 137,000 miles of white mat­ter fibers in the human brain. This is what leads to fabulous processing speed. Rapid neurotransmission is impossible without very well-myelinated axons and dendrites. It is not enough for a Jeopardy! champion to know the answer and retrieve it from the hippocampus—they also must transmit the answer at lightning speed to the speech area, and then activate the motor area to enunciate the answer. Processing speed is the foundation of overall cognitive functioning.
• A first-rate Broca’s area, referred to as “the brain’s scriptwriter,” which shapes human speech. It receives the flow of sensory information from the temporal cortex, devises a plan for speaking, and passes that plan seamlessly to the motor cortex, which controls the movements of the mouth.
• Blistering speed reflexes to click the handheld response buzzer within a fraction of a millisecond after the host finishes reading the clue (not before, or a penalty is incurred). Jeopardy! champions always click the buzzer faster than their competitors, who may know the answer but have ordinary motor reflexes (also related to the degree of myelination and a motoric component of processing speed).
• A thick corpus callosum, the largest interhemispheric commissure, a bundle of 200 million white matter fibers connecting analogous regions in the right and left hemispheres, is vital for the rapid bidirectional transfer of bits of information from the intuitive/nonverbal right hemisphere to the mathematical/verbal left hemisphere, when the answer requires right hemispheric input.
• A bright occipital cortex and exceptional optic nerve and retina, so that champions can recognize faces or locations and read the questions before the host finishes reading them, which gives them an awesome edge on other contestants.

Obviously, the brains of Jeopardy! champions are a breed of their own, with exceptional performances by multiple regions converging to produce a winning performance. But during their childhood and youthful years, such brains also generate motivation, curiosity, and interest in a wide range of topics, from cultures, regions, music genres, and word games to history, geography, sports, science, medicine, astronomy, and Greek mythology.

Jeopardy! champions may appear to have regular jobs and ordinary lives, but they have resplendent “renaissance” brains. I wonder how they spent their childhood, who mentored them, what type of family lives they had, and what they dream of accomplishing other than winning on Jeopardy!. Will their awe-inspiring performance in Jeopardy! translate to overall success in life? That’s a story that remains to be told.

As a regular viewer of Jeopardy! I find it both interesting and educational. But the psychiatric neuroscientist in me marvels at the splendid cerebral attributes embedded in the brains of Jeopardy! champions.

Back in my college days, I participated in what were then called “general knowledge contests” and won a couple of trophies, the most gratifying of which was when our team of medical students beat the faculty team! Later, when my wife and I had children, Trivial Pursuit was a game frequently played in our household. So it is no wonder I have often thought of the remarkable, sometimes stunning intellectual performances of Jeopardy! champions.

What does it take to excel at Jeopardy!?

Watching contestants successfully answer a bewildering array of questions across an extensive spectrum of topics is simply dazzling and prompts me to ask: Which neurologic structures play a central role in the brains of Jeopardy! champions? So I channeled my inner neurobiologist and came up with the following prerequisites to excel at Jeopardy!:

• A hippocampus on steroids! Memory is obviously a core ingredient for responding to Jeopardy! questions. Unlike ordinary mortals, Jeopardy! champions appear to retain and instantaneously, accurately recall everything they have read, saw, or heard.
• A sublime network of dendritic spines, where learning is immediately transduced to biological memories, thanks to the wonders of experiential neuroplasticity in homo sapiens.
• A superlative frontal lobe, which provides the champion with an ultra-rapid abstraction ability in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, along with razor-sharp concentration and attention.
• An extremely well-myelinated network of the 137,000 miles of white mat­ter fibers in the human brain. This is what leads to fabulous processing speed. Rapid neurotransmission is impossible without very well-myelinated axons and dendrites. It is not enough for a Jeopardy! champion to know the answer and retrieve it from the hippocampus—they also must transmit the answer at lightning speed to the speech area, and then activate the motor area to enunciate the answer. Processing speed is the foundation of overall cognitive functioning.
• A first-rate Broca’s area, referred to as “the brain’s scriptwriter,” which shapes human speech. It receives the flow of sensory information from the temporal cortex, devises a plan for speaking, and passes that plan seamlessly to the motor cortex, which controls the movements of the mouth.
• Blistering speed reflexes to click the handheld response buzzer within a fraction of a millisecond after the host finishes reading the clue (not before, or a penalty is incurred). Jeopardy! champions always click the buzzer faster than their competitors, who may know the answer but have ordinary motor reflexes (also related to the degree of myelination and a motoric component of processing speed).
• A thick corpus callosum, the largest interhemispheric commissure, a bundle of 200 million white matter fibers connecting analogous regions in the right and left hemispheres, is vital for the rapid bidirectional transfer of bits of information from the intuitive/nonverbal right hemisphere to the mathematical/verbal left hemisphere, when the answer requires right hemispheric input.
• A bright occipital cortex and exceptional optic nerve and retina, so that champions can recognize faces or locations and read the questions before the host finishes reading them, which gives them an awesome edge on other contestants.

Obviously, the brains of Jeopardy! champions are a breed of their own, with exceptional performances by multiple regions converging to produce a winning performance. But during their childhood and youthful years, such brains also generate motivation, curiosity, and interest in a wide range of topics, from cultures, regions, music genres, and word games to history, geography, sports, science, medicine, astronomy, and Greek mythology.

Jeopardy! champions may appear to have regular jobs and ordinary lives, but they have resplendent “renaissance” brains. I wonder how they spent their childhood, who mentored them, what type of family lives they had, and what they dream of accomplishing other than winning on Jeopardy!. Will their awe-inspiring performance in Jeopardy! translate to overall success in life? That’s a story that remains to be told.

As a regular viewer of Jeopardy! I find it both interesting and educational. But the psychiatric neuroscientist in me marvels at the splendid cerebral attributes embedded in the brains of Jeopardy! champions.

Back in my college days, I participated in what were then called “general knowledge contests” and won a couple of trophies, the most gratifying of which was when our team of medical students beat the faculty team! Later, when my wife and I had children, Trivial Pursuit was a game frequently played in our household. So it is no wonder I have often thought of the remarkable, sometimes stunning intellectual performances of Jeopardy! champions.

What does it take to excel at Jeopardy!?

Watching contestants successfully answer a bewildering array of questions across an extensive spectrum of topics is simply dazzling and prompts me to ask: Which neurologic structures play a central role in the brains of Jeopardy! champions? So I channeled my inner neurobiologist and came up with the following prerequisites to excel at Jeopardy!:

• A hippocampus on steroids! Memory is obviously a core ingredient for responding to Jeopardy! questions. Unlike ordinary mortals, Jeopardy! champions appear to retain and instantaneously, accurately recall everything they have read, saw, or heard.
• A sublime network of dendritic spines, where learning is immediately transduced to biological memories, thanks to the wonders of experiential neuroplasticity in homo sapiens.
• A superlative frontal lobe, which provides the champion with an ultra-rapid abstraction ability in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, along with razor-sharp concentration and attention.
• An extremely well-myelinated network of the 137,000 miles of white mat­ter fibers in the human brain. This is what leads to fabulous processing speed. Rapid neurotransmission is impossible without very well-myelinated axons and dendrites. It is not enough for a Jeopardy! champion to know the answer and retrieve it from the hippocampus—they also must transmit the answer at lightning speed to the speech area, and then activate the motor area to enunciate the answer. Processing speed is the foundation of overall cognitive functioning.
• A first-rate Broca’s area, referred to as “the brain’s scriptwriter,” which shapes human speech. It receives the flow of sensory information from the temporal cortex, devises a plan for speaking, and passes that plan seamlessly to the motor cortex, which controls the movements of the mouth.
• Blistering speed reflexes to click the handheld response buzzer within a fraction of a millisecond after the host finishes reading the clue (not before, or a penalty is incurred). Jeopardy! champions always click the buzzer faster than their competitors, who may know the answer but have ordinary motor reflexes (also related to the degree of myelination and a motoric component of processing speed).
• A thick corpus callosum, the largest interhemispheric commissure, a bundle of 200 million white matter fibers connecting analogous regions in the right and left hemispheres, is vital for the rapid bidirectional transfer of bits of information from the intuitive/nonverbal right hemisphere to the mathematical/verbal left hemisphere, when the answer requires right hemispheric input.
• A bright occipital cortex and exceptional optic nerve and retina, so that champions can recognize faces or locations and read the questions before the host finishes reading them, which gives them an awesome edge on other contestants.

Obviously, the brains of Jeopardy! champions are a breed of their own, with exceptional performances by multiple regions converging to produce a winning performance. But during their childhood and youthful years, such brains also generate motivation, curiosity, and interest in a wide range of topics, from cultures, regions, music genres, and word games to history, geography, sports, science, medicine, astronomy, and Greek mythology.

Jeopardy! champions may appear to have regular jobs and ordinary lives, but they have resplendent “renaissance” brains. I wonder how they spent their childhood, who mentored them, what type of family lives they had, and what they dream of accomplishing other than winning on Jeopardy!. Will their awe-inspiring performance in Jeopardy! translate to overall success in life? That’s a story that remains to be told.