No abstract available.
Studies suggest that inducing gut microbiota changes may alter both muscle physiology and cognitive behaviour. Gut microbiota may play a role in both anabolic resistance of older muscle, and cognition. In this placebo controlled double blinded randomised controlled trial of 36 twin pairs (72 individuals), aged ≥60, each twin pair are block randomised to receive either placebo or prebiotic daily for 12 weeks. Resistance exercise and branched chain amino acid (BCAA) supplementation is prescribed to all participants. Outcomes are physical function and cognition. The trial is carried out remotely using video visits, online questionnaires and cognitive testing, and posting of equipment and biological samples. The prebiotic supplement is well tolerated and results in a changed gut microbiome [e.g., increased relative Bifidobacterium abundance]. There is no significant difference between prebiotic and placebo for the primary outcome of chair rise time (β = 0.579; 95% CI -1.080-2.239 p = 0.494). The prebiotic improves cognition (factor score versus placebo (β = -0.482; 95% CI,-0.813, -0.141; p = 0.014)). Our results demonstrate that cheap and readily available gut microbiome interventions may improve cognition in our ageing population. We illustrate the feasibility of remotely delivered trials for older people, which could reduce under-representation of older people in clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04309292.
Frontotemporal dementia should be considered in adults aged 50–75 years presenting with behavioural or language changes. After Alzheimer disease, it is the second most common cause of dementia among adults younger than 65 years.1 Frontal and temporal lobe degeneration results in behavioural or language impairment.
Background: Individuals with mild cognitive impairment are at high risk of developing dementia. Dance therapy has promising applications in delaying cognitive decline. However, the effectiveness of dance therapy for older adults with mild cognitive impairment is unclear. The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of dance therapy on global cognitive function, specific cognitive subdomains, quality of life, and mental health in older adults with mild cognitive impairment to enrich health management strategies for dementia.
Methods: Electronic databases and grey literature were searched from inception up to September 23, 2023. The language was limited to English and Chinese. Relevant studies were screened and assessed for risk of bias. A meta-analysis and subgroup analyses stratified by measurement instrument, dance type, intervention duration, and frequency were conducted using the STATA 16.0 software. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.
Results: Ten studies involving 984 participants aged 55 years and over who met the eligibility criteria were included. Dance therapy significantly improved global cognitive function, memory, executive function, attention, language, and mental health (i.e., depression and neuropsychiatric symptoms). However, the effects of dance therapy on processing speed, visuospatial ability, and quality of life in older adults with mild cognitive impairment remain inconclusive. Moreover, dance interventions of longer duration (> 3 months) improved global cognition more than shorter interventions.
Conclusion: This review reported that dance therapy was effective in improving global cognitive function, memory, executive function, attention, language, and mental health (i.e., depression and neuropsychiatric symptoms). Hence, it may be an effective non-pharmacological complementary treatment for older adults with mild cognitive impairment.
Objectives. To evaluate the evidence on benefits and harms of cannabinoids and similar plant-based compounds to treat chronic pain.
Data sources. Ovid® MEDLINE®, PsycINFO®, Embase®, the Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS® databases, reference lists of included studies, submissions received after Federal Register request were searched to July 2021.
Review methods. Using dual review, we screened search results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients with chronic pain evaluating cannabis, kratom, and similar compounds with any comparison group and at least 1 month of treatment or followup. Dual review was used to abstract study data, assess study-level risk of bias, and rate the strength of evidence. Prioritized outcomes included pain, overall function, and adverse events. We grouped studies that assessed tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and/or cannabidiol (CBD) based on their THC to CBD ratio and categorized them as high-THC to CBD ratio, comparable THC to CBD ratio, and low-THC to CBD ratio. We also grouped studies by whether the product was a whole-plant product (cannabis), cannabinoids extracted or purified from a whole plant, or synthetic. We conducted meta-analyses using the profile likelihood random effects model and assessed between-study heterogeneity using Cochran’s Q statistic chi square and the I2 test for inconsistency. Magnitude of benefit was categorized into no effect or small, moderate, and large effects.
Results. From 2,850 abstracts, 20 RCTs (N=1,776) and 7 observational studies (N=13,095) assessing different cannabinoids were included; none of kratom. Studies were primarily short term, and 75 percent enrolled patients with a variety of neuropathic pain. Comparators were primarily placebo or usual care. The strength of evidence (SOE) was low, unless otherwise noted. Compared with placebo, comparable THC to CBD ratio oral spray was associated with a small benefit in change in pain severity (7 RCTs, N=632, 0 to10 scale, mean difference [MD] −0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.95 to −0.19, I2=28%; SOE: moderate) and overall function (6 RCTs, N=616, 0 to 10 scale, MD −0.42, 95% CI −0.73 to −0.16, I2=24%). There was no effect on study withdrawals due to adverse events. There was a large increased risk of dizziness and sedation and a moderate increased risk of nausea (dizziness: 6 RCTs, N=866, 30% vs. 8%, relative risk [RR] 3.57, 95% CI 2.42 to 5.60, I2=0%; sedation: 6 RCTs, N=866, 22% vs. 16%, RR 5.04, 95% CI 2.10 to 11.89, I2=0%; and nausea: 6 RCTs, N=866, 13% vs. 7.5%, RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.78, I2=0%). Synthetic products with high-THC to CBD ratios were associated with a moderate improvement in pain severity, a moderate increase in sedation, and a large increase in nausea (pain: 6 RCTs, N=390 to 10 scale, MD −1.15, 95% CI −1.99 to −0.54, I2=39%; sedation: 3 RCTs, N=335, 19% vs. 10%, RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.03 to 4.63, I2=0%; nausea: 2 RCTs, N=302, 12% vs. 6%, RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.77 to 5.39; I²=0%). We found moderate SOE for a large increased risk of dizziness (2 RCTs, 32% vs. 11%, RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.47 to 6.86, I2=0%). Extracted whole-plant products with high-THC to CBD ratios (oral) were associated with a large increased risk of study withdrawal due to adverse events (1 RCT, 13.9% vs. 5.7%, RR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54 to 6.33) and dizziness (1 RCT, 62.2% vs. 7.5%, RR 8.34, 95% CI 4.53 to 15.34). We observed a moderate improvement in pain severity when combining all studies of high-THC to CBD ratio (8 RCTs, N=684, MD −1.25, 95% CI −2.09 to −0.71, I2=50%; SOE: moderate). Evidence on whole-plant cannabis, topical CBD, low-THC to CBD, other cannabinoids, comparisons with active products, and impact on use of opioids was insufficient to draw conclusions. Other important harms (psychosis, cannabis use disorder, and cognitive effects) were not reported.
Conclusions. Low to moderate strength evidence suggests small to moderate improvements in pain (mostly neuropathic), and moderate to large increases in common adverse events (dizziness, sedation, nausea) and study withdrawal due to adverse events with high- and comparable THC to CBD ratio extracted cannabinoids and synthetic products in short-term treatment (1 to 6 months). Evidence for whole-plant cannabis, and other comparisons, outcomes, and PBCs were unavailable or insufficient to draw conclusions. Small sample sizes, lack of evidence for moderate and long-term use and other key outcomes, such as other adverse events and impact on use of opioids during treatment, indicate that more research is needed.
Background
Long-COVID refers to a variety of symptoms affecting different organs reported by people following Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. To date, there have been no robust estimates of the incidence and co-occurrence of long-COVID features, their relationship to age, sex, or severity of infection, and the extent to which they are specific to COVID-19. The aim of this study is to address these issues.
Methods and findings
We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on linked electronic health records (EHRs) data from 81 million patients including 273,618 COVID-19 survivors. The incidence and co-occurrence within 6 months and in the 3 to 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis were calculated for 9 core features of long-COVID (breathing difficulties/breathlessness, fatigue/malaise, chest/throat pain, headache, abdominal symptoms, myalgia, other pain, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety/depression). Their co-occurrence network was also analyzed. Comparison with a propensity score–matched cohort of patients diagnosed with influenza during the same time period was achieved using Kaplan–Meier analysis and the Cox proportional hazard model. The incidence of atopic dermatitis was used as a negative control.
Among COVID-19 survivors (mean [SD] age: 46.3 [19.8], 55.6% female), 57.00% had one or more long-COVID feature recorded during the whole 6-month period (i.e., including the acute phase), and 36.55% between 3 and 6 months. The incidence of each feature was: abnormal breathing (18.71% in the 1- to 180-day period; 7.94% in the 90- to180-day period), fatigue/malaise (12.82%; 5.87%), chest/throat pain (12.60%; 5.71%), headache (8.67%; 4.63%), other pain (11.60%; 7.19%), abdominal symptoms (15.58%; 8.29%), myalgia (3.24%; 1.54%), cognitive symptoms (7.88%; 3.95%), and anxiety/depression (22.82%; 15.49%). All 9 features were more frequently reported after COVID-19 than after influenza (with an overall excess incidence of 16.60% and hazard ratios between 1.44 and 2.04, all p < 0.001), co-occurred more commonly, and formed a more interconnected network. Significant differences in incidence and co-occurrence were associated with sex, age, and illness severity. Besides the limitations inherent to EHR data, limitations of this study include that (i) the findings do not generalize to patients who have had COVID-19 but were not diagnosed, nor to patients who do not seek or receive medical attention when experiencing symptoms of long-COVID; (ii) the findings say nothing about the persistence of the clinical features; and (iii) the difference between cohorts might be affected by one cohort seeking or receiving more medical attention for their symptoms.
Conclusions
Long-COVID clinical features occurred and co-occurred frequently and showed some specificity to COVID-19, though they were also observed after influenza. Different long-COVID clinical profiles were observed based on demographics and illness severity.
Author summary
Why was this study done?
Long-COVID has been described in recent studies. But we do not know the risk of developing features of this condition and how it is affected by factors such as age, sex, or severity of infection.
We do not know if the risk of having features of long-COVID is more likely after Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) than after influenza.
We do not know about the extent to which different features of long-COVID co-occur.
What did the researchers do and find?
This research used data from electronic health records of 273,618 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and estimated the risk of having long-COVID features in the 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. It compared the risk of long-COVID features in different groups within the population and also compared the risk to that after influenza.
The research found that over 1 in 3 patients had one or more features of long-COVID recorded between 3 and 6 months after a diagnosis of COVID-19. This was significantly higher than after influenza.
For 2 in 5 of the patients who had long-COVID features in the 3- to 6-month period, they had no record of any such feature in the previous 3 months.
The risk of long-COVID features was higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 illness, and slightly higher among females and young adults. White and non-white patients were equally affected.
What do these findings mean?
Knowing the risk of long-COVID features helps in planning the relevant healthcare service provision.
The fact that the risk is higher after COVID-19 than after influenza suggests that their origin might, in part, directly involve infection with SARS-CoV-2 and is not just a general consequence of viral infection. This might help in developing effective treatments against long-COVID.
The findings in the subgroups, and the fact that the majority of patients who have features of long-COVID in the 3- to 6-month period already had symptoms in the first 3 months, may help in identifying those at greatest risk.
A 64-year-old man presented with concern about an abnormal genetic test result for apolipoprotein E (APOE) obtained through his primary care physician. He reported forgetfulness and word-finding difficulties for 3 years but performed all activities of daily living independently and was generally healthy. His father and maternal great aunt developed dementia in their 70s. Physical (including neurologic) examination, basic laboratory studies, and brain magnetic resonance imaging results were normal. The Short Test of Mental Status (STMS) score was 33 (maximal attainable score of 38 indicates best performance). Neuropsychological assessment showed average to above-average performance in all cognitive domains, accounting for age and education. Results of his genetic testing for APOE were reported as follows: “This individual possesses an apolipoprotein E genotype (3 and 4) that indicates, with high specificity, that Alzheimer’s disease is the cause of or a contributor to the observed dementia.”
Abstract
High school athletes sustaining a concussion require careful attention when determining return-to-sport (RTS) readiness. The purpose of this study was to determine epidemiological and RTS data of a large cohort of high school athletes who sustained 1 or more concussions. Records of 357 consecutive youth patients who sustained concussions and presented to a single health care system between September 2013 and December 2016 were reviewed. Demographic data, RTS, and concussion-related variables were obtained via chart review. Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) scores at baseline and following concussions were performed by neuropsychologists. The average age at injury was 15.5 years (range, 14-18 years), 61.9% of patients were male, 6.7% reported a loss of consciousness, and 14.3% reported amnesia, requiring 30.4±23.3 days of recovery prior to RTS. The most common sport of injury was football (27.7%). There was a high incidence of previous concussion (33.1%), and 32 athletes sustained a recurrent concussion. A multivariate model demonstrated that females, players with a history of concussion, and those diagnosed in-clinic rather than in-game required increased time to RTS. Memory ImPACT scores were found to increase as players had recurrent concussions. Visual motor speed and reaction time scores decreased with recurrent concussions. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(x):xx-xx.].
Copyright 2020, SLACK Incorporated.
Context: The World Health Organization recommends tummy time for infants because of the benefits of improved motor development and reduced likelihood of plagiocephaly. Because of poor uptake of these recommendations, the association of tummy time with other health outcomes requires further investigation.
Objective: To review existing evidence regarding the association of tummy time with a broad and specific range of infant health outcomes.
Data sources: Electronic databases were searched between June 2018 and April 2019.
Study selection: Peer-reviewed English-language articles were included if they investigated a population of healthy infants (0 to 12 months), using an observational or experimental study design containing an objective or subjective measure of tummy time which examined the association with a health outcome (adiposity, motor development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, fitness, cardiometabolic health, or risks/harms).
Data extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed their quality.
Results: Sixteen articles representing 4237 participants from 8 countries were included. Tummy time was positively associated with gross motor and total development, a reduction in the BMI-zscore, prevention of brachycephaly, and the ability to move while prone, supine, crawling, and rolling. An indeterminate association was found for social and cognitive domains, plagiocephaly, walking, standing, and sitting. No association was found for fine motor development and communication.
Limitations: Most studies were observational in design and lacked the robustness of a randomized controlled trial. High selection and performance bias were also present.
Conclusions: These findings guide the prioritization of interventions aimed at assisting parents meet the global and national physical activity guidelines.
Objective. To summarize evidence on: (1) the accuracy of brief cognitive tests for identifying clinical Alzheimer’s-type dementia (CATD) in individuals with suspected cognitive impairment; (2) the accuracy of biomarkers for identifying Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in individuals with dementia; and (3) the benefits and harms of prescription drugs and supplements for cognition, function, and behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) in patients with CATD.
Data sources. Electronic bibliographic databases to March 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov, systematic review bibliographies.
Review methods. Cognitive test accuracy studies must have used explicit CATD diagnostic criteria and a non-CATD control group. Biomarker accuracy studies must have used neuropathologic criteria to define AD cases and non-AD controls. All treatment trials must have enrolled participants with CATD; those evaluating BPSD enrolled individuals with CATD and BPSD. Minimum trial duration was 2 weeks for agitation, aggression, psychosis, and disinhibited sexual behavior, and 24 weeks for other outcomes. Two reviewers rated risk of bias (ROB) and strength of evidence. One reviewer extracted data; a second checked accuracy. We analyzed English-language studies with low or medium ROB.
Results. We analyzed 56 unique studies on the accuracy of brief cognitive tests for CATD, 24 on accuracy of biomarkers for AD (15 brain imaging, nine cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] testing), and 67 trials of CATD treatment (54 reporting cognition or function, 13 reporting BPSD). Multiple brief cognitive tests were highly sensitive and specific (>0.8) for distinguishing CATD from normal cognition, but less so for distinguishing mild CATD from normal cognition or CATD from mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Based on few studies, compared with clinical evaluation alone, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-PET, and combinations of CSF tests added to clinical evaluation may improve accuracy for distinguishing AD from non-AD dementia. Regardless of CATD severity, cholinesterase-inhibitors produced small improvements in cognition and function compared with placebo but may increase serious adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. For moderate to severe CATD, memantine plus a cholinesterase inhibitor slightly improved global change and inconsistently improved cognition, but not function, compared with a cholinesterase inhibitor alone. Evidence was mostly insufficient about the effects of prescription drugs and supplements on agitation, aggression, psychosis, or disinhibited sexual behavior.
Conclusion. Brief cognitive tests accurately distinguished CATD from normal cognition, but were less accurate distinguishing smaller clinical differences. Whether biomarkers improve diagnostic accuracy when added to clinical evaluation needs further verification, but potential benefits of testing are limited by lack of effective treatments for AD and non-AD dementias. Cholinesterase-inhibitors slightly outperformed placebo for cognition and function, but evidence of whether any drug treatments improved BPSD was largely insufficient.
