Dataset Information

The association of antidiabetic medications and Mini-Mental State Examination scores in patients with diabetes and dementia.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The effect of antidiabetic medication on cognitive function is unclear. We analyzed the association between five antidiabetic drugs and change in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores in patients with diabetes and dementia.

Methods

Using the Swedish Dementia Registry and four supplementary Swedish registers/databases, we identified 1873 patients (4732 observations) with diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (diabetes) and Alzheimer's disease or mixed-pathology dementia who were followed up at least once after dementia diagnosis. Use of metformin, insulin, sulfonylurea, thiazolidinediones (TZD), and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) was identified at baseline. Prevalent-user, incident-user, and drug-drug cohorts were sampled, and propensity-score matching was used to analyze comparable subjects. Beta coefficients with 95% confidence intervals (CI) from the random intercept and slope linear mixed-effects models determined the association between the use of antidiabetic medications and decline in MMSE score points between the follow-ups. Inverse-probability weighting was used to account for patient dropout.

Results

Compared to non-users, prevalent users of metformin (beta 0.89, 95% CI 0.44; 1.33) and DPP-4i (0.72, 0.06; 1.37) experienced a slower cognitive decline with time. Secondly, compared to DPP-4i, the use of insulin (-1.00, -1.95; -0.04) and sulfonylureas (-1.19; -2.33; -0.04) was associated with larger point-wise decrements in MMSE with annual intervals.

Conclusions

In this large cohort of patients with diabetes and dementia, the use of metformin and DPP-4i was associated with a slower decline in MMSE scores. Further examination of the cognitive effects of metformin and incretin-based medications is warranted.

SUBMITTER: Secnik J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8641148 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Mini-Mental State Examination-Second Edition (MMSE-2) consists of three visions: a brief version (MMSE-2:BV), a standard version (MMSE-2:SV), and an expanded version (MMSE-2: EV). Each version was equipped with alternate forms (blue and red). There was a lack of evidence on the practice effect and test-retest reliability of the three versions of the MMSE-2, limiting its utility in both clinical and research settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice effect and test-retest reliability of the MMSE-2 in people with dementia.MethodsOne hundred and twenty participants were enrolled, of which 60 were administered with the blue form twice (i.e., the same-form group, [SF group]) and 60 were administered with the blue form first and then the red form (alternate-form group, [AF group]). The practice effect was evaluated using a paired t-test and Cohen's d. The test-retest reliability was examined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).ResultsFor the practice effects, in the SF group, no statistically significant differences were found for the MMSE-2:BV and MMSE-2: EV total scores and eight subtests (p = 0.061-1.000), except for the MMSE-2:SV total score (p = 0.029). In the AF group, no statistically significant differences were found for all three versions of the total scores and subtests (p = 0.106-1.000), except for the visual-constructional ability subtest (p = 0.010). Cohen's d of all three versions' total scores and subtests were 0.00-0.20 and 0.00-0.26 for SF group and AF group, respectively. For the test-retest reliability, ICC values for all three versions and eight subtests in SF and AF groups were 0.60-0.93 and 0.56-0.93, respectively.ConclusionOur results demonstrated that the practice effect could be minimized when alternate forms of the MMSE-2 were used. The MMSE-2 had good to excellent test-retest reliability, except for three subtests (i.e., visual-constructional ability, registration, and recall). Caution should be taken when interpreting the results of visual-constructional ability, registration, and recall subtests of the MMSE-2.

Project description:BackgroundDisease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease highlight the need for early detection of cognitive decline. However, at present, most primary care providers do not perform routine cognitive testing, in part due to a lack of access to practical cognitive assessments, as well as time and resources to administer and interpret the tests. Brief and sensitive digital cognitive assessments, such as the Digital Clock and Recall (DCR™), have the potential to address this need. Here, we examine the advantages of DCR over the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) in detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia.MethodsWe studied 706 participants from the multisite Bio-Hermes study (age mean ± SD = 71.5 ± 6.7; 58.9% female; years of education mean ± SD = 15.4 ± 2.7; primary language English), classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU; n = 360), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 234), or probable mild Alzheimer's dementia (pAD; n = 111) based on a review of medical history with selected cognitive and imaging tests. We evaluated cognitive classifications (MCI and early dementia) based on the DCR and the MMSE against cohorts based on the results of the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT), the Trail Making Test-Part B (TMT-B), and the Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ). We also compared the influence of demographic variables such as race (White vs. Non-White), ethnicity (Hispanic vs. Non-Hispanic), and level of education (≥ 15 years vs. < 15 years) on the DCR and MMSE scores.ResultsThe DCR was superior on average to the MMSE in classifying mild cognitive impairment and early dementia, AUC = 0.70 for the DCR vs. 0.63 for the MMSE. DCR administration was also significantly faster (completed in less than 3 min regardless of cognitive status and age). Among 104 individuals who were labeled as "cognitively unimpaired" by the MMSE (score ≥ 28) but actually had verbal memory impairment as confirmed by the RAVLT, the DCR identified 84 (80.7%) as impaired. Moreover, the DCR score was significantly less biased by ethnicity than the MMSE, with no significant difference in the DCR score between Hispanic and non-Hispanic individuals.ConclusionsDCR outperforms the MMSE in detecting and classifying cognitive impairment-in a fraction of the time-while being not influenced by a patient's ethnicity. The results support the utility of DCR as a sensitive and efficient cognitive assessment in primary care settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04733989.