Depression is common in patients with stroke during the first year after diagnosis, and those with prior depression or severe stroke are especially at risk. Because a large number of deaths can be attributable to depression after stroke, clinicians should be aware of this risk.
Objective
Diabetes is a risk factor for dementia, but whether antidiabetic medication decreases the risk is unclear. We examined the association between antidiabetic medication and dementia.
Design
We performed a nested case–control study within a cohort of all 176 250 patients registered with type 2 diabetes in the Danish National Diabetes Register between 1995 and 2012. This population was followed for dementia diagnosis or anti-dementia medication use until May 2018. Using risk-set sampling, each dementia case (n = 11 619) was matched on follow-up time and calender year of dementia with four controls randomly selected among cohort members without dementia (n = 46 476). Ever use and mean daily defined dose of antidiabetic medication was categorized in types (insulin, metformin, sulfonylurea and glinides combined, glitazone, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) analogs, sodium-glucose transport protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and acarbose).
Methods
Conditional logistic regression models were fitted to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dementia associated with antidiabetic medication use, adjusting for potential confounders.
Results
Use of metformin, DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 analogs, and SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with lower odds of dementia after multible adjustments (ORs of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–0.99), 0.80 (95% CI 0.74–0.88), 0.58 (95% CI: 0.50–0.67), and 0.58 (95% CI: 0.42–0.81), respectively), with a gradual decrease in odds of dementia for each increase in daily defined dose. Analyses of the most frequent treatment regimes did not show any synergistic effects of combined treatment.
Conclusion
Use of metformin, DPP4 inhibitors, GLP1 analogs and SGLT2 inhibitors was associated with lower risk of dementia in patients with diabetes.
Background: Individuals with autoimmune diseases and severe infections have persistent or acutely elevated inflammatory biomarkers and increased risk of schizophrenia. We tested the hypothesis that baseline elevated plasma levels of the inflammatory biomarker, C-reactive protein (CRP), associate with increased risk of late-and very-lateonset schizophrenia in the general population, and if such an association possibly is causal. Method: We analyzed data from 78 810 men and women, aged 20-100 years, from 2 large population studies. Endpoints were hospitalization with schizophrenia and schizophrenia and schizophrenialike psychosis combined. We performed prospective and cross-sectional analyses adjusted for potential confounders with up to 20 years of follow-up. Furthermore, we used genetic variants influencing plasma CRP levels to perform a Mendelian randomization study. Results: Age-and gender-adjusted hazard ratios vs individuals in the first quartile of CRP were 1.7 (95% CI: 0.3-8.9) for second quartile, 2.1 (0.4-10) for third quartile, and 11 (2.8-40) for fourth quartile individuals. The corresponding hazard ratio for fourth quartile individuals after multifactorial adjustment was 5.9 (1.4-24). Furthermore, individuals with vs without schizophrenia had 63% increased plasma levels of CRP (P = 1 × 10 −4 ). Finally, when CRP was on a continuous scale, a doubling in CRP yielded an age-and gender-adjusted observational OR of 1.5 (1.3-1.8) and a corresponding causal OR of 1.4 (0.5-4.3) (observed vs causal: P = .89). Conclusion: Baseline elevated plasma CRP is associated with a 6-to 11-fold increased risk of late-and very-late-onset schizophrenia in the general population. We cannot exclude that this is a causal association. These are novel findings.
Our data suggest that tobacco smoking could influence the development of psychotic conditions causally, whereas an influence on depression seems unlikely.
BackgroundDepression and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are common diseases and associated in a bidirectional manner.AimsTo examine whether a bidirectional association between CVD and depression could be explained by shared risk factors, misclassification of disease measures or non-response.MethodA total of 10 population-based cohorts including 93 076 men and women (mean age 54.4 years, s.d. = 9.2) and an additional 10 510 men (mean age 51.2 years, s.d. = 0.3) were followed for subsequent depression, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and stroke in the Danish National Patient Registry from health examinations between 1982 and 2015 and until end of follow-up in 2017–2018. Exposures were physicians’ diagnoses of IHD, stroke, depression or self-reported chest pain, depression, use of antidepressant medication and the Major Depression Inventory at the time of study entry in the Metropolit study. Associations were analysed using Cox proportional hazard regression with disease as time-dependent variables.ResultsIHD and stroke were associated with subsequent depression (hazard ratio (HR) for IHD: 1.79, 95% CI 1.43–2.23 and HR for stroke: 2.62, 95% CI 2.09–3.29) and the associations were present in both men and women. Adjustment for the shared risk factors socioeconomic status, lifestyle, body mass index, statin use and serum lipids did not change the risk estimates. Furthermore, depression was associated with higher risk of subsequent IHD (HR = 1.63, 95% CI 1.36–1.95) and stroke (HR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.63–2.30). The associations were also present when the analyses were based on self-reported disease measures or restricted to include non-responders.ConclusionsThe bidirectional association between CVD and depression was not explained by shared risk factors, misclassification or non-response.Declaration of interestNone.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.