Obesity and Alzheimer’s disease, does the obesity paradox really exist? A magnetic resonance imaging study Obesity and Alzheimer’s disease, does the obesity paradox really exist? A magnetic resonance imaging study

Weight loss has been proposed as a sign of pre-clinical Alzheimer Disease (AD). To test this hypothesis, we have evaluated the association between longitudinal changes in weight trajectories, cognitive performance, AD biomarker profiles and brain structure in 363 healthy controls from the Alzheimer´s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (mean follow-up 50.5±30.5 months). Subjects were classified according to body weight trajectory into a weight loss group (WLG; relative weight loss ≥ 5%) and a non-weight loss group (non-WLG; relative weight loss < 5%). Linear mixed effects models were used to estimate the effect of body weight changes on ADAS-Cognitive score across time. Baseline CSF tau/Aß42 ratio and AV45 PET uptake were compared between WLG and non-WLG by analysis of covariance. Atrophy maps were compared between groups at baseline and longitudinally at a 2-year follow-up using Freesurfer. WLG showed increased baseline levels of cerebrospinal fluid tau/Aß42 ratio, increased PET amyloid uptake and diminished cortical thickness at baseline. WLG also showed faster cognitive decline and faster longitudinal atrophy. Our data support weight loss as a non-cognitive manifestation of pre-clinical AD.

Aim: Although insulin resistance (IR) is a growing trait among type 1 diabetes (T1D) population, its relationship with atherosclerosis has been scarcely studied. We assessed the association between IR indexes and carotid atherosclerosis in T1D, a population at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.Materials and Methods: We evaluated 191 participants with T1D and no prior CVD with at least one of the following criteria: ≥40 years old; diabetic nephropathy; or T1D duration ≥10 years harbouring ≥1 additional CVD risk factor. IR was assessed with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) harmonized definition proposed in 2009 and the estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR), a T1D‐specific IR surrogate marker (lower values indicating higher IR). Standardized carotid ultrasonography was performed, recording intima‐media thickness (IMT), plaque presence and maximum height of plaque. Comparisons between patients according to their MetS status as well as concerning eGDR values were performed.Results: The participants' median age was 47.4 (41.1‐53.3) years and diabetes duration 25.7 (21.6‐32.5) years. Plaque prevalence was higher in patients with greater IR (49.1%, 29.1% and 20%, P = .001, for any plaque according to decreasing eGDR tertiles). Conversely, no statistically significant higher plaque prevalence was found in participants with MetS. In multivariate analyses (adjusted for general‐ and T1D‐specific risk factors, and statin treatment), MetS was associated with neither IMT nor plaque. On the contrary, eGDR was independently related to ≥2 plaques (P = .018) and maximum plaque height (P < .01).Conclusions: In T1D, IR assessed through eGDR but not by MetS definition was independently associated with plaque burden, a predictor of CVD.

Objective Improvement in insulin alternatives is leading to a delayed presentation of microvascular and macrovascular complications of diabetes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of older (≥50 years) diabetic patients who receive a pancreas transplantation (PT). Research design and methods We retrospectively evaluated all 338 PTs performed at our center between 2000 and 2016 (mean follow-up 9.4±4.9 years). Recipient and graft survivals were estimated for up to 10 years after PT. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) before and after PT were included in the analysis. Results Thirty-nine patients (12%) were ≥50 years old (52.7±2.3 years) at the day of PT, of which 29 received a simultaneous pancreas–kidney transplantation (SPK) and 10 a pancreas after kidney transplantation (PAK). SPK recipients were first transplants, whereas in the PAK up to 50% were pancreas re-transplantations. Recipient and pancreas graft survivals at 10 years were similar between the group 0.05). The prevalence of MACE prior to PT was similar between both groups (31% vs 29%). Following PT, older recipients presented inferior post-transplant MACE-free survival. In a multivariate regression model, diabetes vintage (HR 1.054, p=0.03) and pre-transplantation MACE (HR 1.98, p=0.011), but not recipient age (HR 1.45, p=0.339), were associated with post-transplant MACE. Conclusions Long-term survival of older pancreas transplant recipients are similar to younger counterparts. Diabetes vintage, but not age, increased the risk of post-transplantation MACE. These results suggest pancreas transplantation is a valuable treatment alternative to older diabetic patients.