Data_Sheet_1_Metformin Use and Cognitive Function in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Following a Mediterranean Diet Intervention.PDF
Background and Purpose: Both adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and the use of metformin could benefit the cognitive performance of individuals with type 2 diabetes, but evidence is still controversial. We examined the association between metformin use and cognition in older adults with type 2 diabetes following a MedDiet intervention.
Methods: Prospective cohort study framed in the PREDIMED-Plus-Cognition sub-study. The PREDIMED-Plus clinical trial aims to compare the cardiovascular effect of two MedDiet interventions, with and without energy restriction, in individuals with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome. The present sub-study included 487 cognitively normal subjects (50.5% women, mean ± SD age of 65.2 ± 4.7 years), 30.4% of them (N = 148) with type 2 diabetes. A comprehensive battery of neurocognitive tests was administered at baseline and after 1 and 3 years. Individuals with type 2 diabetes that exhibited a good glycemic control trajectory, either using or not using metformin, were compared to one another and to individuals without diabetes using mixed-effects models with inverse probability of treatment weights.
Results: Most subjects with type 2 diabetes (83.1%) presented a good and stable glycemic control trajectory. Before engaging in the MedDiet intervention, subjects using metformin scored higher in executive functions (Cohen's d = 0.51), memory (Cohen's d = 0.38) and global cognition (Cohen's d = 0.48) than those not using metformin. However, these differences were not sustained during the 3 years of follow-up, as individuals not using metformin experienced greater improvements in memory (β = 0.38 vs. β = 0.10, P = 0.036), executive functions (β = 0.36 vs. β = 0.02, P = 0.005) and global cognition (β = 0.29 vs. β = −0.02, P = 0.001) that combined with a higher MedDiet adherence (12.6 vs. 11.5 points, P = 0.031). Finally, subjects without diabetes presented greater improvements in memory than subjects with diabetes irrespective of their exposure to metformin (β = 0.55 vs. β = 0.10, P < 0.001). However, subjects with diabetes not using metformin, compared to subjects without diabetes, presented greater improvements in executive functions (β = 0.33 vs. β = 0.08, P = 0.032) and displayed a higher MedDiet adherence (12.6 points vs. 11.6 points, P = 0.046).
Conclusions: Although both metformin and MedDiet interventions are good candidates for future cognitive decline preventive studies, a higher adherence to the MedDiet could even outweigh the potential neuroprotective effects of metformin in subjects with diabetes.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc15-1588
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00125-018-4729-5
- https://doi.org//10.1038/ejcn.2014.243
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc18-0836
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc10-1288
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.1668
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41598-018-33843-8
- https://doi.org//10.2337/db14-0287
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00125-020-05369-0
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30367-6
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.2016.0299
- https://doi.org//10.3233/JAD-131901
- https://doi.org//10.1002/alz.12161
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc20-1964
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dbi20-0002
- https://doi.org//10.1002/dmrr.3015
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0025-7753(07)72531-9
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc21-S002
- https://doi.org//10.1037/h0054651
- https://doi.org//10.1126/science.275.5304.1293
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
- https://doi.org//10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5
- https://doi.org//10.1007/BF00280883
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clnu.2021.06.030
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.recesp.2018.08.007
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.alcr.2019.100323
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fphar.2019.00973
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc20-0892
- https://doi.org//10.1212/WNL.0000000000004586
- https://doi.org//10.3233/JAD-2011-101524
- https://doi.org//10.1155/2016/7208429
- https://doi.org//10.1001/jama.2019.20939
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc13-0229
- https://doi.org//10.1097/WAD.0000000000000202
- https://doi.org//10.7326/0003-4819-142-8-200504190-00009
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.09.025
- https://doi.org//10.3233/JAD-150493
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc13-2899
- https://doi.org//10.7326/0003-4819-151-5-200909010-00004
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc19-0130
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.clnu.2021.07.020
- https://doi.org//10.1080/1028415X.2020.1853416.
- https://doi.org//10.3233/JAD-2010-100942
- https://doi.org//10.1001/archneurol.2008.566