This Condition May Raise Your Early-Onset Dementia Risk by 24%, New Study Says
A new study suggests metabolic syndrome increases the risk of dementia diagnosis before age 65.
In some cases, you can reverse metabolic syndrome through healthy habit changes.
Diet, exercise, stress, sleep and socialization all influence metabolic syndrome and dementia risk.Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of several conditions, and it's diagnosed in people who exhibit three of five conditions, including high waist circumference, low HDL (beneficial) cholesterol, high blood pressure, high blood sugar and high blood triglycerides.
The prevalence of metabolic syndrome tends to increase as we get older. One study cites the rate at nearly 20% for those 20 to 39 years old but nearly 50% of those aged 60 and over. Metabolic syndrome increases your risk of heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes—it also increases your risk of dementia.
While we often think of dementia and metabolic syndrome as being diseases of 'old age,' there is evidence that these conditions may be on the increase in younger people. This connection and prevalence is an area researchers in Korea wanted to hone in on and learn more about. The research team published their findings in the American Academy of Neurology's journal Neurology. Let's break down what they found.
Related: 5 Sneaky Signs You May Have Metabolic Syndrome, According to Experts
The goal of this study was to investigate the association between metabolic syndrome in midlife (ages 40 to 60) and the incidence of young-onset dementia. Young-onset dementia, also called early-onset dementia, is dementia diagnosed before age 65. The researchers also examined which components of metabolic syndrome are most strongly associated with an increased risk of young-onset dementia.
Researchers drew their data from the Korean National Insurance Service, a government-run health insurance system in South Korea that covers more than 99% of its population. The services include regular biennial health checkups that gather clinical and lifestyle data, income levels and medical diagnoses.
After initially extracting data for more than 4 million people, researchers ultimately included around 2 million participants between the ages of 40 and 60 for this study who had undergone a general health screening in 2009. Participants were followed for an average of eight years. Just over half of the participants were men.
Of the participants, just over 25% met the criteria for metabolic syndrome. This included having at least three of the following:
Elevated waist circumference: ≥90 cm in men, ≥80 cm in women
High blood pressure: systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg, or diastolic blood pressure ≥85 mm Hg; or use of medication for high blood pressure
High blood sugar levels: elevated fasting glucose ≥100 mg/dL or use of oral medication for high blood sugar
High blood triglycerides: ≥150 mg/dL or use of medication for high triglycerides
Low HDL (beneficial) cholesterol: <40 mg/dL in men, <50 mg/dL in women; or use of medication for low HDL-C
About 60% of the metabolic syndrome group were participants in their 50s, and 40% in their 40s. Men made up over 62% of this group.
Researchers gathered demographic and lifestyle data that were adjusted for during statistical analyses. These included age, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, regular exercise and income level. In addition, they also gathered medical diagnoses of the participants that occurred during the study period, focusing on dementia, Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia.
Related: 5 Supplements You Shouldn't Take If You Have Metabolic Syndrome, According to Dietitians
After running several statistical analyses, results suggested that metabolic syndrome in people ages 40 to 60 was associated with a:
24% higher risk of all-cause young-onset dementia—all-cause meaning all types of dementia.
12% increased risk of Alzheimer's disease.
21% increased risk of vascular dementia—a type of dementia caused by damage to the brain's blood vessels, thus reducing blood flow and oxygen to the brain.
Researchers also broke findings down for men and women. They found that men with metabolic syndrome had a 15% higher risk of young-onset dementia, and women with metabolic syndrome had a 34% higher risk of young-onset dementia.
Related: This Underrated Drink Could Help Slow the Progression of Alzheimer's, New Study Says
In addition, being diagnosed with metabolic syndrome in the 40s increased the risk of young-onset dementia more than being diagnosed in the 50s. And while all the components (risk factors) of metabolic syndrome were associated with an increased risk of young-onset dementia, the risk progressively increased with the number of components present.
Researchers pointed out several limitations of their study. First, they cannot say whether their results extend to people outside of South Korea. They also did not include other variables that influence young-onset dementia risk, like the presence of certain genes, family history of YOD, history of traumatic brain injury, hearing loss and education level.
Researchers note that they also lacked detailed behavioral (i.e. mental health) and environmental data, which can also influence dementia risk.
Related: The #1 Spice for Metabolic Syndrome, According to Dietitians
Dementia is more than just forgetting someone's name or where you put your keys. It interferes with one's ability to think, remember, understand, communicate and reason. Over time, it diminishes physical abilities, too, as the brain forgets how to do simple activities that used to be second nature.
While influenced by genetics, the components of metabolic syndrome may be a result of lifestyle choices. And they're the same lifestyle choices that also influence your risk of other diseases, including heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and dementia. And many of these diseases and conditions are linked. For example, type 2 diabetes has been associated with an increased risk of dementia. And healthy cholesterol levels reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke, as well as dementia.
Considering how all of these conditions are intertwined, it makes sense that there might be a common denominator. Scientists believe one of them is chronic inflammation, which can have several causes, including chronic stress, poor sleep quality, poor diet quality, microbiome imbalances and lack of physical activity.
Related: The #1 High-Protein, Anti-Inflammatory Snack, According to a Dietitian
That means certain lifestyle changes can help on that front, too.With that said, nothing is perfect, and no one habit—or combination of habits—will guarantee you will be free of inflammation or disease. But evidence does lean toward people with healthier habits being at lower risk.
Not sure where to begin? What habit are you most likely to see the quickest success in? For example, do you enjoy a walk or a trip to the gym occasionally? Maybe start there, gradually building a regular habit. Or if you've been wanting to branch out and try some new recipes, now could be a good time to add some tasty, healthy options to your arsenal.
For inspiration, we have meal plans for just about any goal or condition. To get going, check out this beginner-friendly anti-inflammatory plan or this 30-day MIND diet plan, designed specifically for brain health.
If you've tried everything to get a good night's sleep but are still struggling, consider a visit with your healthcare practitioner. You might have a sleep disorder, like insomnia or obstructive sleep apnea, and they may be able to help you with specific strategies to help sleep come easily.
Related: The #1 Nutrient to Improve Metabolic Syndrome, According to Experts
Overall, this study suggests that individuals diagnosed with metabolic syndrome in midlife have a higher likelihood of developing young-onset dementia compared with those without metabolic syndrome. Lifestyle choices and habits play a huge role in disease risk. Start today by doing one beneficial thing for your health and then repeat it each day. Over time, small changes can become big improvements.
Read the original article on EATINGWELL
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Merck's $2 Billion Bet: The Tiny Biotech That Could Save Its Neurology Pipeline
Merck KGaA (NYSE:MRK) is going back on offense in neurologyand it's betting big. The German drugmaker just announced a collaboration with Skyhawk Therapeutics that could top $2 billion, aimed at developing RNA-targeting small molecules for hard-to-treat neurological diseases. Under the deal, Skyhawk will lead discovery and preclinical development using its proprietary RNA splicing tech, while Merck steps in if the science clears early hurdles. Though financial terms weren't disclosed, the structure includes upfront and milestone payments, plus royalties tied to future sales. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Sign with MRK. This isn't a pivot. It's a rebuild. After two major clinical failures rocked its pipeline and with its blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug Mavenclad losing exclusivity starting in 2026, Merck is under pressure to restock its innovation shelf. CEO Belen Garijo is tightening focus on external innovationand fast. That includes this Skyhawk deal, and the recently closed acquisition of SpringWorks Therapeutics, which is expected to start contributing to Merck's healthcare revenue in the second half of this year. Behind the scenes, this deal speaks volumes about where Merck thinks the next frontier lies. Amy Kao, who heads neuroscience and immunology research at Merck, called RNA splicing modulation an exciting frontierand that might be understating it. The company is betting that Skyhawk's tech could unlock new treatments where traditional approaches have failed. If even one program makes it through to commercialization, it could mark a turning point in Merck's quest to reignite long-term growth in its pharma arm. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Sign in to access your portfolio
Medscape
12-08-2025
- Medscape
In Real World, Women More Likely to Have Issues With GLP-1s
If it weren't for post hoc analyses and findings from curious academic labs, the substantial list of biological differences that separates the sexes would still be relegated to the shadows. That list — including research from the fields of neurology, cardiology, immunology, oncology, endocrinology — shows that the longtime presumption of men and women reacting as one to diagnoses, disease progression, and treatment should be considered, scientifically speaking, passé. But in the world of clinical trials, it has been and still is mostly a sexless, homogenous world. One reason: Stratifying by sex in a trial would not be cheap. 'Doing that up front would cost millions more,' said Antonella Santuccione Chadha, MD, PhD, founder and CEO of the Women's Brain Foundation and a former member of the EU Commission Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. A significant issue is under enrollment of women in randomized trials, meaning the percentage of women enrolled isn't in line with the percentage of women with a particular disease in the real world — so signals that indicate an adverse event are not picked up. From a systems perspective, women do not clear drugs through their kidneys as quickly as men, and women maintain a higher blood concentration of the medication. 'Women may be overmedicated,' Neurologist Irving Zucker and others wrote in a 2020 analysis of 86 medications. This can lead to adverse events (AEs). And they do. ' Women experience adverse drug reactions nearly twice as often as men, yet the role of sex as a biological factor in the generation of [these reactions] is poorly understood,' Zucker wrote in that study, published in the journal Biology of Sex Differences , which showed that pharmacokinetics 'strongly linked' sex differences in adverse drug events. Antonella Santuccione Chadha, MD, PhD Among the 86 medications was the GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), liraglutide. It was found to be biased toward women with regard to headache, vomiting, nausea. There are little stratified data in the GLP-1 RA receptor clinical trials, let alone appropriate enrollment percentages, as compared to real world disease prevalence. Considering that these medications are being used in patients with diabetes, obesity and overweight, cardiovascular problems, and likely in the future, to mitigate Alzheimer disease advancement, it likely would help to know how sex affects these drugs. So the question is: How can general practitioners determine what treatment is right for patients, especially their female patients, when so little evidence is based on sex? 'The side effects are very real and important to track,' said Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc, professor of cardiovascular epidemiology, and associate professor, medicine medical social sciences, preventive medicine, at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. 'The truth about GLP-1 agonists is that you have to personalize it for the patient in front of you,' said Martha Gulati, MD, MS, professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute. Efficacy has to be balanced with the potential for side effects. 'Every individual will be slightly different.' Sex Differences of Note In its natural state, GLP-1 is found in many areas of the body, including the brain. It has multiple purposes, including gastric emptying, food intake inhibition, and neuroprotective effects on lung and cardiovascular systems. But in its natural state, GLP-1 has a short half-life, hence the pharmaceutical drive for analogues. As a class, these analogues, primarily the injectables, have been much ballyhooed for their ability to treat diabetes, induce weight loss, and reduce the risk for cardiovascular events. One recent study also demonstrated how the GLP-1 RAs can mitigate cognition issues. These analyses show how the GLP-1 RAs work at the stratified population level: In this study, women, who generally have a smaller stature than men, had higher concentrations (32%) of the tested medication than men; patients with diabetes had lower amounts of medication than those with normal blood glucose levels or prediabetes. In a new analysis of FAERS, the FDA's adverse event reporting system, among reports of neurologic related events in GLP-1 agonists, 46.25% occurred within 30 days of the start of treatment. The report, based on complaints filed from 2004 to 2025, found that 11.58% of the 250,014 listed were neurologic in nature. Women reported 65% of the 28,953 neurologic AEs events; most came from consumers. The top AEs reported were dizziness, tremor, and dysgeusia. Women who had taken semaglutide, liraglutide, and tirzepatide reported 65% of the 372 psychiatric events found in the EudraVigilance database, between January 1, 2021, and May 30, 2023. In a new JAMA article discussing the management of GLP-1 events, neurologic issues are not mentioned, just common gastrointestinal ailments, including nausea. In the huge study published in February confirming semaglutide 2.4 mg safety in overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease but not diabetes, the sexes were segregated in listing fractures, poisoning, and procedural events but not in serious cardiac and nervous system disorders. article discussing the management of GLP-1 events, neurologic issues are not mentioned, just common gastrointestinal ailments, including nausea. In the huge study published in February confirming semaglutide 2.4 mg safety in overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease but not diabetes, the sexes were segregated in listing fractures, poisoning, and procedural events but not in serious cardiac and nervous system disorders. The inclusion criteria for the still-running Evoke trials, which is testing oral semaglutide's efficacy in early-stage symptomatic Alzheimer's disease (AD), have no breakdown of the 1840 participants by sex, either in or the peer-reviewed summary. AD affects women significantly more than men. Efforts to reach an investigator were not successful. With regard to diabetes, it seems the sexes have more differences than commonalities, according to a 2023 study in Diabetologia , the journal of the European Association for the study of diabetes. One review found men: are younger at diagnosis; have a lower BMI and a lower risk factor burden, including hypertension and more weight gain; have a lower relative risk for cardiovascular complications and death; and get guideline recommended care more than women. Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc 'Across their lifetime, changes in sex hormones mean that women experience greater variations in the risk of cardiometabolic disease, including type 2 diabetes,' the Austria-based authors wrote. A Danish study reviewing more than 200,000 cases in the country's national registry reached similar conclusions. A cause for concern: Population trends show that more women are obese or severely obese, particularly among those older than 60 years. Clinical Discussion Prescribing women GLP-1 RAs takes some planning, Gulati and Khan said. Conversations about what to expect are critical, especially about potential AEs. Gulati said women respond better to these medications, especially if they are premenopausal. These physicians, both preventive cardiologists, discuss the benefits, including lower hypertension, weight reduction, and better glycemic control. Advice includes eating small meals, avoiding greasy food, and eating lots of fiber because constipation is no fun. And patients have to be prepared for the side effects. 'I have this oatmeal spiel,' Gulati said. One patient, she said, insisted on eating greasy food until the AEs won out. 'She started improving her diet and she got the results she wanted…If they get something you told them about, they know more.' Gulati, president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology, said some women won't be able to go up to the highest dosage because of the AEs. Khan said the AEs increase as the GLP-1 RA dosage increases. She said that in real life, 80% of people taking a GLP-1 RA stop because of the side effects. 'It's about going slow and seeing if people can benefit.' At least one premarketing clinical study claimed that dose adjustment by sex wasn't necessary. Robert Kushner, MD, the lead investigator on the semaglutide obesity study, said in a JAMA podcast that more than 30% of patients, at least in the phase 3 trials, stopped using semaglutide because of nausea, constipation, diarrhea, and vomiting. His advice paired with that of Khan and Gulati. Most, if not all, of this conversation could be avoided if sex-based evidence was generated in preclinical research and then used to shape the trial, said Santuccione Chadha. By investing more money in the beginning of the trial to determine sex-based differences, there would be a 'higher return on investment across the chain.' There would be fewer side effects and more adherence to drugs, the GLP-1s included. But with the current method of research, 'What happens is that there are unexpected side effects, more adverse events in the female population, who also get more serious events.' Gulati agreed more planning is needed prior to trial enrollment. 'Honestly? I think it is because of a lack of prestudy planning. Who do we want, and where will we get them?' If the trial is underpowered, 'you can't look at sex differences.' The fact that the GLP-1 RAs have proven effective in so many body systems now has more specialists prescribing these medicines. Khan said interdisciplinary care is critical, so it's necessary to have a point person. 'We are realizing this, who is owning responsibility, who is comfortable with it.'
Medscape
11-08-2025
- Medscape
Lessons for Parkinson's From MS, and Vice Versa
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Indu Subramanian, MD: Hi, everyone. Welcome to Medscape. I'm so excited to have my friend and colleague, Prof Lorraine Kalia, join us today to talk about a very cool topic: what we can learn from multiple sclerosis (MS) studies and therapies, and how we can maybe translate that to some of the problems that we've been having in the Parkinson's world. Prof Lorraine Kalia is a clinical scientist at the Krembil Institute. She's also an amazing neurologist at the University of Toronto, which is my alma mater. Welcome, Lorraine. Lorraine V. Kalia, MD, PhD: Hi, Indu. Thanks for having me. Meeting of MS and PD Minds Subramanian: My name is Dr Indu Subramanian. I'm based at UCLA. Maybe we can get right into this. You had this very cool meeting in November 2022, and you had experts in the MS world as well as the Parkinson's disease world. Tell us a little bit about what inspired that meeting in the first place. Kalia: It's a bit of a personal story, actually. I might date myself a little bit, but I was a medical student during the time of the natalizumab development. At that time, I thought I was going to be an MS neurologist. Even back then, they already had a couple of disease-modifying therapies for MS and I thought, You know what, I think MS is good. I think they're in good shape. As a scientist with an understanding of the biology behind disease, it was clear to me that there still was a large amount of work needing to be done in Parkinson's disease because that's obviously how we translate things into having disease-modifying therapies. That was part of the reason — not the only reason — why I shifted into the movement disorder space. Fast-forward many years later: I often give talks around the lack of disease-modifying therapies for Parkinson's disease by introducing MS. Sometimes when you ask why we don't have a disease-modifying therapy for Parkinson's, people throw up their hands and say, "Well, you know, neurologic diseases are complicated." I'll often use the MS example to demonstrate that actually there is much that can be done in the neurologic space and there's been a lot of successes in MS. I was once giving this talk, and as a consequence of this talk, had a conversation with Parkinson Canada who thought, wow, that's an interesting idea around MS being so successful and PD lagging behind. We came up with the idea of having a meeting in Toronto. We obviously have very strong Parkinson's researchers in Toronto, but also a very strong MS team at the Saint Michael's Hospital. I collaborated with a colleague — actually, we were residents together — to bring world experts to Toronto to sit around a table, which is what we did, and talk about where we are in MS and where we are in Parkinson's disease. We were looking for common ground but also looking to see what is different and how we might think about things differently that might have led to the different paths that we've experienced in our fields. Lessons From MS Subramanian: What do you think some take-home messages for the clinician would be from that discussion? I think it was a very cool paper. Kalia: Maybe the take-home messages is it's complicated, which is not as simple as I had hoped. I hoped that we'd come back with clear messages of what we really need to do with Parkinson's. I think we found common ground for one thing. I think it's fair to say that MS has done remarkably well at treating inflammation. All of their drugs are based on that, and they will recognize that they have challenges in terms of treating the neurodegenerative part of their condition. Now that we increasingly recognize that inflammation is a part of Parkinson's disease and there's increased work around the immune basis to the disease, I think we are going to be able to take advantage of what MS has done and learn to hopefully make advances that way. For anybody who's learned about MS , its successes have hanged heavily on its neuroimaging biomarkers of MRI. Of course, biomarkers are needed for the development of Parkinson's disease , and perhaps more work into the neuroimaging piece as well as the biospecimen biomarkers is key to starting to be able to have different kinds of outcome measures. Not the clinical outcome measures that we're using right now in basically all of our clinical trials, but to have early biomarker outcome measures that will help to inform us for our later clinical trials. The other commonality between the two is this concept of earlier disease. We have our prodromal Parkinson's disease and MS has their radiologically isolated syndrome. Up until now, logically, it has made sense to us that we should treat earlier in Parkinson's disease, and that will likely give us better successes. In the MS space, there's actually proof of that. They have clinical trials showing the benefit of treating people in the radiologically isolated syndrome state. While in Parkinson's disease, it has been theoretical and seems to make sense to all of us, we don't have any hard proof to say that treating earlier is better, whereas in MS they have already demonstrated that. I think this then provides us with actual proof in the pudding that that approach really does have implications for disease progression. PD Ahead of MS for Lifestyle Subramanian: Absolutely. I think both diseases in many ways have revolutionized since back in the day when we were in training. The MS models have really come a long way, with many patients doing very well for a long time. I think we have to really take a look at where our feelings are and how we can do better. I'm excited just about the concept of identifying people early and then getting people who may be even at risk for developing Parkinson's into lifestyle measures and wellness choices. I think MS has done a great job of that as well. Can you speak a little bit about that from your own perspective? Kalia: I don't think it came out in the paper, but it came out in our discussions that as a field and as a patient population, there's probably been more embrace of lifestyle measures and physical activity in Parkinson's, which I think is kudos to us in Parkinson's disease. Maybe it's in part because in MS they have these drugs that came through one after another after another, and there's this heavy pharma management of MS that they haven't had to explore the lifestyle assets. There's a large amount that MS has to learn from Parkinson's disease, in terms of putting in place so many of the things that we discuss in Parkinson's, whether it be diet, sleep, stress or mindfulness — all of these things. I think that in Parkinson's, we're further ahead. Subramanian: Absolutely. I agree with you. I'm excited to learn from these other disease states that we train under in residency. We see these patients and we can open our minds to looking at different lenses, for sure. Thank you so much for spending the time and chatting about this. Kudos to you for having that meeting. It sounds like a great opportunity to bring great minds together. Kalia: Yes. Hopefully, we can do more of this in the future. Subramanian: Go Canada. Thank you for joining us, everyone.
