To Reduce Dementia Risk, Treat High Blood Pressure
Treating high blood pressure for as little as four years can cut the risk of dementia by 15 percent, according to clinical a trial results published on Monday in Nature Medicine. In the investigation, intensive blood pressure reduction also lowered the risk of mild cognitive impairment, an early stage of memory loss in people who can still live independently, by 16 percent.
Although research has long linked hypertension and dementia, the new study provides the strongest evidence yet that taking medications for the former actually reduces someone's risk of developing the latter.
'Our study shows that dementia is preventable,' says Jiang He, a physician who studies epidemiology, internal medicine and neurology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The researchers studied nearly 34,000 people with high blood pressure in rural Chinese villages. The team randomly assigned half of the villages to an intensive hypertension reduction program, and people in the other villages received their normal care. After four years, 4.6 percent of those who underwent intensive blood pressure control—the goal of which was to lower their blood pressure to less than 130/80 millimeters of mercury (mm HG)—were diagnosed with dementia compared with 5.4 percent in the group that received standard care. Because doctors treated people for only four years, it's not known if controlling blood pressure for a longer period of time would further reduce the dementia risk.
Those results provide 'strong evidence' to support using antihypertensive medications to prevent dementia in people with high blood pressure, He said.
Beth Abramson, who studies cardiac disease prevention and women's health at the University of Toronto, calls the results encouraging. Many people ignore their hypertension or fail to take medications as directed, even though the condition can cause heart attacks and strokes, says Abramson, who is co-chair of the American College of Cardiology Hypertension Workgroup and was not involved in the new study.
In the U.S., 48 percent of adults have hypertension, defined as a blood pressure that is consistently at or above 130/80 mm HG.
The hope of preventing dementia may motivate some people to take their blood pressure more seriously, says Mitchell S. V. Elkind, chief clinical science officer at the American Heart Association, who also wasn't involved in the new study. Surveys show dementia is one of the diseases that Americans fear most.
According to the World Health Organization, 57 million people worldwide had dementia in 2021. This number is expected to nearly double every 20 years, reaching 82 million in 2030 and 152 million in 2050, according to the nonprofit organization Alzheimer's Disease International.
The new findings resemble those from separate clinical trial research published in January in Neurology. That study treated people with hypertension for 3.3 years and followed them for a median of seven years. The investigation focused on lowering systolic blood pressure, the first number in a blood pressure reading, in older adults. Of the 4,200 people in the study who underwent cognitive assessment, the group that who decreased systolic blood pressure to less than 120 mm HG had a reduced risk of mild cognitive impairment or probable dementia; these participants' risk was lowered by 11 percent compared with people who decreased their systolic blood pressure to below 140 mm HG. The study didn't find any difference in the risk of probable dementia alone—possibly because it was smaller than the new study in China, because dementia can take many years to develop or because the trial was stopped early thanks to its overwhelmingly positive results in preventing cardiovascular events.
Scientists don't know exactly how hypertension might contribute to dementia, says David Reboussin, a professor of biostatistics and data science at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine and first author of the January Neurology study. But, he adds, 'if there is anything going on with small vessels and their ability to get oxygen to the brain tissue, then brain tissue will suffer. It will atrophy and die.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We're cancer doctors. Here's why Medicare Advantage fails America's elderly.
'It's nothing,' Tom, a retired firefighter from rural Texas, thought when he had persistent stomach pain. After shedding 30 pounds in three weeks, his family physician ordered a CT scan. Tom was not concerned — after all, the 65-year-old had gotten Medicare Advantage earlier that year. Like millions, Tom switched his insurance after he was solicited by a broker who promised low premiums and a gift card. Absent from the sales pitch was the fact that Medicare Advantage plans — privately run and separate from government-funded traditional Medicare — often delay and deny coverage. One of us met Tom nearly three months after his CT scan, and his doctor discovered the abdominal mass. The job as the first oncologist he had been able to see after months of jumping through hoops was to get initial scans, identify an in-network provider, wait for further referral and approval processes and finally schedule and complete a biopsy. The delays became a death knell. Tom was diagnosed with Stage 3 pancreatic cancer. Tom's first question was, 'It's going to be fine, right?' Despite the urge to reassure him, Tom's life and treatment options were not up to a doctor. They were up to his insurance. The same insurance that delayed urgent testing and care. By definition, Medicare Advantage is meant to support elderly medical care and increase efficiencies; in function, it is a business model that allows the American government to decrease its liability for sick seniors. Instead of absorbing and managing costs, the responsibility is outsourced to third-party operators, such as UnitedHealth Group, Humana and CVS Health. While Medicare Advantage provides excellent coverage if you never get sick, this insurance can quickly become a precursor to medical bankruptcy if the patient develops a deadly disease, a highly probable outcome when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans get cancer in their lifetime. After nearly two decades of experimentation and $450 billion of taxpayer money, Medicare Advantage has proven porous in terms of corruption, fraud and abuse. Yet, 32.8 million elderly Americans (54 percent of the eligible Medicare population) are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In 2023 alone, Medicare Advantage plans fully or partially denied 3.2 million prior authorization requests. No one, especially among folks facing the daily drudgery of fighting cancer, truly understands how the cogs within the insurance machine work. Few of our elderly patients fight the goliath institution, and many succumb to poorer health outcomes in their quest for lifesaving treatment. Last year, countrywide and across disease groups, 79 percent of patients who experienced a delay or denial of coverage paid out of pocket for medication at least sometimes. Unsurprisingly, more than 100 million Americans are in medical debt. Of those who appealed between 2019 and 2023, over 80 percent were approved, implying that the initial claims were valid. This game of attrition directly contradicts Medicare Advantage's promise to provide efficient, patient-centered healthcare. These denials are not just medically dangerous because they enable deadly diseases to progress unchecked. They are also emotionally erosive. Daily, we see patients shrink in the face of denials, unable to emotionally navigate the complex Medicare system and the immense pain, isolation and depression resulting from this behemoth that stands between their disease and their hope to be free of it. During one of Tom's chemo visits, with thousands of dollars worth of IVs in his veins, his skin pale and translucent, he realized he was begging his insurance at every turn to support him. Stories like Tom's reveal the truth: Medicare Advantage is unapologetically failing its elderly cancer patients. Sick American seniors deserve more than insurance coverage in name only. We advise our patients to avoid Medicare Advantage. The better choice is traditional Medicare, plus a secondary or supplemental insurance. Often, people do not enroll in supplemental insurance because they do not understand its importance, believe they will never get sick, miss the deadline for approval without a medical exam (you must do this within three months before or after your 65th birthday), or think it is too expensive. Although supplemental insurance costs nearly $500 a month (exact amounts vary based on age and income), choosing this add-on — and paying roughly $6,000 a year — is much more affordable than Medicare Advantage's yearly out-of-pocket (potentially adding up to $8,500) and fighting for approvals for basic treatment. On Medicare Advantage, Tom quickly reached his maximum yearly out-of-pocket of $8,500, but then it reset on Jan. 1. After four months of treatment, he was responsible for paying $17,000 for 16 months of care, on top of his insurance premiums, simply to receive standard care. Of course, if you are one of the fortunate few to have never experienced illness — and we hope you are — Medicare Advantage can be a cheaper option. The question is, how can we make Medicare Advantage advantageous for the vulnerable? There is a bipartisan opportunity to change the narrative around this insurance model. During his confirmation hearing as the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mehmet Oz criticized Medicare Advantage insurers for some of their practices. Strategic change — omitting out-of-pocket costs for cancer patients, curbing insurance companies' rights to deny claims submitted by doctors and speeding up the process — along with more rigorous oversight of the program are worthwhile goals the Trump administration and Congress should take on. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many issues, we believe we can all agree that people like Tom — and the millions of other Americans enrolled in Medicare Advantage — deserve comprehensive and just care. Dr. Pramod Pinnamaneni, MD, MBA, and Dr. Nitya Thummalachetty, DrPH, are founders of the Nau Project, a start-up dedicated to helping everyday Americans navigate the complexities of our healthcare system. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Murdoch's Paper Unloads on RFK Jr. Over Axing Vaccine Board
A Rupert Murdoch-owned paper ripped into Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Tuesday for gutting the nation's top vaccine advisory panel. The Wall Street Journal published a scathing op-ed a day after Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, announced the firing spree at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in the paper itself. The ACIP reports to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on vaccine efficacy. The Secretary of Health and Human Services said he was 'retiring' all 17 members of the advisory committee on vaccines in a 'bold step' to help restore 'public trust.' The move raised alarm bells at a time when health experts fear vaccine skepticism is fueling the nation's largest measles outbreak in around 25 years. 'Most of ACIP's members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines,' Kennedy wrote, hinting at a plot to push vaccines on Americans. Murdoch's editorial board hit back: 'Mr. Kennedy's beef seems to be that the committee's members know something about vaccines and may have been involved in their research and development.' 'How does he define 'substantial'?' the board asked. The board noted that trial doctors get small payments, typically less than their salaries, from vaccine makers to assist with clinical trials. But 'these trials are double-blinded, meaning doctors don't know which volunteers receive the vaccine or placebo so there's no financial incentive to tilt the data in favor of manufacturers,' the board said. Any conflicts of interest among the committee were also 'honestly handled,' the board said. Kennedy said in a separate announcement that 'a clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science.' 'ACIP new members will prioritize public health and evidence-based medicine. The Committee will no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas,' he added. Since joining the Trump administration in January, Kennedy, who is leading the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative has doubled down on conspiracy theories around shots, including that the measles jab contain 'aborted fetus debris.' 'The MMR vaccine contains millions of particles that are derived from fetal tissue, millions of fragments of human DNA from aborted fetuses,' Kennedy told NBC News' Tom Llamas last month. Kennedy was referring to the combined Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine. Vaccines do not contain aborted fetuses, fetal cells, fetal DNA, or fetal debris, according to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The rubella component of the vaccine is developed from a fetal cell line known as WI-38 that originally came from the lung tissue of an elective abortion performed more than five decades ago. No new fetal issue has been used since, and cells used today are thousands of times removed from the original source. Health experts are alarmed by Kennedy's suggestions that the measles jab is unsafe, a claim which contradicts decades of research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The World Health Organization declared measles eliminated from the United States in 2000 due to the success of vaccination efforts. International travel and growing vaccine hesitancy are thought to be behind its resurgence. The American Medical Association has said Kennedy's decision to gut ACIP undermines 'trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives.' Kennedy wrote in his op-ed for the Journal that ACIP's new members 'won't directly work for the vaccine industry.' 'They will exercise independent judgment, refuse to serve as a rubber stamp, and foster a culture of critical inquiry—unafraid to ask hard questions.' ACIP is set to hold its next meeting on June 25 at the CDC's headquarters.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
RFK Jr. names 8 vaccine committee replacements, including COVID shot critic
The new appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices include Dr. Robert Malone, the former mRNA researcher who emerged as a close adviser to Kennedy during the measles outbreak. Malone, who runs a wellness institute and a popular blog, rose to popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic as he relayed conspiracy theories around the outbreak and the vaccines that followed. He has appeared on podcasts and other conservative news outlets where he's promoted unproven and alternative treatments for measles and COVID-19. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He has claimed that millions of Americans were hypnotized into taking the COVID-19 shots. He's even suggested that those vaccines cause a form of AIDS. He's downplayed deaths related to one of the largest measles outbreaks in the U.S. in years. Advertisement Other appointees include Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician and epidemiologist who was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, an October 2020 letter maintaining that pandemic shutdowns were causing irreparable harm. Dr. Cody Meissner, a former ACIP member, also was named. Advertisement Kennedy made the announcement in The committee, created in 1964, makes recommendations to the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC directors almost always approve those recommendations on how Food and Drug Administration-cleared vaccines should be used. The CDC's final recommendations are widely heeded by doctors and determine the scope of vaccination programs. Associated Press reporter Amanda Seitz contributed to this report.
