Neurologist's stark warning over drug millions take increasing dementia risk
Neurologists have discovered that a common household drug, which has been previously linked to higher risk of stroke, broken bones and kidney disease, could increase dementia risk
Long-term use of a common acid reflux medication may increase the risk of developing dementia by one-third, according to new research.
The study found that people who used proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for more than 4.4 years were 33% more likely to be diagnosed with the condition. PPIs are widely used to treat acid reflux - a condition where stomach acid flows into the oesophagus, often causing heartburn or ulcers. Frequent acid reflux can lead to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD), a condition that affects up to 40% of the UK population and may increase the risk of oesophageal cancer.
These medications work by targeting enzymes in the stomach lining to reduce acid production. While effective, PPIs have previously been linked to health risks including stroke, bone fractures, and kidney disease.
The new study, published in the journal Neurology , doesn't confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship but does highlight a significant association, reports SurreyLive.
Lead author Professor Kamakshi Lakshminarayan, a vascular neurologist from the University of Minnesota, explained: 'Proton pump inhibitors are useful for managing acid reflux, but long-term use has been tied to several health concerns. In this study, we wanted to explore whether they could also be linked to dementia.'
The research involved over 5,700 participants aged 45 and older who were dementia-free at the start of the study. With an average age of 75, participants' use of PPIs was monitored through in-person study visits and annual phone check-ins.
Of the group, 1,490 (26%) had taken PPIs and were categorised by duration of use: up to 2.8 years, between 2.8 and 4.4 years, and more than 4.4 years. Over an average follow-up of 5.5 years, 585 participants (10%) developed dementia.
Among those who used PPIs for more than 4.4 years, 24 out of every 1,000 person-years developed dementia, compared to 19 per 1,000 person-years in those who never took the drugs. After adjusting for factors like age, sex, race, and health conditions such as high blood pressure and diabetes, the researchers concluded there was a 33% higher risk of dementia in the long-term PPI users.
No increased risk was found for those who took the drugs for less than 4.4 years.
Professor Lakshminarayan emphasised the importance of consulting a doctor before making any changes to treatment. 'There are alternative ways to manage acid reflux, including antacids, diet changes, and maintaining a healthy weight,' she said. 'But not all approaches work for everyone. Anyone taking these medications should speak with their doctor first, as stopping PPIs suddenly can worsen symptoms.'
More research is needed to better understand the link and the mechanisms behind it, she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Martin Clunes swears by one exercise every day that's a 'lifeline' for health
The Doc Martin and Men Behaving Badly star Martin Clunes has shared three things he does every day to boost his health, including one vital exercise he says he swears by Martin Clunes has divulged his daily trio of health-boosting habits, including one exercise he swears by. Now edging into his mid-60s, the esteemed Doc Martin actor shared how embracing the 5:2 diet led to an incredible three-stone weight loss. This regime involves eating normally for five days and fasting for two, but that's not all Martin is doing to stay on top of his wellbeing. In an exclusive chat with Woman's Weekly, Martin confided that sticking to chia seeds, curtailing alcohol intake, and planking every day have become indispensable in preserving his health. Martin added that doing so has been a "lifeline" for his back issues. The 63-year-old actor acknowledged the notable health perks he's experienced thanks to these lifestyle adjustments, reports Surrey Live. It's a sentiment echoed by health gurus who attest to the positive effects such practices can have on someone's health. Chia seeds health benefits These tiny yet mighty seeds may be bland in taste, but their capacity to jazz up meals ranging from brekkie yoghurts to fiery curries with a burst of crunch is unmatched. Their true claim to fame, however, lies in the impressive host of health benefits they harbour within. According to Healthline, the seeds' rich fiber and omega-3 content could be game-changers for cardiovascular health: "Given that chia seeds are high in fiber and omega-3s, consuming them may reduce your risk of heart disease. "Soluble fiber, the kind primarily found in chia seeds, can help lower total and LDL (bad) cholesterol in your blood. In turn, this can reduce your risk of heart disease." Moreover, Healthline highlighted another key aspect of the food, and another reason why their high fibre content might be crucial, stating that the significant levels of fibre may assist in regulating blood sugar. Hence, due to the high fibre content of chia seeds, the superfood could potentially help in reducing the likelihood of developing diabetes. Health benefits of planking While planking is a part of many gym routines, many will be unaware of the long-term health benefits of this endurance exercise that actor Martin swears by. One of the primary health benefits of planking is that it aids in building our core strength which has numerous long-term advantages. Indeed, one study seemed to support the positive impact that planking has had on Martin's back recently. As Healthline noted: "A 2017 study suggests a correlation between decreased core back muscle quality and ageing. The researchers emphasise the need for intervention in older adults with back pain, particularly for people who are overweight." It comes after Martin opened up about the uncertainty of his acting career and the possibility of returning to his role in Doc Martin. He shared his thoughts on the precarious nature of the television industry, claiming it is in a "funny state" with a lot of "nervousness" and a lack of "confidence."
The Sun
a day ago
- The Sun
‘Perfectly healthy' girl, 4, left paralysed after family camping trip after giant critter feasted on her scalp
TAYLOR Justice was 'terrified' when her 'healthy' daughter Madeline Tuckwiller woke up paralysed after a camping trip - all because of a tick. "She couldn't walk and she was crawling on the floor," the 31-year-old mum said. 6 6 6 Taylor, from West Virginia, US had taken her four kids on a short camping trip on Sunday May 11 to mark Mother's Day. Five days later, Taylor noticed something was seriously wrong with her four-year-old daughter. Madeline was struggling to move and appeared dazed, unable to get herself off the ground. Taylor rushed her to hospital where medics began running a series of tests and scans but they couldn't figure out what was causing the paralysis. She was then transferred to a specialist children's hospital three hours away, where her condition seemed to be getting worse. 'The paralysis affected her whole body,' Taylor said. 'It started from the bottom and was working its way up. She couldn't sit up and wasn't even making eye contact.' Doctors monitored Madeline closely overnight. By the next morning, she had lost function in her hands. It was only when a neurologist asked about the family's outdoor activities that he decided to examine her scalp. They found a dime-sized female Rocky Mountain wood tick hidden in her hair, latched onto her skin and feeding. Justin Bieber discusses his battle with Lyme disease and how it has affected him It had been releasing a neurotoxin into Madeline's bloodstream, triggering a rare condition called tick paralysis. The tick was carefully removed, and within hours, Madeline's mobility began to return. 'She was able to walk again about four hours later,' Taylor said. 'It was such a relief.' Ticks can hide anywhere and the earlier you catch it, the bette Taylor Justice 31 The youngster was also given antibiotics to lower the risk of Lyme disease, which ticks can carry and which can cause long-term complications if not treated early. Taylor, a salon owner, said she had never heard of tick paralysis before. 'It's frightening how something so small can do that kind of damage,' she said. 'I'll be so much more careful now.' 6 6 Madeline has started to recover but still wakes up with some stiffness in her legs in the mornings. Thankfully, she's regained full movement during the day and is back to her usual self. How to prevent tick bites - and remove the bugs There are a few things you can do to lessen your likelihood of tick bites. Firstly, try and cover as much of your skin as possible while walking outdoors and tuck your trousers into your socks. You should also be using insect repellent containing DEET on your clothes and skin, and wearing light coloured clothing so you can spot a tick easily. Also stick to paths where possible when you're out walking. How can I remove a tick safely? To remove a tick safely: Use fine-tipped tweezers or a tick-removal tool. You can buy these from some pharmacies, vets and pet shops. Grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Slowly pull upwards, taking care not to squeeze or crush the tick. Dispose of it when you have removed it. Clean the bite with antiseptic or soap and water. The chance of getting ill is low. You do not need to do anything else unless you notice a rash or become unwell. If either of these happen, make sure to see a GP so you can get treatment as soon a possible. Taylor says the experience has changed the way she thinks about outdoor safety. She now checks all her children thoroughly after time outside and keeps tick repellent in her bag at all times. 'Parents need to know about this,' she said. 'Check their heads, their hairlines, behind their ears, waistbands, even their socks. "Ticks can hide anywhere and the earlier you catch it, the better.' 6
New European
3 days ago
- New European
Critical Mass: Is science failing, or are we failing science?
That work, by Russell Funk of the University of Minnesota and his coworkers, prompted a wave of hand-wringing. What's gone wrong with science? And can we justify expanding science budgets if there are diminishing returns? But Funk's claims also proved controversial, not least because it is very hard to know how to measure the disruptive impact of research. Some might be tempted to say: hello, what about AI? There can hardly have been a more disruptive technology, for better or worse, in the past few decades, as witnessed by the Nobel prizes in both physics and chemistry awarded last year to work in that field. Is science getting harder? Did the 20th century strip the tree of knowledge of all its low-hanging fruit – quantum and nuclear physics, say, or the structure of DNA – to leave the answers to remaining scientific questions harder to reach? That seemed to be the implication of a paper published two years ago that claimed to show that the rate of truly 'disruptive' discoveries – ones that transform a field and open up new possibilities for technologies and economic growth – declined from the mid-1940s to 2010. Despite increases in science funding and the number of researchers, we seem now to be in an age of incremental advances. But as a recent news analysis in Nature (which also published Funk's paper) shows, the impression that groundbreaking research is becoming more rare is widely shared in the research community. And if that's right, the discovery drought could slow down economic growth. So we had better understand if the trend is real, and if so, what's behind it. Funk and colleagues used a rather technical method to gauge a paper's (or a patent's) disruptiveness, which was connected to the citations of earlier work that it includes. The idea is that, if the paper transforms its field, it renders those citations obsolete by establishing a new ground zero, so that they won't feature much in subsequent publications. But is that a good metric for disruptiveness? Critics pointed out that citation practices changed a lot over the course of the last century: older papers had fewer. What's more, the 2021 paper that used AI to predict the structures of protein molecules, which won the 2024 chemistry Nobel, would on this measure be rated low in disruptiveness – which surely can't be right, can it? The arguments are all rather complicated, because so is the question: there's no way we can measure something like this with the certainty of measuring an object's temperature or mass. Surprisingly, however, the debate hasn't given much consideration to what history tells us. For one thing, over the long term science hardly looks like a steady accumulation of earth-shattering discoveries. Even though the so-called scientific revolution in the 17th century reset the way a lot of science was done, chemistry (to name one discipline) experienced a century of tentative steps until Antoine Lavoisier replaced the theory of phlogiston with his oxygen theory in the 1780s and 90s. And the economic growth produced by the chemical dye industry of the late 19th century didn't really come from a transformative discovery in understanding, but arose from a complex interplay between chemical research and market demand stimulated by industrialisation. There have been plenty of occasions when scientists have decided that all the big discoveries have been made. Famously, Lord Kelvin was said to have proclaimed as much for physics, just years before Max Planck initiated quantum theory and Einstein unveiled the theory of relativity. The Kelvin story is apocryphal, but others expressed similar sentiments that the future of physics was just about incremental improvements in accuracy. Besides, not all transformative science affects economic growth: that can hardly be said for the proof of the Big Bang (circa 1965), the discovery of dark energy (1998) and the discovery of the Higgs boson (2012). Despite all this, however, the question is important. It's conceivable that science is simply facing harder challenges now, but it's possible, too, that there are worsening problems in how it is conducted. Young researchers have less incentive to take risks, and they are also encouraged to carve it into publishable slices of diminishing size and impact. And it has long been noted that review panels for funding agencies are conservative, favouring the safe but mediocre. Academic scientists complain of being too burdened by admin and grant-chasing to actually do research. Perhaps the problem is not that all the easy science has been done, but that it's getting harder to do it at all.
