| Literature DB >> 31439643 |
Shudan Gao1,2, Yaojing Chen1,2, Feng Sang1,2, Yiru Yang1,2, Jianan Xia1,2, Xin Li1,2, Junying Zhang3, Kewei Chen4, Zhanjun Zhang5,2.
Abstract
Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a considerably high risk of developing dementia, especially for those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The investigation of the microstructural change of white matter (WM) between T2DM with amnesic MCI (T2DM-aMCI) and T2DM with normal cognition (T2DM-NC) and their relationships to cognitive performances can help to understand the brain variations in T2DM-related amnesic cognitive impairment. In the current study, 36 T2DM-aMCI patients, 40 T2DM-NC patients, and 40 healthy control (HC) individuals underwent diffusion tensor image and T1-weighted MRI scans and comprehensive cognition assessments. All of these cognitive functions exhibited intergroup ranking differences in patients. The T2DM-NC patients and HC individuals did not reveal any significant differences in WM integrity. The T2DM-aMCI patients showed disrupted integrity in multiple WM tracts compared with HC and T2DM-NC. Specifically, the damaged WM integrity of the right inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus and the right inferior longitudinal fasciculus exhibited significant correlations with episodic memory and attention function impairment in T2DM patients. Furthermore, cognitive impairment-related WM microstructural damage was associated with the degeneration of cortex connected to the affected WM tract. These findings indicate that degeneration exists extensively in WM tracts in T2DM-aMCI, whereas no brain WM damage is evident in T2DM-NC.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31439643 PMCID: PMC6804632 DOI: 10.2337/db19-0233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes ISSN: 0012-1797 Impact factor: 9.461
Demographic and neuropsychological test results
| T2DM-aMCI | T2DM-NC | HC | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | — | ||||
| Sex, | 0.054 | 0.973# | |||
| Male | 13 | 15 | 14 | ||
| Female | 23 | 25 | 26 | ||
| Age (years) | 65.97 ± 7.81 | 65.35 ± 7.77 | 66.48 ± 7.46 | 0.215 | 0.807 |
| Education (years) | 10.89 ± 3.64 | 11.88 ± 3.16 | 12.46 ± 2.99 | 2.219 | 0.113 |
| Diabetes duration (years) | 11.13 ± 8.05 | 8.92 ± 6.29 | — | 1.19 | 0.238 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.46 ± 7.59 | 25.51 ± 3.33 | 24.03 ± 4.87 | 1.98 | 0.144 |
| Hypertension, | 25 (69) | 23 (58) | 16 (40) | 6.78 | 0.034#† |
| Hyperlipidemia, | 13 (9) | 22 (55) | 11 (27) | 6.59 | 0.037#‡ |
| Cerebrovascular disease, | 10 (28) | 7 (18) | 1 (3) | 9.42 | 0.009#† |
| General mental status | |||||
| MMSE | 25.26 ± 4.86 | 27.78 ± 1.56 | 29.43 ± 0.75 | 16.23 | <0.001†ξ |
| Episodic memory | |||||
| AVLT-Delay Recall | 1.18 ± 1.07 | 5.63 ± 2.64 | 8.55 ± 2.06 | 89.28 | <0.001†‡ξ |
| AVLT-Total | 14.49 ± 4.41 | 29.20 ± 9.62 | 40.38 ± 7.86 | 80.12 | <0.001†‡ξ |
| ROCF-Delay Recall | 8.9 ± 6.63 | 13.97 ± 7.15 | 20.48 ± 7.33 | 18.96 | <0.001†‡ξ |
| Working memory | |||||
| Digit Span | 10.97 ± 2.23 | 12.63 ± 2.27 | 13.18 ± 1.59 | 6.73 | 0.002†ξ |
| Digit Span Backward | 3.77 ± 1.18 | 4.95 ± 1.28 | 5.10 ± 0.96 | 8.42 | <0.001†ξ |
| Spatial processing | |||||
| ROCF-Copy | 31.61 ± 6.42 | 33.80 ± 2.94 | 34.08 ± 4.16 | 1.29 | 0.279 |
| Clock Drawing Test | 20.88 ± 5.56 | 24.97 ± 4.93 | 26.28 ± 3.30 | 12.22 | <0.001†ξ |
| Executive function | |||||
| Stroop Color and Word Test C-B time | 41.36 ± 16.83 | 40.25 ± 22.01 | 34.63 ± 22.13 | 1.29 | 0.279 |
| TMT-B time | 177.11 ± 52.11 | 163.35 ± 53.69 | 145 ± 49.29 | 3.73 | 0.028 |
| Language ability | |||||
| Boston Naming Test | 21.71 ± 4.47 | 24.40 ± 2.88 | 24.46 ± 2.94 | 5.08 | 0.008 |
| Category Verbal Fluency Test | 37.64 ± 9.69 | 44.85 ± 9.35 | 49 ± 7.07 | 8.62 | <0.001†ξ |
| Attention | |||||
| Symbol Digit Modalities Test | 28.96 ± 9.39 | 33.89 ± 9.44 | 38.55 ± 10.92 | 5.62 | 0.005† |
| TMT-A time | 84.63 ± 78.77 | 60.88 ± 17.69 | 53.15 ± 13.88 | 4.66 | 0.012 |
| Biochemical indicator | |||||
| HbA1c (%) | 6.49 ± 0.45 | 6.40 ± 1.31 | 4.93 ± 0.38 | 10.74 | <0.001†‡ |
| HbA1c (mmol/mol) | 47.37 ± 5.3 | 46.48 ± 4.29 | 30.31 ± 4.11 | 10.74 | <0.001†‡ |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.11 ± 0.73 | 4.80 ± 0.701 | 5.67 ± 1.10 | 0.904 | 0.427 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 2.13 ± 1.47 | 2.99 ± 1.99 | 1.55 ± 0.55 | 2.015 | 0.17 |
| HDL (mmol/L) | 1.29 ± 0.18 | 1.59 ± 0.29 | 1.38 ± 0.28 | 0.906 | 0.427 |
| LDL (mmol/L) | 3.01 ± 1.03 | 1.85 ± 0.09 | 3.52 ± 1.02 | 2.554 | 0.113 |
All subjects (T2DM-aMCI, T2DM-NC, HC) were matched for age, sex, and education. Values are the mean ± SD except where indicated. The comparisons of each cognition test among three groups were performed with ANCOVA. P < 0.0036 (0.05/14) was considered significant after Bonferroni correction. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using t tests. P < 0.017 (0.05/3) was considered significant after Bonferroni correction. #The P value in the three groups was obtained using a χ2 test. Post hoc paired comparisons showed significant group differences between T2DM-aMCI and HC (†), between T2DM-NC and HC (‡), and between T2DM-aMCI and T2DM-NC (ξ).
Figure 1Voxel-wise Tract-Based Spatial Statistics differences in FA metrics between groups. Green represents the mean WM skeleton of all subjects. Top row: Red-yellow voxels (thickened for better visibility) represent the WM regions with decreased FA in the T2DM-aMCI patients compared with HC subjects (FWE corrected, P < 0.05). Middle row: Red-yellow voxels represent the WM regions with reduced FA in the T2DM-aMCI group compared with T2DM-NC group (FWE corrected, P < 0.05). Bottom row: There are no significant WM microstructural differences between the T2DM-NC patients and HC subjects.
WM integrity differences and its relationship with cognitive scores in all T2DM patients
| Tracts | Volumes (mm3) | Axial diffusivity and cognitive correlation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2DM-aMCI vs. HC | T2DM-aMCI vs. T2DM-NC | AVLT-Total | TMT-A time | ||
| 1 | ATR.L | 83 | 0 | — | — |
| 2 | ATR.R | 80 | 5 | — | — |
| 3 | CST.L | 102 | 0 | — | — |
| 4 | CST.R | 17 | 142 | — | — |
| 5 | CG.L | 28 | 0 | — | — |
| 6 | CG.R | 8 | 0 | — | — |
| 7 | CH.L | 0 | 0 | — | — |
| 8 | CH.R | 0 | 0 | — | — |
| 9 | Fmaj | 0 | 119 | 0.359 | — |
| 10 | Fmin | 369 | 13 | — | — |
| 11 | IFOF.L | 86 | 0 | — | — |
| 12 | IFOF.R | 111 | 63 | 0.441*** | −0.409 |
| 13 | ILF.L | 0 | 0 | — | — |
| 14 | ILF.R | 0 | 35 | 0.431*** | −0.512*** |
| 15 | SLF.L | 29 | 0 | — | — |
| 16 | SLF.R | 9 | 73 | — | — |
| 17 | UF.L | 66 | 0 | — | — |
| 18 | UF.R | 28 | 0 | — | — |
| 19 | SLF-temp.L | 8 | 0 | — | — |
| 20 | SLF-temp.R | 0 | 20 | — | — |
WM volumes were from the significant group differences (FWE corrected, P < 0.05). CG, cingulum (cingulate gyrus); CH, cingulum (hippocampus); Fmaj, forceps major; Fmin, forceps minor.
P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2The relationship between WM integrity, cognitive scores, and gray matter density. A: The correlations between IFOF.R and ILF.R axial diffusivity and cognitive scores in T2DM patients. B: The correlations between IFOF.R and ILF.R axial diffusivity and gray matter density for areas anatomically connected to these two tracks. SR 1/4, the SR of AVLT-Total related to the axial diffusivity index; SR 2/3, the significant region of TMT-A related to the axial diffusivity index.