OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits and traditional diabetic complications and the association between metabolic factors and these outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in severely obese individuals before bariatric surgery. Lean control subjects were recruited from a research website. Cognitive deficits were defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox (<5th percentile for lean control subjects). Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) was defined by an expiration-to-inspiration (E-to-I) ratio of <5th percentile for lean control subjects. Retinopathy was based on retinal photographs and nephropathy on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (<60 mg/dL) and/or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) (≥30 mg/g). NIH Toolbox, E-to-I ratio, mean deviation on frequency doubling technology testing, and ACR were used as sensitive measures of these outcomes. We used multivariable linear regression to explore associations between metabolic factors and these outcomes. RESULTS: We recruited 138 severely obese individuals and 46 lean control subjects. The prevalence of cognitive deficits, CAN, retinopathy, and nephropathy were 6.5%, 4.4%, 0%, and 6.5% in lean control subjects; 22.2%, 18.2%, 0%, and 6.1% in obese participants with normoglycemia; 17.7%, 21.4%, 1.9%, and 17.9% in obese participants with prediabetes; and 25.6%, 31.9%, 6.1%, and 16.3% in obese participants with diabetes. Waist circumference was significantly associated with cognitive function (-1.48; 95% CI -2.38, -0.57) and E-to-I ratio (-0.007; 95% CI -0.012, -0.002). Prediabetes was significantly associated with retinal function (-1.78; 95% CI -3.56, -0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity alone is likely sufficient to cause cognitive deficits but not retinopathy or nephropathy. Central obesity is the key metabolic risk factor.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of cognitive deficits and traditional diabetic complications and the association between metabolic factors and these outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in severely obese individuals before bariatric surgery. Lean control subjects were recruited from a research website. Cognitive deficits were defined by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox (<5th percentile for lean control subjects). Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy (CAN) was defined by an expiration-to-inspiration (E-to-I) ratio of <5th percentile for lean control subjects. Retinopathy was based on retinal photographs and nephropathy on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (<60 mg/dL) and/or the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) (≥30 mg/g). NIH Toolbox, E-to-I ratio, mean deviation on frequency doubling technology testing, and ACR were used as sensitive measures of these outcomes. We used multivariable linear regression to explore associations between metabolic factors and these outcomes. RESULTS: We recruited 138 severely obese individuals and 46 lean control subjects. The prevalence of cognitive deficits, CAN, retinopathy, and nephropathy were 6.5%, 4.4%, 0%, and 6.5% in lean control subjects; 22.2%, 18.2%, 0%, and 6.1% in obeseparticipants with normoglycemia; 17.7%, 21.4%, 1.9%, and 17.9% in obeseparticipants with prediabetes; and 25.6%, 31.9%, 6.1%, and 16.3% in obeseparticipants with diabetes. Waist circumference was significantly associated with cognitive function (-1.48; 95% CI -2.38, -0.57) and E-to-I ratio (-0.007; 95% CI -0.012, -0.002). Prediabetes was significantly associated with retinal function (-1.78; 95% CI -3.56, -0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity alone is likely sufficient to cause cognitive deficits but not retinopathy or nephropathy. Central obesity is the key metabolic risk factor.
Authors: G Lauria; S T Hsieh; O Johansson; W R Kennedy; J M Leger; S I Mellgren; M Nolano; I S J Merkies; M Polydefkis; A G Smith; C Sommer; J Valls-Solé Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Tze Pin Ng; Liang Feng; Ma Shwe Zin Nyunt; Lei Feng; Qi Gao; May Li Lim; Simon L Collinson; Mei Sian Chong; Wee Shiong Lim; Tih Shih Lee; Philip Yap; Keng Bee Yap Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Brian C Callaghan; Rong Xia; Mousumi Banerjee; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Tamara B Harris; Anne B Newman; Suzanne Satterfield; Ann V Schwartz; Aaron I Vinik; Eva L Feldman; Elsa S Strotmeyer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Merrill F Elias; Penelope K Elias; Lisa M Sullivan; Philip A Wolf; Ralph B D'Agostino Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2005-10-11 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Séverine Sabia; Mika Kivimaki; Martin J Shipley; Michael G Marmot; Archana Singh-Manoux Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Marija Sajic; Amy E Rumora; Anish A Kanhai; Giacomo Dentoni; Sharlini Varatharajah; Caroline Casey; Ryan D R Brown; Fabian Peters; Lucy M Hinder; Masha G Savelieff; Eva L Feldman; Kenneth J Smith Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2021-03-30 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Kyler Mulhauser; Evan L Reynolds; Brian C Callaghan; Cassandra Fierro; Bruno Giordani; Kristen Votruba Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: V Fridman; S Zarini; S Sillau; K Harrison; B C Bergman; E L Feldman; J E B Reusch; B C Callaghan Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Kai Guo; Masha G Savelieff; Amy E Rumora; Fadhl M Alakwaa; Brian C Callaghan; Junguk Hur; Eva L Feldman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-03-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Aikaterini Eleftheriadou; Scott Williams; Sarah Nevitt; Emily Brown; Rebecca Roylance; John P H Wilding; Daniel J Cuthbertson; Uazman Alam Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Evan L Reynolds; Gulcin Akinci; Mousumi Banerjee; Helen C Looker; Adam Patterson; Robert G Nelson; Eva L Feldman; Brian C Callaghan Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2021-05-24