Higher dietary advanced glycation products intake is associated with increased risk of dementia, independent from genetic predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Dietary advanced glycation end products (AGEs) might exert adverse effects on cognition. The associations between dietary AGEs and long-term risk of dementia are yet to be assessed in large population studies. We aimed to explore whether elevated dietary AGEs intake is associated with increased risk of dementia, and whether this association might be affected by genetic risk. METHODS: A prospective cohort study, which included a total of 93,830 participants (aged≥ 50 years) free from dementia at baseline of the UK Biobank study (2006-2010) and had at least two 24-h dietary assessments and were followed up until 2021. Dietary AGEs, including Nε-(1-Carboxyethyl)-l-lysine (CEL), Nε-(carboxymethyl) lysine (CML), and Nδ-(5-hydro-5-methyl-4-imidazolon-2-yl)-ornithine (MG-H1) were estimated via averaged data from the multiple 24-h food assessments according to the ultra-performance LC-tandem MS based dAGEs database. Incidence of all-cause dementia was ascertained through hospital inpatient and mortality records. Multivariable Cox regression models were utilized to estimate hazards ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of dementia risk associated with dietary AGEs. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 11.9 years, 728 participants developed dementia. In multivariable adjusted model, when comparing the highest with the lowest tertile of intake level, HRs (95% CI) of dementia were 1.43 (1.16, 1.76) for total AGEs Z score, 1.53 (1.25, 1.89) for CEL, 1.27 (1.03, 1.56) for CML and 1.24 (1.02, 1.52) for MG-H1 (all P trend<0.01). There was no significant interaction between dietary AGEs intake, genetic risk and APOE ε4 carrier status for dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Higher intakes of dietary AGEs including CEL, CML and MG-H1 were associated with a higher risk of dementia, independent from genetic risk, highlighting the significance of dietary AGEs restriction for dementia prevention.

Evaluation of factors that predict the success rate of trial of labor after the cesarean section.

BACKGROUND: For most women who have had a previous cesarean section, vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) is a reasonable and safe choice, but which will increase the risk of adverse outcomes such as uterine rupture. In order to reduce the risk, we evaluated the factors that may affect VBAC and and established a model for predicting the success rate of trial of the labor after cesarean section (TOLAC). METHODS: All patients who gave birth at Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital from January 2016 to December 2018, had a history of cesarean section and voluntarily chose the TOLAC were recruited. Among them, 80% of the population was randomly assigned to the training set, while the remaining 20% were assigned to the external validation set. In the training set, univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify indicators related to successful TOLAC. A nomogram was constructed based on the results of multiple logistic regression analysis, and the selected variables included in the nomogram were used to predict the probability of successfully obtaining TOLAC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to judge the predictive ability of the model. RESULTS: A total of 778 pregnant women were included in this study. Among them, 595 (76.48%) successfully underwent TOLAC, whereas 183 (23.52%) failed and switched to cesarean section. In multi-factor logistic regression, parity = 1, pre-pregnancy BMI < 24 kg/m2, cervical score ≥ 5, a history of previous vaginal delivery and neonatal birthweight < 3300 g were associated with the success of TOLAC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve in the prediction and validation models was 0.815 (95% CI: 0.762-0.854) and 0.730 (95% CI: 0.652-0.808), respectively, indicating that the nomogram prediction model had medium discriminative power. CONCLUSION: The TOLAC was useful to reducing the cesarean section rate. Being primiparous, not overweight or obese, having a cervical score ≥ 5, a history of previous vaginal delivery or neonatal birthweight < 3300 g were protective indicators. In this study, the validated model had an approving predictive ability.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine hagedorn insulin in treatment of diabetes during pregnancy: a randomized, controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin used in pregnant women with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized study was conducted in diabetic pregnant women (n=240) (including 132 with pregestational diabetes and 108 with gestational diabetes). All patients were randomly divided into two groups: IDet group (n=120) treated with IDet plus short acting insulin Novolin-R before three meals (RRR-IDet plan), and NPH group treated with NPH plus Novolin-R before three meals (RRR-NPH plan). Patients were enrolled during 12-28 gestation weeks and followed up until delivery. RESULTS: Basal characteristics, such as age, enrollment gestational weeks, average HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were similar between two groups. After 1 week of treatment, the FPG of IDet group were significantly lower than NPH group (p<0.05) and the time required to reach the targeted blood glucose level was significantly shorter (p<0.001). After 3 months of treatment, the HbA1c level in the two groups was normalized but there was no significant difference in HbA1c level. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between the two therapeutic approaches; however, the incidence of hypoglycemia in IDet group was remarkably lower than that of NPH group (p<0.05). The adverse drug reactions were rare and similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of gestational diabetes, both RRR-IDet plan and RRR-NPH plan were reported to control blood glucose effectively. Compared with NPH, IDet could control blood glucose and reached the targets faster and more effectively, thus reducing the number of insulin injections and the incidence of hypoglycemia in pregnant women without increasing adverse birth outcomes. Therefore, for pregnant women with gestational diabetes, who require insulin therapy, IDet would be an ideal basal insulin being worthy of promotion in clinical settings.