Prenatal tobacco and marijuana co-use: Impact on newborn neurobehavior.

Tobacco and marijuana are some of the most common prenatal substance exposures worldwide. The social acceptability and political landscape of marijuana and its potency have changed dramatically in the last two decades leading to increased use by pregnant women. Despite evidence for increasing marijuana use and high rates of co-use of tobacco (TOB) and marijuana (MJ) during pregnancy, the impact of prenatal exposure to each substance is typically studied in isolation. We investigated the influence of co-exposure to TOB and MJ on infant neurobehavioral development over the first postnatal month. Participants were 111 mother-infant pairs from a low-income, diverse sample (Mean age = 25 ± 5; 54% minorities). TOB and MJ use were assessed by Timeline Followback interview with biochemical confirmation. Three groups were identified: (a) prenatal MJ + TOB, (b) prenatal TOB only, (c) controls. Newborn neurobehavior was assessed at seven time points over the first postnatal month using the NICU Network Neurobehavioral Scale. MJ + TOB-exposed infants showed decreased ability to self-soothe (Self-regulation) and attend to stimuli (Attention), and increased need for examiner soothing (Handling) and low motor activity (Lethargy) versus unexposed infants. Despite low levels of MJ use in MJ + TOB co-users, co-exposure was associated with nearly double the impact on infant self-soothing and need for examiner soothing versus TOB-exposure alone. Effects of MJ + TOB co-exposure appeared more pronounced for daughters than for sons. Although results are preliminary, they highlight additional risk from dual exposure to MJ + TOB vs. TOB exposure alone, particularly for daughters. Results also highlight the critical importance of investigating prenatal exposures in concert and the need for intervention efforts to address MJ co-use in pregnant TOB users

Investigation of antihypertensive class, dementia, and cognitive decline: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: High blood pressure is one of the main modifiable risk factors for dementia. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the best antihypertensive class for optimizing cognition. Our objective was to determine whether any particular antihypertensive class was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline or dementia using comprehensive meta-analysis including reanalysis of original participant data. METHODS: To identify suitable studies, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO and preexisting study consortia were searched from inception to December 2017. Authors of prospective longitudinal human studies or trials of antihypertensives were contacted for data sharing and collaboration. Outcome measures were incident dementia or incident cognitive decline (classified using the reliable change index method). Data were separated into mid and late-life (>65 years) and each antihypertensive class was compared to no treatment and to treatment with other antihypertensives. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize data. RESULTS: Over 50,000 participants from 27 studies were included. Among those aged >65 years, with the exception of diuretics, we found no relationship by class with incident cognitive decline or dementia. Diuretic use was suggestive of benefit in some analyses but results were not consistent across follow-up time, comparator group, and outcome. Limited data precluded meaningful analyses in those ≤65 years of age. CONCLUSION: Our findings, drawn from the current evidence base, support clinical freedom in the selection of antihypertensive regimens to achieve blood pressure goals. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: The review was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42016045454.No funding was received specifically for this project. The lead author is funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute for Dementia Research, Dementia Centre for Research Collaboration (NHMRC NNIDR DCRC). Other authors are funded from various sources

Investigation of antihypertensive class, dementia, and cognitive decline: A meta-analysis.

ObjectiveHigh blood pressure is one of the main modifiable risk factors for dementia. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the best antihypertensive class for optimizing cognition. Our objective was to determine whether any particular antihypertensive class was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline or dementia using comprehensive meta-analysis including reanalysis of original participant data.MethodsTo identify suitable studies, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO and preexisting study consortia were searched from inception to December 2017. Authors of prospective longitudinal human studies or trials of antihypertensives were contacted for data sharing and collaboration. Outcome measures were incident dementia or incident cognitive decline (classified using the reliable change index method). Data were separated into mid and late-life (>65 years) and each antihypertensive class was compared to no treatment and to treatment with other antihypertensives. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize data.ResultsOver 50,000 participants from 27 studies were included. Among those aged >65 years, with the exception of diuretics, we found no relationship by class with incident cognitive decline or dementia. Diuretic use was suggestive of benefit in some analyses but results were not consistent across follow-up time, comparator group, and outcome. Limited data precluded meaningful analyses in those ≤65 years of age.ConclusionOur findings, drawn from the current evidence base, support clinical freedom in the selection of antihypertensive regimens to achieve blood pressure goals.Clinical trials registrationThe review was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42016045454

Investigation of antihypertensive class, dementia, and cognitive decline: A meta-analysis

ObjectiveHigh blood pressure is one of the main modifiable risk factors for dementia. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the best antihypertensive class for optimizing cognition. Our objective was to determine whether any particular antihypertensive class was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive decline or dementia using comprehensive meta-analysis including reanalysis of original participant data.MethodsTo identify suitable studies, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO and preexisting study consortia were searched from inception to December 2017. Authors of prospective longitudinal human studies or trials of antihypertensives were contacted for data sharing and collaboration. Outcome measures were incident dementia or incident cognitive decline (classified using the reliable change index method). Data were separated into mid and late-life (>65 years) and each antihypertensive class was compared to no treatment and to treatment with other antihypertensives. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize data.65 years) and each antihypertensive class was compared to no treatment and to treatment with other antihypertensives. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize data.ResultsOver 50,000 participants from 27 studies were included. Among those aged >65 years, with the exception of diuretics, we found no relationship by class with incident cognitive decline or dementia. Diuretic use was suggestive of benefit in some analyses but results were not consistent across follow-up time, comparator group, and outcome. Limited data precluded meaningful analyses in those ≤65 years of age.65 years, with the exception of diuretics, we found no relationship by class with incident cognitive decline or dementia. Diuretic use was suggestive of benefit in some analyses but results were not consistent across follow-up time, comparator group, and outcome. Limited data precluded meaningful analyses in those ≤65 years of age.ConclusionOur findings, drawn from the current evidence base, support clinical freedom in the selection of antihypertensive regimens to achieve blood pressure goals. Clinical trials registrationThe review was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42016045454