Elkind, Mitchell S.V.

Background New antiamyloid therapies (AAT) for treating patients with early Alzheimer disease (AD) have become available in the past 3 years. Although AAT can be beneficial in slowing progression of AD, they also come with potentially serious side effects, particularly for patients requiring anticoagulation or thrombolysis for cardiovascular conditions. Given that most patients with AD are older and likely to have cardiovascular risk factors, there is urgent need for additional guidance for clinicians about potential risks and benefits associated with AAT for patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, best practices for management of these patients, and special considerations with respect to emergency evaluation and treatment of patients on AAT who develop acute neurological symptoms. Methods The American Heart Association convened 75 multidisciplinary experts for the Amyloid‐Related Imaging Abnormalities Summit: Cardiovascular and Stroke Considerations for β‐Amyloid Immunotherapy in AD in July 2025. These experts were divided into 8 work groups to evaluate the current evidence related to AAT usage in patients with cardiovascular risk factors and conditions and develop consensus‐based guidance for clinicians. Results This statement outlines the outcomes of the Summit, including considerations for prescribers, primary care professionals, emergency personnel, and health care system stakeholders. These considerations are intended to improve identification of patients as appropriate candidates for AAT, management of patients with co‐occurring AD and cardiovascular conditions, and their emergency evaluation and treatment. The statement also includes guidance for shared decision‐making, implementation of system changes for improving dementia care, and recommendations for future research and data collection to add to the body of evidence for treating patients with concomitant AD and cardiovascular conditions. Conclusions Building on lessons learned from the establishment of stroke systems of care, the consensus‐based considerations outlined in this document can serve as a foundation for AD systems of care aimed at ensuring optimal use of these ground‐breaking therapies.

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Background: Despite the availability of effective vaccines and a recent decrease in annual deaths, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) remains a leading cause of death. Serological studies of anti-nucleocapsid (N) antibody response to infection provide insights into host immunobiology of adaptive immune response, which holds promise for identifying high-risk individuals for adverse acute and chronic COVID-19 outcomes. Hypothesis: Among participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, traditional vascular disease risk factors are associated with higher anti-N antibodies while vaccination is associated with lower anti-N antibodies. Methods: Among previously infected participants, anti-N antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021-February 2023 among 1,419 Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research (C4R) participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. We measured anti-N IgG antibodies reported as median fluorescence intensity (MFI) units; reactivity (i.e., seropositivity) was defined based on MFI above a validated threshold. Vascular disease risk factors were assessed via pre-pandemic in-person examination, questionnaires, and medical record review. Multivariable generalized linear models regressed anti-N reactivity (modified Poisson) or LN transformed MFI (linear). Results: Among 1,419 participants with prior infection, mean age (standard deviation) was 65.8(12.1) years, 61% were women, and 42.8% were self-reported from a race/ethnicity minority group. Participant reactivity to nucleocapsid peaked at 69% by 4 months post-infection and waned to only 44% ≥12 months after infection. After multivariable adjustment, higher anti-N antibody response was associated with older age, Hispanic (vs. White) or American Indian (vs. White) race/ethnicity, lower income and education, former smoking, and higher anti-spike antibody levels. Asian race (vs. White) and vaccination ( even after infection ) were associated with lower nucleocapsid reactivity; common cardiometabolic co-morbidities were not associated with anti-N reactivity or levels (Figures 1 and 2). Conclusions: Among participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, select sociodemographic and behavioral risk factors were associated with higher anti-N antibody levels while vaccination was associated with lower anti-N antibody levels. The observation that vaccination, even after infection, is related to lower anti-N antibody levels merits further investigation.

Abstract Despite the availability of effective vaccines and a recent decrease in annual deaths, COVID-19 remains a leading cause of death. Serological studies provide insights into host immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, which holds promise for identifying high-risk individuals for adverse COVID-19 outcomes. We investigated correlates of anti-nucleocapsid antibody responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection in a US population-based meta-cohort of adults participating in longstanding National Institutes of Health–funded cohort studies. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021 and February 2023. Among 1419 Collaborative Cohort of Cohorts for COVID-19 Research participants with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mean age (standard deviation) was 65.8 (12.1), 61% were women, and 42.8% self-reported membership in a race/ethnicity minority group. The proportion of participants reactive to nucleocapsid peaked at 69% by 4 months after infection and waned to only 44% ≥12 months after infection. Higher anti-nucleocapsid antibody response was associated with older age, Hispanic or American Indian Alaskan Native (vs White) race/ethnicity, lower income, lower education, former smoking, and higher anti-spike antibody levels. Asian race (vs White) and vaccination (even after infection) were associated with lower nucleocapsid reactivity. Neither vaccine manufacturer nor common cardiometabolic comorbidities were not associated with anti-nucleocapsid response. These findings inform the underlying immunobiology of adaptive immune response to infection, as well as the potential utility of anti-nucleocapsid antibody response for clinical practice and COVID-19 serosurveillance.

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P < .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

INTRODUCTION: An estimated 15%–29% of patients report new gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms after coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) while 4%–31% report new depressive symptoms. These symptoms may be secondary to gut microbiome tryptophan metabolism and 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)-based signaling. METHODS: This study used specimens from 2 patient cohorts: (i) fecal samples from patients with acute COVID-19 who participated in a randomized controlled trial testing prebiotic fiber and (ii) blood samples from patients with acute COVID-19. Six months after recovering from COVID-19, both cohorts answered questions related to GI symptoms and anxiety or depression. Microbiome composition and function, focusing on tryptophan metabolism-associated pathways, and plasma 5-HT were assessed. RESULTS: In the first cohort (n = 13), gut microbiome L-tryptophan biosynthesis during acute COVID-19 was decreased among those who developed more severe GI symptoms (2.0-fold lower log activity comparing those with the most severe GI symptoms vs those with no symptoms, P = 0.06). All tryptophan pathways showed decreased activity among those with more GI symptoms. The same pathways were also decreased in those with the most severe mental health symptoms after COVID-19. In an untargeted analysis, 5 additional metabolic pathways significantly differed based on subsequent development of GI symptoms. In the second cohort (n = 39), plasma 5-HT concentration at the time of COVID-19 was increased 5.1-fold in those with GI symptoms alone compared with those with mental health symptoms alone ( P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Acute gut microbiome-mediated reduction in 5-HT signaling may contribute to long-term GI and mental health symptoms after COVID-19. Future studies should explore modification of 5-HT signaling to reduce post-COVID symptoms.

Introduction: Hospital-Acquired Infections (HAIs) are contracted during hospitalization for another disorder. We hypothesized that older adults with incident stroke and HAI experience faster subsequent cognitive decline than those having stroke without HAI and those without stroke. Methods: The Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) is a cohort of Medicare-eligible participants aged ≥ 65 years. Incident ischemic stroke was ascertained from medical records. HAIs were assessed by hospital discharge ICD-9 codes. Global cognitive function was measured annually by modified mini-mental state examination (3MSE) and executive function by digit symbol substitution test (DSST). We used linear mixed models to estimate decline in mean 3MSE and DSST scores over a mean of seven years by incident stroke and HAI status among participants free of stroke at baseline. Results: In the 3MSE analysis, 393 participants had incident stroke and HAI, 766 had stroke only, and 4,284 had no stroke. With no stroke ( Fig 1A, black line), cognitive decline accelerated with age: mean declines of 0.27 points/year at age 70, 1.10 points/year at age 80, and 2.47 points/year at age 90. After stroke with HAI (red line), mean decline was 0.29 points/year faster than with no stroke (95% CI: 0.17, 0.40; p < 0.001). In contrast, after stroke without HAI (blue line), mean decline was similar to that with no stroke (0.09 points/year faster; 95% CI: -0.13, 0.32; p = 0.410). Mean decline was 0.19 points/year faster after stroke with HAI than after stroke without HAI, though these differences were not statistically significant (95% CI: -0.05, 0.44; p = 0.123). Mean decline in DSST score ( Fig 1B ) after stroke with HAI was similar to stroke without HAI (0.09 points/year faster decline after stroke with HAI; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.27; p = 0.297). Conclusions: Mean cognitive decline after stroke with HAI was faster than with no stroke but may be similar to that after stroke without HAI. As a limitation, we did not have data on stroke severity.

Growing evidence suggests a consistent association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and cognitive impairment and dementia that is independent of clinical stroke. This report from the AF-SCREEN International Collaboration summarizes the evidence linking AF to cognitive impairment and dementia. It provides guidance on the investigation and management of dementia in patients with AF on the basis of best available evidence. The document also addresses suspected pathophysiologic mechanisms and identifies knowledge gaps for future research. Whereas AF and dementia share numerous risk factors, the association appears to be independent of these variables. Nevertheless, the evidence remains inconclusive regarding a direct causal effect. Several pathophysiologic mechanisms have been proposed, some of which are potentially amenable to early intervention, including cerebral microinfarction, AF-related cerebral hypoperfusion, inflammation, microhemorrhage, brain atrophy, and systemic atherosclerotic vascular disease. The mitigating role of oral anticoagulation in specific subgroups (eg, low stroke risk, short duration or silent AF, after successful AF ablation, or atrial cardiopathy) and the effect of rhythm versus rate control strategies remain unknown. Likewise, screening for AF (in cognitively normal or cognitively impaired patients) and screening for cognitive impairment in patients with AF are debated. The pathophysiology of dementia and therapeutic strategies to reduce cognitive impairment warrant further investigation in individuals with AF. Cognition should be evaluated in future AF studies and integrated with patient-specific outcome priorities and patient preferences. Further large-scale prospective studies and randomized trials are needed to establish whether AF is a risk factor for cognitive impairment, to investigate strategies to prevent dementia, and to determine whether screening for unknown AF followed by targeted therapy might prevent or reduce cognitive impairment and dementia.

Importance Black individuals are more likely than white individuals to develop dementia. Whether higher blood pressure (BP) levels in black individuals explain differences between black and white individuals in dementia risk is uncertain. Objective To determine whether cumulative BP levels explain racial differences in cognitive decline. Design, Setting, and Participants Individual participant data from 5 cohorts (January 1971 to December 2017) were pooled from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults Study, Cardiovascular Health Study, Framingham Offspring Study, and Northern Manhattan Study. Outcomes were standardized as t scores (mean [SD], 50 [10]); a 1-point difference represented a 0.1-SD difference in cognition. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 12.4 (5.9-21.0) years. Analysis began September 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was change in global cognition, and secondary outcomes were change in memory and executive function. Exposures Race (black vs white). Results Among 34 349 participants, 19 378 individuals who were free of stroke and dementia and had longitudinal BP, cognitive, and covariate data were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age at first cognitive assessment was 59.8 (10.4) years and ranged from 5 to 95 years. Of 19 378 individuals, 10 724 (55.3%) were female and 15 526 (80.1%) were white. Compared with white individuals, black individuals had significantly faster declines in global cognition (−0.03 points per year faster [95% CI, −0.05 to −0.01]; P = .004) and memory (−0.08 points per year faster [95% CI, −0.11 to −0.06]; P &amp;lt; .001) but significantly slower declines in executive function (0.09 points per year slower [95% CI, 0.08-0.10]; P &amp;lt; .001). Time-dependent cumulative mean systolic BP level was associated with significantly faster declines in global cognition (−0.018 points per year faster per each 10–mm Hg increase [95% CI, −0.023 to −0.014]; P &amp;lt; .001), memory (−0.028 points per year faster per each 10–mm Hg increase [95% CI, −0.035 to −0.021]; P &amp;lt; .001), and executive function (−0.01 points per year faster per each 10–mm Hg increase [95% CI, −0.014 to −0.007]; P &amp;lt; .001). After adjusting for cumulative mean systolic BP, differences between black and white individuals in cognitive slopes were attenuated for global cognition (−0.01 points per year [95% CI, −0.03 to 0.01]; P = .56) and memory (−0.06 points per year [95% CI, −0.08 to −0.03]; P &amp;lt; .001) but not executive function (0.10 points per year [95% CI, 0.09-0.11]; P &amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance These results suggest that black individuals’ higher cumulative BP levels may contribute to racial differences in later-life cognitive decline.