Journal of ISSN: 2373-6410JNSK

Neurology & Stroke
Research Article
Volume 1 Issue 3 - 2014
Cognitive Impairment in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin in Comparison with those Taking Glibenclamide
Mohammad Saadatnia1,2*, Mansour Siavash3, Kiandokht Keyhanian1,4,6, Adel Hamid5, Arash Amini5 and Vahid Davoudi1,4,7
1Isfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
2Isfahan Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
3Isfahan Endocrine & Metabolism Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
4Isfahan Physiology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
5Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
6Isfahan Medical Students Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran
7Sina Trauma and Surgery Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Received: July 18, 2014 | Published: July 31, 2014
*Corresponding author: Mohammad Saadatnia, Isfahan Neurosciences Research Center, Isfahan Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Azzahra Hospital, Isfahan-8158695954, Iran, Tel: 00989131147179; Email: @
Citation: Saadatnia M, Siavash M, Keyhanian K, Hamid A, Amini A, et al. (2014) Cognitive Impairment in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Treated with Metformin in Comparison with those Taking Glibenclamide. J Neurol Stroke 1(3): 00019. DOI: 10.15406/jnsk.2014.01.00019

Abstract

Introduction: Metformin and sulfonylureas are different in their mechanism of action whether they manipulate insulin levels for diabetes treatment. We compared the cognitive impairment among type II diabetic patients treated with metformin or glibenclamide (from sulfonylureas group).
Method: Within a randomized cross-sectional study, 314 subjects were recruited from Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center, consisting of 4 groups. Group 1 was treated exclusively by metformin and Group 2 with glibenclamide, Group 3 was patients treated by diet and Group 4 was healthy individuals. Cognitive function was estimated among patients with Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Results: In diabetic groups mean MMS was significantly lower than healthy individuals (27.46±0.197 vs. 28.31±2.24, P-value=0.000). No difference was observed among diabetic groups. (Group1: 27.44±0.415, Group2: 27.61±0.405, Group3: 27.34±0.403, P- value=0.899).
Conclusion: All three groups of diabetic patients were similar statistically in cognitive function evaluated by MMS, which means metformin and glibenclamide regardless of their mechanism of action may not differs the patient’s vulnerability to cognitive problems.
Keywords: Dementia; Diabetes; Glibenclamide; Metformin; Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE); Sulfunylurea

Abbreviations

AD: Alzheimer’s Disease; DM: Diabetes Mellitus; MMSE: Mini Mental State Examination; IEMRC: Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center

Introduction

Poor cognitive function is reported to be associated with Type 2 diabetes, although the etiology of this phenomenon is still unclear [1-3]. Comparing with non-diabetic individuals, the incidence of dementia in diabetic patients has increased about 50-100%, in both Alzheimer disease (AD) and vascular dementia [4]. There are still debates whether cognitive impairment is a consequence of high blood glucose level or is due to diabetes induced hyperinsulinemia. However, hyperinsulinemia has attracted more attention for playing an essential role in diabetes effects on cognition [5-8]. To conquer receptor insensitivity, during diabetes induced insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia is provoked as a compensatory adjustment [9,10]. Neurotoxic effects of hyperinsulinemia could be responsible for further cognitive impairment during diabetes. High amounts of insulin may threat survival of neurons in culture as well as sensitizing them to toxins and stress related damages [11]. On the other hand, insulin-degrading enzyme acts as a linkage between hyperinsulinemia and AD by degrading insulin, along with amyloid-beta peptide (Abeta). Abeta is a short peptide found predominantly in the brain affected by AD. When there is hyperinsulinemia, through this competition, Abeta may rise in the brain and cause AD [12,13].
Several anti-diabetic drugs are available to decrease blood glucose levels, even though their mechanisms of action are variable. Gelibenclamide also known as glyburide is a second generation of sulfonylureas that control hyperglycemia through insulin secretagogues. Their action is performed on b cells through blocking ATP dependent potassium channels [14]. Metformin which is another common anti-diabetic drug lowers hepatic glucose production by decreasing insulin resistance and reducing carbohydrate uptake within intestine, without inducing hyperinsulinemia and hypoglycemia [15-20]. Considering that these two drugs are different in their mechanism of action in their way of manipulating insulin levels, we performed this study to compare cognitive impairment among type II diabetic patients treating with metformin with those taking glibenclamide, a drug categorized in sulfonylureas group.

Materials and Methods

Patients
Within a randomized cross-sectional study, 314 subjects were recruited from Isfahan Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center (IEMRC) from June 2007 to September 2007. IEMRC gathers almost all information concerning disease onset and progression of diabetes and other endocrine diseases. Subjects were ordered in 4 groups. Group 1 and 2, were consisting of 79 patients each with well-controlled type 2 diabetes who were treated exclusively by metformin (Group 1) or glibenclamide (Group 2). Group 3 contained 78 well-controlled diabetic patients on diet and group 4 consisted healthy subjects without diabetes who came to the clinic for the evaluation of their health status and were considered healthy according to our exclusion criteria.
The quality of the diabetic control was assessed according to Hemoglobin A1c levels. HbA1c level of 4.3-5.8% was considered as well controlled diabetes. Subjects who were treated with any drug other than metformin and glibenclamide were not enrolled. In addition, subjects affected by malignancy, inflammatory diseases (such as collagen disease, thyroid disease and viral hepatitis), severe micro and macro-vascular complications of diabetes (such as renal failure), and severe cardiovascular diseases (such as myocardial infarction and unstable angina) were excluded during subject’s retrieval. Patients with history of recurrent Hypoglycemia and dementia not due to diabetes were not contributed to the study. Subjects with audio-visual problems were also excluded for preventing any trouble during assessment of cognition. VitB12 is doubted to participate in pathogenesis of dementia [21]. Metformin is also known to reduce VitB12 levels. Consequently, the serum level of VitB12 was measured in all subjects to exclude patients with VitB12 deficiency.
The Ethical committee in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences approved the study design and all subjects had fulfilled informed consent prior to investigation.
Subjects were evaluated for common physical check-up by a general physician in the morning. They were asked to complete a questionnaire about their demographic characteristics, level of education and duration of diabetes. Serum levels of HbA1c, HDL, LDL, cholesterol and FBS were determined in all subjects as well.
Cognitive assessments
Cognitive function was estimated with Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) [22]. Well-trained psychological examiners examined each subject by a same test in a same order. Dementia was defined as MMS<20 for illiterates and MMS<24 for educated subjects.
Statistical analysis
SPSS version 13 was employed and data were reported as mean± standard deviation. Chi square was performed for comparing prevalence of dementia (MMS>24) within 4 groups. ANOVA, T-test and Univariate Test were carried out to analyse and compare MMS mean values.

Results

Among 314 subjects enrolled in our survey, 215 were females vs. 99 males. Sex and age distribution for all 4 groups were defined in Table 1.

 

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Age

53.02±8.5 Min:35, Max:80

57.11±9.08 Min:40, Max:76

50.74±12.23 Min:31, Max:76

55.89±9.1 Min:35, Max:78

Male

N=58, 73.4%

N=49, 62%

N=61, 78.2%

N=31, 60.3%

Female

N=21, 26.6%

N=30, 38%

N=17, 21.8%

N=47, 39.7%

Highly Educated Subject

N=36,45.6%

N=38,48.1%

N=39, 50.0%

N=52,66.7%

Low Educated Subject

N=38,48.1%

N=35,44.3%

N=37,47.4%

N=23,29.5%

Non Educated Subjects

N=5, 6.3%

N=6, 7.6%

N=2, 2.6%

N=3, 3.8%

Mean Years of Education ± SD

9.18±4.19

9.50±4.14

9.47±3.96

10.70±3.81

Table 1: Sex and age distribution within 4 groups. Group1: Diabetic patients treated with metformin, Group2: Diabetic patients treated with glibenclamide, Group3: Diabetic patients who were on diet, Group4: Normal subjects without diabetes.
There was no significant difference among four groups regarding sex distribution (Pvalue=0.33). Subjects were 31 to 80 years old. Three patients in group 1 were younger than 40. However, Group 2 was significantly older than group 1 and 3 and mean age of group 4 was also higher than group 3 (Group2 vs. Group1, P=0.004, Group2 vs. Group3, P=0.00, Group4 vs. Group3, P=0.003). Mean age of group 1, 2 and 4 was quite similar (Group1 vs. Group4, P=0.11, Group2 vs. Group4, P=0.38). No difference was found between groups 1 and 3 as well (Group1 vs. Group3, P=0.18).
Among diabetic patients treated with metformin (Group 1), one patient had a low level of vitB12 and subsequently was excluded from further analysis. Basic information obtained in the day of neurologic examination is displayed in Table 2. Serum levels of FBS, HbA1c, and BMI and disease duration were not matched within four groups (P-values are reported in Table 2). MMS score was adjusted accordingly by means of R square and adjusted R square (R square: 0.213, Adjusted R square: 0.152). Diabetic patients had significantly lower MMS than healthy individuals (27.46±0.197 vs. 28.31±2.24, P-value=0.000). No difference was found among diabetic groups. (Group 1:27.44±0.415, Group 2:27.61±0.405 and Group 3:27.34±0.403, P-value=0.899). Serum level of FBS, duration of diabetes and level of education were also associated with MMS Score (Table 3). ANCOVA was employed for further adjustment among four groups. The results are shown in Table 4. MMS score was not associated with any of four groups using ANCOVA (P-value=0.25), however the same analysis with ANOVA showed significance (P-value=0.000).

 

Group1

Group2

Group3

P value

Sex

Male; n:58, 73.4%

Female;n:58,73.4%

Male; n:49, 62%

Female; n:30, 38%

Male; n:61, 78.2%

Female;n:17,21.8%

0.33

Age

53.02 ± 8.5

57.11 ± 9.08

50.74 ± 12.23

0.01

FBS (mg/dl)

136±38.5

144±43.6

131±15.3

0.000

HbA1c (%)

6.69±1.41

8.26±9.14

5.44±0.57

0.005

HDL (mg/dl)

46±10.4

44±8.6

48±7

0.021

LDL (mg/dl)

97±32.18

103±28.1

136±40.14

0.000

Cholesterol (mg/dl)

189±54.42

181±44.29

167±33.45

0.010

Weight (kg)

70.11±11

68.55±13

82.35±10

0.000

Height (cm)

158.51±8.1

160.41±7.5

159.96±7.5

0.282

Systolic Blood Pressure

120±11.5

121±10.5

119±10

0.126

Disease Duration (Years)

6±3.9

7±3

5±1.7

0.000

Level of Education (Years)

9.18±4.19

9.50±4.14

9.47±3.96

0.062

BMI

28.97±4.09

26.56±3.59

28.38±4.07

0.002

MMS Score

26.89±3.61

26.67±2.99

28.20±2.02

0.000

Table 2: Risk factors for dementia among first 3 groups under study. Group 1: Diabetic patients treated with metformin, Group 2: Diabetic patients treated with glibenclamide, Group3: Diabetic patients who were on diet, MMS: Mini Mental State.

 

FBS

HbA1c

HDL

LDL

Cholesterol

Disease Duration

Level of Education

Age

Sex

Weight

P value

0.005

0.63

0.76

0.96

0.78

0.02

0.000

0.48

0.37

0.95

R square

-2.84

-0.47

0.29

0.04

6.26

-5.70

5.943

-5.70

0.89

-0.06

Table 3: Association of MMS scores with risk factors for dementia.

 

P value

Groups Under Study

0.25

Age

0. 82

Sex

0.84

Years of Education

0.000

Disease Duration

0.139

FBS

0.004

HbA1C

0.63

Blood Pressure

0.62

Cholesterol

0.94

LDL

0.96

HDL

0.60

Triglyceride

0.62

BMI

0.89

Table 4: Association of MMS scores with risk factors for dementia using ANCOVA model.
Dementia scoring was also not associated to the type of medications. Among different risk factors only the level of education showed significant relationship with dementia (P-value<0.05).

Discussion

All three groups of our patients were similar statistically in cognitive function concerning MMS, which means metformin and glibenclamide regardless of their mechanism of action are not differently associated with vulnerability to cognitive decline. Quite identical to previously reported data [1-4], we found diabetes to be associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment comparing healthy individuals. We evaluated the possible role of hyperinsulinemia in inducing dementia by comparing two drugs that differ in their mechanism of lowering blood glucose. Glibenclamide a subclass of sulphonylurea provokes hyperinsulinemia, while metformin acts in lowering hepatic glucose production and decreases insulin resistance, without changing insulin levels [14-20]. Sulphonylureas appear to increase the cardiovascular problems by blocking ATP dependent potassium channels. Among sulphonylurea subclasses glibenclamide has been associated with the risk of cardiovascular all-cause mortality [23-25] and is also reported to be associated with an elevated cancer-related mortality in diabetic patients [26]. However, Sulphonylureas have shown potentials in improving outcome after an acute ischemic stroke [27-29]. Metformin, in addition to its glycemic effects, seems to result in improvement on lipid profile and weight control [30,31]. Patients treated with metformin, are less frequently diagnosed with cancer and they have a lower risk of mortality from solid tumors comparing with patients treated with either insulin or Sulphonylureas [26,32].
We found no difference in cognitive function among diabetic patients on diet or patients treated with drugs, when diabetes is controlled. Furthermore, among potential risk factors for dementia, FBS, disease duration and level of education were also associated with MMS score. While cholesterol, HDL and LDL levels were not accompanied with lower MMS scores. This result was in line with previous studies [33,34]. Elevated levels of FBS known as hyperglycemia, has toxic effects on neurons and makes them more vulnerable toward toxins [35,36]. Therefore, it might be the underlying mechanism for cognitive impairment detected in patients with high levels of FBS. Moreover, lower cognitive function seems to be associated with longer duration of diabetes as previously reported in most surveys [37-39]. Educated patients were less at risk for developing cognitive disturbance which could be caused by increased neurogenesis, synaptogenesis and brain vascularization associated with the high brain function [40]. DM has lots of destructive effects on multiple body organs. Diabetes affects both small and large vessels leading to major complications. The most common micro-vascular complications are kidney involvement, peripheral neuropathy and blindness. When affecting large vessels, cardiovascular diseases, myocardial infarction and stroke are most devastating consequences [41]. Diabetic patients are also more at risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease as well as vascular dementia and also cognitive dysfunction without dementia [42,43]. Subjects in our study were 31 to 80 years old and this range contains also young subjects who were less than 40. But in the first two groups (treated with metformin or glibenclamide), only three patients in Group 1 were younger than 40. Moreover, our diabetic patients were statistically different regarding their BMI. Group 2 who were treated with glibenclamide were leaner than two other groups and may have less endogenous insulin production due to their lower BMI [44].
Worldwide, AD is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease that is predicted to double every 20 years if we cannot stop it by a preventive treatment [45]. Disturbed insulin actions in AD, has attracted more interest in insulin and insulin signaling mechanisms which are essential for AD-type neuro-degeneration and led to the term ‘’Brain Diabetes’’ instead of AD [46,47]. Thus pharmacological agents that can alter neuronal insulin resistance gathered a growing attention. Recent studies proposed controversial evidences about metformin action including for or against AD. In one way metformin improves insulin resistance in the brain in line with other parts of the body and does not influence higher hyperinsulinemia [48]. In other way there are still evidences that condemn metformin for increasing Aβ generation and secretion that can have potential side-effects in accelerating clinical manifestation of AD among patients affected by type-2 diabetes [49]. Our study protects the theory that even if metformin may have protective effects against cognitive decline caused by diabetes, it may also devastate the cognitive function itself. These two mechanisms may neutralize the whole effect of metformin on cognition that can elucidate our results which showed that metformin resulted in no improvement in MMS comparing glibenclamide or diet. However, our study was limited by numerous ways. The sample size is low and our study groups are rather young and not similar in age, FBS, HbA1c, BMI and disease duration. Still we could not perform tests for measuring insulin levels.

Conclusion

All three groups of diabetic patients were similar statistically in cognitive function, which means metformin and glibenclamide regardless of their mechanism of action are not differently associated with patient’s vulnerability toward cognitive impairment.

References

  1. Perlmuter LC, Hakami MK, Hodgson-Harrington C, Ginsberg J, Katz J, et al. (1984) Decreased cognitive function in aging non-insulin dependent diabetic patients. Am J Med 77(6): 1043-1048.
  2. Tun PA, Perlmuter LC, Russo P, Nathan DM (1987) Memory self-assessment and performance in aged diabetics and non-diabetics. Exp Aging Res 13(3): 151-157.
  3. Mooradian AD, Perryman K, Fitten J, Kavonian GD, Morley JE (1988) Cortical function in elderly noninsulin dependent diabetic patients. Behavioral and electrophysiological studies. Arch Intern Med 148(11): 2369-2372.
  4. Biessels GJ, Staekenborg S, Brunner E, Brayne C, Scheltens P (2006) Risk of dementia in diabetes mellitus: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 5(2): 64-74.
  5. Kalmijn S, Feskens EJM, Launer LJ, Stijnen T, Kromhout D (1995) Glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinaemia, and cognitive function in a general population of elderly men. Diabetologia 38(9): 1096-1102.
  6. Vanhanen M, Koivisto K, Kuusisto J, Mykkanen L, Helkala EL, et al. (1998) Cognitive function in an elderly population with persistent impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetes Care 21(3): 398-402.
  7. Luchsinger JA, Tang MX, Shea S, Mayeux R (2004) Hyperinsulinemia and risk of Alzheimer disease. Neurology 63(7): 1187-1192.
  8. Kuusisto J, Koivisto K, Mykkanen L, Helkala EL, Vanhanen M, et al. (1997) Association between features of the insulin resistance syndrome and Alzheimer's disease independently of apolipoprotein E4 phenotype: cross sectional population based study. BMJ 315(7115): 1045-1149.
  9. Baura GD, Foster DM, Kaiyala K, Porte D, Kahn SE, et al. (1996) Insulin transport from plasma into the central nervous system is inhibited by dexamethasone in dogs. Diabetes 45(1): 86-90.
  10. Woods SC, Seeley RJ, Baskin DG, Schwartz M (2003) Insulin and the blood-brain barrier. Curr Pharm Des 9(10): 795-800.
  11. Schafer M, Erdo SL (1991) Development of glutamate neurotoxicity in cortical cultures: induction of vulnerability by insulin. Brain Res Dev Brain Res 62(2): 293-296.
  12. Neumann KF, Rojo L, Navarrete LP, Farias G, Reyes P, et al. (2008) Insulin resistance and Alzheimer's disease: molecular links & clinical implications. Curr Alzheimer Res 5(5): 438-447.
  13. Qiu WQ, Folstein MF (2006) Insulin, insulin-degrading enzyme and amyloid-beta peptide in Alzheimer's disease: review and hypothesis. Neurobiol Aging 27(2): 190-198.
  14. Aronoff S, Rosenblatt S, Braithwaite S, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, et al. (2000) Pioglitazone hydrochloride monotherapy improves glycemic control in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes: a 6-month randomized placebo-controlled dose-response study. The Pioglitazone 001 Study Group. Diabetes Care 23(11): 1605-1611.
  15. Schotborgh CE, Wilde AA (1997) Sulfonylurea derivatives in cardiovascular research and in cardiovascular patients. Cardiovasc Res 34(1): 73-80.
  16. Miyazaki Y, Mahankali A, Matsuda M, Glass L, Mahankali S, et al. (2001) Improved glycemic control and enhanced insulin sensitivity in type 2 diabetic subjects treated with pioglitazone. Diabetes Care 24(4): 710-719.
  17. Kipnes MS, Krosnick A, Rendell MS, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, et al. (2001) Pioglitazone hydrochloride in combination with sulfonylurea therapy improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Am J Med 111(1): 10-17.
  18. Einhorn D, Rendell M, Rosenzweig J, Egan JW, Mathisen AL, et al. (2000) The Pioglitazone 027 Study Group, Pioglitazone hydrochloride in combination with metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Clin Ther 22(12): 1395-1409.
  19. Matthews DR, Charbonnel BH, Hanefeld M, Brunetti P, Schernthaner G (2005) Long-term therapy with addition of pioglitazone to metformin compared with the addition of gliclazide to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized, comparative study. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 21(2): 167-174.
  20. Hanefeld M, Brunetti P, Schernthaner G, Matthews DR, Charbonnel BH, et al. (2004) One-year glycemic control with a sulfonylurea plus pioglitazone versus a sulfonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 27(1): 141-147.
  21. Riggs KM, Spiro A, Tucker K, Rush D (1996) Relations of vitamin B-12, vitamin B-6, folate, and homocysteine to cognitive performance in the Normative Aging Study. Am J Clin Nutr 63(3): 306-314.       
  22. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHigh PR (1978) “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12(3): 189-198.
  23. Monami M, Luzzi C, Lamanna C, Chiasserini V, Addante F, et al. (2006) Three-year mortality in diabetic patients treated with different combinations of insulin secretagogues and metformin. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 22(6): 477-482.
  24. Khalangot M, Tronko M, Kravchenko V, Kovtun V (2009) Glibenclamide related excess in total and cardiovascular mortality risks: data from large Ukrainian observational cohort study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 86(3): 247-253.
  25. Pantalone KM, Kattan MW, Yu C, Wells BJ, Arrigain S, et al. (2010) The risk of overall mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving glipizide, glyburide, or glimepiride monotherapy. Diabetes Care 33(6): 1224-1229.
  26. Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P, Johnson JA (2006) Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diabetes Care 29(2): 254-258.
  27. Simard JM, Chen M, Tarasov KV, Bhatta S, Ivanova S, et al (2006) Newly expressed SUR1- regulated NC(Ca-ATP) channel mediates cerebral edema after ischemic stroke. Nat Med 12(4): 433-440.
  28. Simard JM, Kent TA, Chen M, Tarasov KV, Gerzanich V (2007) Brain oedema in focal ischaemia: molecular pathophysiology and theoretical implications. Lancet Neurol 6(3): 258-268.
  29. Kunte H, Schmidt S, Eliasziw M, Zoppo GJ, Simard JM, et al. (2007) Sulfonylureas improve outcome in patients with type 2 diabetes and acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 38(9): 2526-2530.
  30. Bailey CJ, Turner RC (1996) Metformin. N Engl J Med 334(9): 574-579.
  31. Grant PJ (1996) The effects of high- and medium-dose metformin therapy on cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 19(1): 64-66.
  32. Evans JM, Donnelly LA, Emslie-Smith AM, Alessi DR, Morris AD (2005) Metformin and reduced risk of cancer in diabetic patients. BMJ 330(7503): 1304-1305.
  33. Tan ZS, Seshadri S, Beiser A, Wilson PW, Kiel DP, et al. (2003) Plasma total cholesterol level as a risk factor for Alzheimer disease: Framingham Study. Arch Intern Med 163(9): 1053-1057.
  34. Xiong GL, Plassman BL, Helms MJ, Steffen DC (2006) Vascular risk factors and cognitive decline among elderly male twins. Neurology 67(9): 1586-1591.
  35. Gregg EW, Yaffe K, Cauley JA, Rolka DB, Blackwell TL, et al. (2000) Is diabetes associated with cognitive impairment and cognitive decline among older women? Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research Group. Arch Intern Med 160(2): 174-180.
  36. Xu WL, Qiu CX, Wahlin A, Winblad B, Fratiglioni L (2004) Diabetes mellitus and risk of dementia in the Kungsholmen project: a 6-year follow-up study. Neurology 63(7): 1181-1186.
  37. Logroscino G, Kang JH, Grodstein F (2004) Prospective study of type 2 diabetes and cognitive decline in women aged 70-81 years. BMJ 328(7439): 548.
  38. Allen KV, Frier BM, Strachan MW (2004) The relationship between type 2 diabetes and cognitive dysfunction: longitudinal studies and their methodological limitations. Eur J Pharmacol 490(1-3): 169-175.
  39. Cosway R, Strachan MW, Dougall A, Frier BM, Deary IJ (2001) Cognitive function and information processing in type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med 18(10): 803-810.
  40. Stern Y, Gurland B, Tatemichi TK, Tang MX, Wilder D, et al. (1994) Influence of education and occupation on the incidence of Alzheimer's disease. JAMA 271(13): 1004-1010.
  41. Forbes JM, Cooper ME (2013) Mechanisms of diabetic complications. Physiol Rev 93(1): 137-188.
  42. Cukierman T, Gerstein HC, Williamson JD (2005) Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes--systematic overview of prospective observational studies. Diabetologia 48(12): 2460-2469.
  43. Curb JD, Rodriguez BL, Abbott RD, Petrovitch H, Ross GW, et al. (1999) Longitudinal association of vascular and Alzheimer's dementias, diabetes, and glucose tolerance. Neurology 52(5): 971-975.
  44. Kriska AM, Pereira MA, Hanson RL, de Courten MP, Zimmet PZ, et al. (2001) Association of physical activity and serum insulin concentrations in two populations at high risk for type 2 diabetes but differing by BMI. Diabetes Care 24(7): 1175-1180.
  45. Roberts JS, Tersegno SM (2010) Estimating and disclosing the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease: challenges, controversies and future directions. Future Neurol 5(4): 501-517.
  46. Ryu BR, Ko HW, Jou I, Noh JS, Gwag BJ (1999) Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinasemediated regulation of neuronal apoptosis and necrosis by insulin and IGF-I. J Neurobiol 39(4): 536-546.
  47. Steen E, Terry BM, Rivera EJ, Cannon JL, Neely TR, et al. (2005) Impaired insulin and insulin-like growth factor expression and signalling mechanisms in Alzheimer's disease is this type 3 diabetes? J Alzheimers Dis 7(1): 63-80.
  48. Gupta A, Bisht B, Dey CS (2011) Peripheral insulin-sensitizer drug metformin ameliorates neuronal insulin resistance and Alzheimer's-like changes. Neuropharmacology 60(6): 910-920.
  49. Chen Y, Zhou K, Wang R, Liu Y, Kwak YD, et al. (2009) Antidiabetic drug metformin (GlucophageR) increases biogenesis of Alzheimer's amyloid peptides via up-regulating BACE1 transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(10): 3907-3912.
© 2014-2016 MedCrave Group, All rights reserved. No part of this content may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means as per the standard guidelines of fair use.
Creative Commons License Open Access by MedCrave Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at http://medcraveonline.com
Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version | Opera |Privacy Policy