4.5 Article

Sex and ApoE Genotype Differences in Treatment Response to Two Doses of Intranasal Insulin in Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment or Alzheimer's Disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 789-797

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-122308

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; insulin; intranasal drug administration; mild cognitive impairment; randomized clinical trials

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Aging [AG027415, T32 AG000258]
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs
  3. Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A previous clinical trial demonstrated that four months of treatment with intranasal insulin improves cognition and function for patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), but prior studies suggest that response to insulin treatment may differ by sex and ApoE epsilon 4 carriage. Thus, responder analyses using repeated measures analysis of covariance were completed on the trial's 104 participants with MCI or AD who received either placebo or 20 or 40 IU of insulin for 4 months, administered by a nasal delivery device. Results indicate that men and women with memory impairment responded differently to intranasal insulin treatment. On delayed story memory, men and women showed cognitive improvement when taking 20 IU of intranasal insulin, but only men showed cognitive improvement for the 40 IU dose. The sex difference was most apparent for ApoE epsilon 4 negative individuals. For the 40 IU dose, ApoE epsilon 4 negative men improved while ApoE epsilon 4 negative women worsened. Their ApoE epsilon 4 positive counterparts remained cognitively stable. This sex effect was not detected in functional measures. However, functional abilities were relatively preserved for women on either dose of intranasal insulin compared with men. Unlike previous studies with young adults, neither men nor women taking intranasal insulin exhibited a significant change in weight over 4 months of treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available