4.5 Review

Is Sleep Disruption a Risk Factor for Alzheimer's Disease?

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 993-1002

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-161287

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; dementia; risk factors; sleep; sleep wake disorders

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sleep disturbances are routinely encountered in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and affect about 25-40% of patients in the mild-to-moderate stages of the disease. In many, sleep pathology may represent a symptom of the underlying neurodegeneration. However, a history of sleep disruption occurring years prior to onset of cognitive symptoms could represent a potential risk factor for AD. The aim of the present narrative review was to evaluate current evidence linking sleep disturbances with AD development and to understand the mechanisms that may contribute to this. Although the mechanisms by which poor sleep may contribute to AD genesis is not fully understood, emerging evidence linking disturbances in the sleep wake cycle with A beta deposition is shedding light on the relationship between sleep pathology and the subsequent development of AD. A beta burden appears to be enhanced by sleep-wake cycle disruptions and is suspected as being an important mechanism by which sleep disruptions contribute in AD development. Other mechanisms triggered by sleep disruption may also be involved in AD development, such as brain hypoxia, oxidative stress, circadian activity rhythms disturbances, overexpression of orexins, and blood-brain barrier impairment. Further understanding of the link between sleep disturbances and future development of AD is still needed before sleep disturbances are clearly marked as a preventable risk factor for AD. In these circumstances, early lifestyle interventions to help increase the quantity and quality of sleep may have a favorable outcome on decreasing the incidence of AD and this needs to be investigated further.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据