HealthDay News — Lower maternal fiber intake during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk for neurodevelopmental delay in offspring, according to a study published online July 27 in Frontiers in Nutrition. Kunio Miyake, Ph.D., from the University of Yamanashi in Chuo, Japan, and colleagues examined the association between maternal dietary fiber intake during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental delay in offspring using data from 76,207 mother-infant pairs in a nationwide prospective cohort study. A food frequency questionnaire administered in midpregnancy was used to estimate maternal dietary fiber intake, which was classified into quintiles. The association between dietary fiber intake and developmental delay, measured in 5 domains at the age of 3 years, was assessed. Researchers found that compared with the highest intake group, the lowest intake group of total dietary fiber had a significantly increased risk for delayed communication, fine motor, problem-solving, and personal-social skills (adjusted odds ratios, 1.51, 1.45, 1.46, and 1.30, respectively). A similar trend was seen in an analysis that excluded the effects of insufficient folic acid intake during pregnancy. “Most pregnant women in Japan consume far less dietary fiber than what is the recommended intake; thereby, this maternal nutritional imbalance during pregnancy may adversely affect the neurodevelopment of their offspring,” the authors write. “Nutritional guidance for pregnant mothers is crucial to reduce the risk of future health problems for their children.” Full Article

Although research has demonstrated that physicians continue to be the most respected source of medical information for patients, they also frequently search the internet for information prior to an office visit.1 Ease of access to medical information websites and the significant growth in the amount of health information available means that patients can find information in a matter of seconds. However, not all of the information provided by medical information websites is reliable, which has the potential to significantly affect both patient care and public health. How Do Patients Seek Health Information? Once, physicians were the primary gatekeepers of reliable health information. Over time, this role has evolved to include such media as print, television, and radio, and now, the internet. Today, patients can access health information in a number of ways, including: Health care professionals (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals) Friends and family Social media (eg, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok) Medical information websites (WebMD, Mayo Clinic, and Cleveland Clinic, among others) Health apps, including various fitness, nutrition, or mental health apps Television and radio As access to the internet has become more widespread over the past 20 years, researchers have documented the shift in patient health information-seeking behavior to include more online sources.2 More than two-thirds of people who use the internet use it to search for health information. Most of these users search using a general search engine, such as Google or Bing, instead of starting their search on a dedicated medical information website.3 Social media serves as a source of health information shared by not only friends and family, but also the pharmaceutical industry and news media, among others. In research conducted recently, social media was determined to be one of the top 10 ways online health information is spread. Why Do Patients Visit Medical Information Websites? Although searching for health information on the internet has been increasing over the past 20 years, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to significant growth in this behavior. Without easy access to in-person medical advice, people turned to the internet for health information. A study conducted by researchers in Italy revealed that during the COVID-19 pandemic, the internet — not physicians — was the main source of health-related information. Additionally, one-third of people were found to have increased their health information-seeking behaviors during this time. Other factors that could contribute to this phenomenon include long wait times for in-person medical visits and the high cost of health care.

August 15, 2023 More than 50% of those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases had never/rarely reported mental health symptoms to clinicians. HealthDay News — The prevalence of all self-reported neuropsychiatric symptoms is significantly higher in those with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs) vs controls, according to a study published online July 27 in Rheumatology. Melanie Sloan, Ph.D., from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, and colleagues examined a wider range of potential neuropsychiatric symptoms in SARDs than have been reported previously using data from 1,853 SARD patients, 463 controls, and 289 clinicians as part of the INSPIRE research project. A total of 113 in-depth interviews were analyzed thematically. The means of survey items were compared between patients and controls, 8 different SARD groups, and clinician specialties. Researchers found that compared with controls, SARDs had higher self-reported prevalence rates of all 30 neuropsychiatric symptoms investigated, including cognitive, sensorimotor, and psychiatric. Of SARD patients, validated instruments revealed that 55 and 57% currently had depression or anxiety, respectively. Limits to knowledge, guidelines, objective tests, and interspecialty cooperation; subjectivity, invisibility, and believability of symptoms; and under-eliciting, under-reporting, and under-documenting were barriers to identifying neuropsychiatric symptoms. The proportion of clinicians who reported never/rarely asking patients about mental health symptoms was much lower than the percentage of patients who reported never/rarely being asked in clinic (4 vs 74%). More than 50% of SARD patients had never/rarely reported their mental health symptoms to clinicians, which was underestimated by clinicians at less than 10%. “The low level of reporting we identified is a major concern as problems with mental health, fatigue, and cognition can be life-changing, and sometimes life-threatening,” Sloan said in a statement. Several authors disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Full Article

Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was an English writer, speaker and self-styled "philosophical entertainer",[2] known for interpreting and popularising Japanese, Chinese and Indian traditions of Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu philosophy for a Western audience. Born in Chislehurst, England, he moved to the United States in 1938 and began Zen training in New York. He received a master's degree in theology from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary and became an Episcopalpriest in 1945. He left the ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty of the American Academy of Asian Studies.[3] He has such an amazing perspective on life and how to deal with adversity.

One of my most favorite philosophers Sir Alan Watts. Alan Wilson Watts (6 January 1915 – 16 November 1973) was an English writer, speaker and self-styled "philosophical entertainer",[2] known for interpreting and popularising Japanese, Chinese and Indian traditions of Buddhist, Taoist, and Hindu philosophy for a Western audience. Born in Chislehurst, England, he moved to the United States in 1938 and began Zen training in New York. He received a master's degree in theology from Seabury-Western Theological Seminary and became an Episcopalpriest in 1945. He left the ministry in 1950 and moved to California, where he joined the faculty of the American Academy of Asian Studies.[3] He has such an amazing perspective on life and how to deal with adversity.

Brain A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks. The findings suggest that "targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments," study investigator Ashlea Segal told Medscape Medical News. The findings also suggest that it's "unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one-size-doesn't-fit-all. It probably doesn't even fit most," said Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health's Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Australia. "Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments," Segal added. Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, "thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis." The study was published online August 14 in Nature Neuroscience. Beyond Group Averages For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Sega l explained.

Psychostimulants The off-label prescribing of psychostimulants for patients with stimulant use disorder could reduce harms that result from the use of illegal stimulants, according to a new commentary. Unregulated drugs are contributing to an ongoing crisis of poisonings in Canada, write the authors. Although many of the poisonings are related to synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, the use of stimulants is increasing, too. In nearly half of all opioid deaths in Canada in 2022, a stimulant was also detected. "Prescribed psychostimulants like methylphenidate and dextroamphetamine have been shown to reduce craving for and use of cocaine and methamphetamine," Heather Palis, PhD, one of the authors of the commentary, told Medscape Medical News. "For people using these drugs for energy, to stay awake, for focus, concentration, or attention, the prescribed stimulant can offer a similar effect and reduce the need to seek out cocaine or methamphetamine for these effects." Palis is a postdoctoral fellow in psychiatry at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. No Approved Treatments Accumulating evidence from clinical trials in Europe, Australia, and the United States supports the treatment of stimulant use disorder with prescription psychostimulants. No pharmacologic treatments for stimulant use disorder are currently approved in Canada, however, according to the authors. Despite a federal directive to promote increased access to pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to the contaminated drug supply, British Columbia (BC) is the only province to implement a Safer Supply Policy Directive and risk mitigation guidance for prescribing psychostimulants to people at risk of overdose. Even so, "in the first year of implementation in BC, prescribed psychostimulant medications reportedly reached 1220 people, reflecting less than 3% of people estimated to have stimulant use disorder," write the authors. The failure to prescribe psychostimulants more widely may be explained partly by safety concerns and the fact that "the evidence base for pharmacologic treatment of stimulant use disorder is newer than for pharmacologic treatments of other substance use disorders," suggest the authors. Nevertheless, there is still adequate evidence to support this approach, Palis told Medscape. "Clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of prescription psychostimulants for people who use cocaine and for people who use methamphetamine. These trials have included a number of drugs, including modafinil, methylphenidate, and amphetamine drugs, including mixed amphetamine salts, lisdexamphetamine, and dextroamphetamine," she said. "People have differing preferences for medication effects and duration of action, and a range of medications will be needed to meet these diverse patient needs." Palis also emphasized the need for a continuum of care and services. "There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Prescribing psychostimulants is just one option across a continuum of interventions that could be offered. This practice could play a role in helping the growing number of patients who are seeking to reduce their reliance on the illegal stimulant supply during the ongoing unregulated drug poisoning crisis." Breaking Barriers Commenting on the authors' suggestions for Medscape, Elaine Hyshka, PhD, Canada research chair in health systems innovation at the University of Alberta's School of Public Health, in Edmonton, said, "I strongly agree with the need to expand prescribed psychostimulants as a harm reduction measure and think that the authors provide reasonable recommendations for a path forward." Hyshka, who until recently served as co-chair of Health Canada's Expert Advisory Group on Safer Supply, said that barriers must be addressed to scale up access to prescription psychostimulants. For example, the long-standing policy of limiting prescriptions of psychoactive medications (which was intended to prevent iatrogenic addiction) does not reflect the highly toxic, illegal drug market and the increasing mortality from drug poisoning. "Developing expert clinical guidance for prescribing psychostimulants will help regulators align their oversight with the best available evidence," she said. "I would also like to see more national collaboration amongst regulators, clinical experts, and provincial, territorial, and federal governments to facilitate expanded access to safer supply for those at risk of fatal drug poisoning, monitor outcomes, and adapt practice, as needed." In addition, current programs that demonstrate positive patient outcomes do not have stable operational funding. "While prescribers' services may be covered by provincial health plans, there is often a need to pay for uninsured medication costs, as well as nurses, outreach workers, and other staff that can help ensure care continuity and work towards addressing patients' other unmet health and social needs," said Hyshka. Alternate routes of medication administration also should be developed, she added. "Oral medications are unlikely to meet the needs of all people who are currently using illegal psychostimulants, and we should be developing and evaluating pharmaceutical-grade drugs that can be safely consumed via inhalation, and potentially other routes of administration."

Prenatal Screening Autism is highly heritable—but is it a disease? Should it be cured? Could screening for it lead to eugenics? We explore the complicated landscape. In 2021, the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge announced Spectrum 10K, a plan to collect and analyze the genomes of 10,000 autistic people. The stated aim was to understand diversity among autistic people, including why some have conditions like epilepsy and ADHD, and to develop more personalized ways to help each autistic individual. Wary of potential criticism, members of the study wrote on their website, “The Spectrum 10K team views autism as an example of neurodiversity and is opposed to eugenics or looking for a cure for preventing or eradicating autism itself.” Nevertheless, criticism came. . David Gray-Hammond, an autistic consultant and the author of The New Normal, heard about the project and helped assemble a group called Boycott Spectrum 10K. Together they wrote a statement outlining their concerns, including fears that the research could lead to prenatal testing and abortions. They gathered signatures and sent it to the Health Research Authority, the U.K.’s regulator for medical studies. They also demonstrated outside the Autism Research Centre, holding signs that said, “AUTISTIC PRIDE” and “HANDS OFF OUR DNA.” “The atmosphere was definitely one of anger that we were being ignored, but solidarity that we were there together defending ourselves and our community,” Gray-Hammond says. Amid the outcries, including from activists within the community known as “autistic self-advocates,” the Autism Research Centre stopped recruitment and data collection. Less than three weeks after announcing the initiative, its director posted an apologetic letter to the study’s site announcing a pause. When does parental choice become eugenics? That does not mean research into the genetics of autism has stopped completely, or that universities and companies are no longer developing prenatal tests for autism. Both efforts are progressing apace. And as new services enter the market and the clinic, new questions will arise. They will join pressing ones already asked: What is a disease? When does parental choice become eugenics? How can autism researchers and autism self-advocates best work together? The power to decide who gets to be born and who doesn’t will always seem like a technological gift to some but a cruel curse to others. And if you make that choice, are you playing God or simply being a responsible parent? No single “autism gene” or profile Autism is often used by the public as an “umbrella term” covering many types of developmental delays, learning disorders, and intellectual disabilities, says Robert Green, a medical geneticist at Mass General Brigham in Boston. The two most defining characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are repetitive behaviors and problems with communication. Special education professor Stephen Shore famously said, “If you’ve met one person with autism, you’ve met one person with autism.” There is no objective diagnosis; a clinician must use judgment to evaluate each individual’s behavior and context, and autism is highly variable. Some autistic people require full-time care into adulthood while others live independently. Some have learning disabilities while others don’t. Some are savants and wildly successful tech entrepreneurs. Many suffer from things like digestive disorders or epilepsy while others don’t. ASD is highly genetically heritable—90 percent genetic by some accounts—but the picture is messy. Researchers have found hundreds of associated genes that control neurogenesis, synaptic function, cell structure, metabolism, and other functions, but even when combined they can account for only a small percent of all cases of autism. There are a number of challenges to studying the genetics of autism, including the wide range of behaviors, the complexity of the brain, the huge number of genes that contribute, and the lack of a perfect animal model. Environmental factors—including pollution, pesticides, and maternal inflammation, obesity, or infection—also have the potential to play a smaller role in autism through gene-environment interactions. For example, a paper last year found that the NHIP gene, which protects the brain against oxidative stress, was less active in fetuses who developed into children diagnosed with ASD. Autism rates are climbing quickly in the United States, increasing roughly 5-fold since 2000, from one in 150 8-year-olds to about 1 in about 30 today. Much of that is due to increased awareness and screening, but some may be attributable to gene-environment interactions, researchers say. In some cases, clinicians can predict whether a pregnancy has a high probability of leading to an autistic child. (In medical parlance, they’re high-risk pregnancies, but some autistic self-advocates object to the negative connotations of the term “high-risk” as applied to autism.) Prenatal genetic screening for conditions other than autism has become fairly routine. U.S. ob-gyns might do a genetic screening if a parent or sibling has a genetic condition, the mother is over 35, or something looks odd on an ultrasound. They might insert a needle into the abdomen or a catheter through the cervix to sample the amniotic fluid (in amniocentesis) or placenta (in chorionic villus sampling, or CVS). Fetal DNA is contained in both. They might then sequence the DNA and look for any of hundreds of single-gene mutations that can cause disorders such as cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs disease, and sickle-cell anemia. They might also do a chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) to look for copy number variants (CNVs), in which a section of DNA is duplicated or deleted. John Pappas, a clinical geneticist and pediatrician at New York University, says that among children he sees who develop autism, he finds a genetic predisposition—including gene mutations, duplications, and deletions—in thirty to forty percent. It’s not always clear what to make of genetic predispositions before traits develop, though. Some structural variations in chromosomes reliably cause problems. “If it’s a really obvious one that’s well recognized, that’s one thing,” Green says. “If you have a deletion or duplication that overlaps with a known region but hasn’t been seen before in that exact configuration, you’re not often sure what to tell the mother.” “I wouldn’t trust it at this moment. I certainly wouldn’t terminate a pregnancy based on it.” According to Stephen Chasen, the director of obstetrical ultrasound at New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, “There’s no genotype that’s implicated in many, if not most, individuals who have ASD. And there’s not one single genotype. There are many, many different things that have been found.” Some clinics raise hope about autism detection, but “commercial labs have been overpromising a lot of things for many years,” Chasen says. Fetal DNA also circulates in the mother’s blood, which can be sampled for noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Labs have used it to detect extra copies of chromosome 21, which can lead to Down syndrome. “They are starting to do screening for deletions or duplications of much smaller quantities of DNA, for conditions like DiGeorge syndrome, cri du chat, Wolf-Hirschhorn, Williams syndrome,” Chasen says. Noninvasive prenatal testing could someday play a role in screening for autism, but collecting DNA that’s clean enough to sequence is still a technical challenge, Green says. “I wouldn’t trust it at this moment. I certainly wouldn’t terminate a pregnancy based on it.” Other noninvasive tests could be on the horizon. A study published in Brain last year found that 29 percent of children diagnosed with autism had shown “ultrasonography fetal anomalies,” versus 16 percent of their closest-age siblings and 9 percent of the rest of the population. Anomalies associated with autism occurred in the brain, head, heart, and urinary system. Another study published last year looked at MRIs of fetuses. The development of autism was associated with enlargements in several brain regions: the amygdala, hippocampal commissure, and insula. While these studies are preliminary, they suggest that even if we have no genetic tests for autism in utero, it may be possible to develop a screen during pregnancy based on imaging biomarkers. Detection might happen even earlier in development. Some fertility companies do pre-implantation genetic testing of IVF embryos to provide polygenic risk scores—combinations of many mutations, duplications, and deletions associated with developmental outcomes. Companies include Genomic Prediction, Orchid, and MyOme. These tests can detect predisposition to diseases like cystic fibrosis or traits like deafness and dwarfism, or risk of developing cancer, cardiovascular disease, or mental illness. (Based on draft materials, MyOme also appears to have considered offering scores for educational attainment, household income, cognitive ability, and subjective wellbeing.) But polygenic testing for embryo selection faces difficulties and criticism. There might not be much variance among embryos from two parents, for one thing. Increasing the chance of a desired trait may increase the chance of an undesired one. The studies on which scores are based might not translate well to different patient populations. And they might not translate from adults to fetuses. Further, Green says, cells can repair mutations or abandon clones with mutations. “Let’s say you find a mutation in a cell from an embryo. You can’t be sure that that mutation is going to persist throughout the life of that fetus.” Testing might occur even before the embryonic stage. A 2021 study identified DNA methylation regions—places where genes had been switched on or off—that were more prevalent in the sperm of fathers with autistic children than in other men. A startup called Inherent Biosciences is building on the work to develop sperm tests. On the maternal side, Judy Van de Water, an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, has identified a set of eight antibodies in mothers that increase the risk of maternal autoantibody related autism (MARA) in offspring, a form of autism that tends to come with intellectual disability. She founded a startup called MARAbio to bring clinical tests to market. Difficult decisions What does such information enable hopeful parents to do? One outcome of prenatal screening could be to help parents prepare for an autistic child, and to meet their needs early, which can lead to better outcomes. A study published last year reported that of children diagnosed with autism before the age of 2.5, two in three showed reduced autism traits over the following year or two, while only one in four children diagnosed later showed such improvement. Other parents might decide to terminate their pregnancies if a prenatal test showed a high chance of autism. And this is where the genetics of autism become hugely controversial. Autism self-advocates have taken to calling examples of research aiming to cure autism eugenics, in reference to the long-discredited early 20th century notions of “genetic hygiene" and the heinous public health practices it informed like forced sterilization—or worse—largely associated with the Nazis but also practiced in the United States and throughout Europe in the 1920s. They also worry that uncovering ways to detect autism in utero or in an IVF embryo will lead to widespread screening, abandoned embryos, and terminated pregnancies. Those worries are not unfounded. 6 out of 31 who said they’d consider prenatal genetic testing for autism also said they would abort a fetus destined to develop ASD. In the case of Down syndrome, which is easier than autism to detect prenatally, parents abort nearly 100 percent of the time in Iceland and Denmark, as well as 90 percent of the time in the United Kingdom and an estimated 65 percent of the time in the United States. Would they handle certain autism diagnoses the same way? In one study of parents raising autistic children, 6 out of 31 who said they’d consider prenatal genetic testing for autism also said they would abort a fetus destined to develop ASD. (One of those was a mother who said her autistic son had punched out one of her molars when he was three.) In a study of 333 Taiwanese mothers of autistic children, half said they’d have an abortion if a test said they “might have a fetus with ASD.” NYU’s Pappas says that when it looks like a fetus will develop into a child with strong autistic traits, the parents he works with choose abortion about half the time, though that’s often because of other severe medical problems the child is also likely to have. He says parents wrestle with the decision. “I don’t know how good we are, but we strive to be nondirective and just provide information.” Chasen, of Weill Cornell, says that if parents already have one autistic child, he can look for genetic signatures in that child and see if they’re in the fetus. If they are, he says, most parents he sees typically end the pregnancy. “It’s not my business what the decision is,” he adds, “but it’s my business whether or not the decision is informed.” Uncertainty makes the decision more difficult. Parents can rarely know for sure if their child will have autism, what the traits will be, or how strongly the child will be affected. “We’re really operating, if not blindly, then in the dark here,” Chasen says. In his practice, people tend to decide based on the worst-case scenario. “They’ll never know whether it was the right decision or not, but what I’ve had pregnant individuals tell me is, ‘Well, that’s true, but if I continue the pregnancy, and it’s the wrong decision, I’m going to know that and I’m going to know it forever,’” he says. “That’s something that they and the family are going to have to live with.” One small study found that some women had lingering discomfort after receiving uncertain information. “‘Watchful waiting’ became the norm,” the researchers reported, “and concerns weren’t totally alleviated by normal sonograms or by delivering a child who appeared normal at birth and during infancy.” Abortion isn’t the only possible intervention. Chasen says that if he finds genetic markers of autism in a parent’s existing child, the parents sometimes use IVF and select an embryo without that genotype. Or if no marker is found, the parent might simply select a female embryo, as autism diagnosis is 3.8 times as prevalent in males. Andy Olson, the CEO and co-founder of Inherent Biosciences, says that diet, exercise, stress, and toxin exposure can affect sperm quality, so if one batch of sperm from a father shows differential DNA methylation in regions associated with autism, Olson might recommend that the father change his lifestyle for at least a few months before procreating. Michael Paul, the CEO of MARAbio, says that if a mother has maternal-autoantibody-related-autism antibodies but no known genetic markers of autism, the parents might decide to use a gestational surrogate, or begin therapy with their child as early as possible. The company hopes eventually to offer treatments that selectively degrade the MARA antibodies or prevent them from crossing the placenta. Research may lead to not only prevention of autism but targeted therapies. “Since autism is multifactorial,” Green says, “there will likely be specific treatments and possibly even cures for some forms, which you would not be able to differentiate without testing, including genetic testing.” Abortion, murder, and genocide In 2005, CNBC published an article titled “Autism research focuses on early intervention,” in which a researcher said that a prenatal test could be available within a decade. Meg Evans, an autism self-advocate, saw the article and wrote a blog post critiquing the motivation for such a test. She added a ten-year timer to the page and called it the “The Autistic Genocide Clock.” Six years later, she took it down, relieved that prenatal tests seemed more than four years away and that society had become more accepting of autism. In 2005, “most people knew very little about autism, and the media were full of sensational horror stories,” Evans says. “That has changed, thankfully.” Not as much as she and others would like, however. In 2012, a mother in Sunnyvale, California, shot and killed her 22-year-old autistic son and then herself. Media reports appeared to show sympathy for the mother’s struggles to care for her son. “I felt the voice of people with disabilities was really missing from this conversation,” says Zoe Gross, director of operations at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN), “because to us, it’s very obvious that the tragedy isn’t that George was born autistic,” she says, referring to the murdered 22-year-old by his first name. “The tragedy is that he was murdered.” She started the Day of Mourning, an annual vigil to remember people with disabilities murdered by caregivers. “ASAN is opposed to the development of genetic tests for autism. We think that they’re unethical.” Last year, ASAN released a statement on genetic research and autism. “ASAN thinks that finding a ‘cure’ for autism is bad and probably impossible,” it reads. It notes concern about genetics research, saying, “We think this ‘cause research’ is just another kind of ‘cure’ research.” It goes on: “Instead of prenatal testing, we want to get rid of ableism.” It does not distinguish between people distant on the spectrum: “We do not believe that any autistic person needs to be ‘cured.’ This includes autistic people with the highest support needs.” The statement makes clear that “We support the legal right of any person to have an abortion for any reason,” but it warns against societal pressure to abort. “ASAN is opposed to the development of genetic tests for autism,” Gross says. “We think that they’re unethical. We think that the focus should be on helping autistic people live better lives.” In addition to difficulties with flexibility and social interaction, autism may co-occur with intellectual disabilities, mental health issues, neurological disorders, gastrointestinal problems, inability to communicate verbally or take care of oneself, and even violence toward oneself or others. (In high school, I worked with autistic people who wore bite guards on their arms.) Over a lifetime, caring for an autistic person can cost millions of dollars, which many families can’t afford. Yet some people take issue with calling autism a disease, disability, or disorder, instead calling it a healthy neurotype among humanity’s diversity. “In the autistic community, there’s a big push to have it recognized through the social model of disability,” Gray-Hammond, the autistic consultant, says. “Society presents obstacles that are difficult to circumvent.” According to Sam Farmer, a neurodiversity self-advocate and the author of A Long Walk Down a Winding Road, “We feel as though the rules in society that govern how we’re supposed to behave were not written with us in mind.” Advocates point out many strengths associated with autism, such as attention to detail and comfort with repetition. Farmer notes creativity, loyalty, analytical skills, honesty, hyper-focus, and empathy, and he names celebrities on the spectrum—Dan Aykroyd, David Byrne, Greta Thunberg—and others believed to have been—Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Ludwig van Beethoven. In 2021, Elon Musk famously revealed in front of a live television audience while hosting Saturday Night Live that he has ASD. “What kind of world would we live in without diversity in all of its forms?” Farmer says. Gray-Hammond notes autistic people’s strong sense of justice and their contributions to science and art. And even those who don’t achieve greatness, he says, “have just as much right to exist as the rest of us do.” Autism researchers have gone out of their way to allay advocates’ concerns, or at least to not aggravate them. When I asked a spokesperson at MyOme if she thought prenatal autism detection might be possible in the next few years, she replied, “No comment.” Spectrum 10K declined to comment on their work as they continued to consult with the autistic community. The organization Autism Speaks, which had previously merged with a group called Cure Autism Now, last year clarified on their site that “Autism Speaks does not support eugenics.” They did not reply to emails. “Information is valuable, no matter what,” Van de Water of MARAbio says, but still they won’t offer test rest results to currently pregnant women, at least until there’s a way to remove the effects of the MARA antibodies. Many proudly autistic people are on edge due to the trauma they’ve experienced through stigma. “When we look at a study like the one Harvard Medical School embarked on,” Farmer says, referring to the fetal MRI paper, “we get scared. Where is this headed? What’s the scientific community’s agenda? Is it an agenda of eugenics?” According to Gray-Hammond, “Knowing the genetic causes of autism almost always seems to segue into talks about prenatal testing. And we know what happened with prenatal testing for Down syndrome.” The advocates I spoke with are pro-choice, which puts them in a tricky spot. They support a woman’s right to choose, but seem to oppose science that informs that choice. Gray-Hammond acknowledges the conflict. “I think the contradiction comes from the fact that we’re a group of people who have spent our lives being told there is something wrong with us,” he says, “and so talk of prenatal testing—I think we internalize that. It almost feels like, Well, would we be here if our parents had the opportunity to abort us? It becomes personal.” “This puts me into an interesting dilemma,” Farmer admits. “As a pro-choice autistic, where do I go with this? What I see ahead is a struggle for neurodiversity-community advocates like me to make the argument to society.” He ponders a toned-down approach. Instead of telling society to stop studying the genetics of autism, maybe his aim should be merely to cultivate acceptance of autism. “Don’t be so quick to rush to judgment that this is a baby not worth having,” he says. Gray-Hammond strikes a similar pose. “I would ask anyone considering aborting a child purely because they might be autistic to think about whether that child has a right to exist based on disability,” he says. As for researchers, he’d ask them to think about their motivations. Do they want to reduce humanity’s diversity? But moral tensions remain. According to Gray-Hammond, “It’s a very complicated field that I feel will be debated in ethics probably for a much longer time than I am alive.” Editor’s note: This story was updated on 7/10/23 to correct the list of companies that provide polygenic risk scores of IVF embryos. __________________________________________________________________________________ Matthew Hutson is a freelance science writer in New York City who covers psychology, artificial intelligence, and other topics. He writes for The New Yorker, Science, Scientific American, and other publications, and is the author of The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking.

Keys Findings In 2021, people aged 18–24 were most likely to use e-cigarettes among all adults. The percentage of adults who were current e-cigarette users varied by race and Hispanic origin. The percentage of adults who used e-cigarettes generally decreased as family income increased. Adults aged 18–24 and 25–44 were more likely to be dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes compared with adults aged 45 and over. Summary Definitions Data source and methods About the authors References Suggested citation Electronic Cigarette Use of electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) has increased among some adults (1–3). Reducing the use of any tobacco product, including e-cigarettes, is a Healthy People 2030 objective (4). E-cigarettes have the potential to benefit some adults who smoke and are not pregnant if they are used as a complete substitute for regular cigarettes or other tobacco products (5). However, concerns exist about dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes (6–9). Use of e-cigarettes among young adults is also a concern because nicotine adversely impacts brain development, which continues into the early to mid-20s (5,10). This report uses 2021 National Health Interview Survey data to describe the percentage of adults aged 18 and over who currently use e-cigarettes by selected sociodemographic characteristics and dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes. Keywords: smoking, tobacco, vaping, race and Hispanic origin, National Health Interview Survey In 2021, people aged 18–24 were most likely to use e-cigarettes among all adults. Among adults aged 18 and over, 4.5% were current e-cigarette users, and use was higher among men (5.1%) compared with women (4.0%) (Figure 1). Current e-cigarette use was highest among adults aged 18–24 (11.0%). The observed difference between men (11.6%) and women (10.3%) was not statistically significant. Among adults aged 25–44, current e-cigarette use was higher among men (7.9%) compared with women (5.1%). E-cigarette use was lowest among adults 45 and over, and use was similar for men (1.9%) and women (2.0%). Current e-cigarette use decreased with increasing age for both men and women. Figure 1. Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who currently use e-cigarettes, by age group and sex: United States, 2021. 1Significantly different from women (p < 0.05). NOTES: Men, women, and total men and women had a significant linear trend by age (p < 0.05). Current e-cigarette use was based on responses of “every day” or “some days” to the question, “Do you now use e-cigarettes or other electronic vaping products every day, some days, or not at all?” This question was asked of adults who had ever tried an e-cigarette, even one time. Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. The percentage of adults who were current e-cigarette users varied by race and Hispanic origin. White non-Hispanic (subsequently, White) adults were more likely to be current e-cigarette users (5.2%) than Asian non-Hispanic (subsequently, Asian; 2.9%), Black or African American non-Hispanic (subsequently, Black; 2.4%), and Hispanic or Latino (3.3%) adults (Figure 2). Current use of e-cigarettes was highest among White adults compared with the other race and Hispanic-origin groups for all adults and for age groups 25–44 (7.9%), and 45 and over (2.3%). Among adults aged 18–24, e-cigarette use for White adults was higher than for Black and Hispanic or Latino adults. For Asian, Hispanic or Latino, and White adults, use of e-cigarettes declined with age. Among Black adults aged 45 and over, the percentage currently using e-cigarettes (1.4%) was lower than among those aged 25–44 (3.9%) but did not differ significantly from adults aged 18–24 (2.4%). Figure 2. Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who currently use e-cigarettes, by age group and race and Hispanic origin: United States, 2021 *Percentage does not meet National Center for Health Statistics standards of reliability: confidence interval width is greater than 5 and relative confidence interval is greater than 130% (actual value confidence interval width = 15 and relative confidence interval width = 175.4%). 1Significant linear trend by age (p < 0.05). 2Significant quadratic trend by age (p < 0.05). 3People of Hispanic origin may be of any race. 4Significantly different from White, non-Hispanic adults (p < 0.05). 5Significantly different from Hispanic or Latino adults (p < 0.05). NOTES: Current e-cigarette use was based on responses of “every day” or “some days” to the question, “Do you now use e-cigarettes or other electronic vaping products every day, some days, or not at all?” asked of adults who had ever tried an e-cigarette, even one time. Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2021. The percentage of adults who used e-cigarettes generally decreased as family income increased. Among adults aged 18 and over, those with family incomes of less than 200% federal poverty level (FPL) (5.8%) were more likely to be e-cigarette users than those with family incomes 200% to less than 400% of FPL (4.8%) and those with family incomes of 400% FPL or more (3.6%) (Figure 3). Among adults aged 18–24, the observed difference in e-cigarette use among those with family incomes of less than 200% FPL (12.5%) compared with those with higher family incomes was not significant. Among adults aged 25–44, use decreased with increasing family income (from 8.1% to 5.2%), while use was similar by family income among adults aged 45 and over. At each level of family income, current use of e-cigarettes declined with age. Figure 3. Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who currently use e-cigarettes, by age group and family income as a percentage of the federal poverty level: United States, 2021 1Significantly different from 200% to less than 400% FPL (p < 0.05). 2Significantly different from 400% FPL or more (p < 0.05). 3Significant linear trend by family income as a percentage of FPL (p < 0.05). NOTES: Each family income group had a significant linear trend by age (p < 0.05). FPL is federal poverty level, which is based on a ratio of the family’s income in the previous calendar year to the appropriate poverty threshold defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Current e-cigarette use was based on responses of “every day” or “some days” to the question, “Do you now use e-cigarettes or other electronic vaping products every day, some days, or not at all?” This question was asked of adults who had ever tried an e-cigarette, even one time. Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2021. Adults aged 18–24 and 25–44 were more likely to be dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes compared with adults aged 45 and over. Among all adults aged 18 and over, 1.3% both smoked cigarettes and used e-cigarettes; 10.2% smoked cigarettes only and 3.2% used e-cigarettes only (Figure 4). Among adults aged 18–24, use of e-cigarettes only (9.2%) was higher compared with cigarette smoking only (3.6%) or use of both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (1.8%). Among adults aged 25–44 and 45 and over, use of cigarettes only was highest (10.6% and 11.4%, respectively) compared with e-cigarette use only or both. Adults aged 18–24 were less likely than adults aged 25 and over to smoke cigarettes only but were more likely to use e-cigarettes only. Use of both e-cigarettes and cigarettes was similar for adults aged 18–24 and 25–44 and higher for both groups compared with adults aged 45 and over (0.8%). Figure 4. Percentage of adults aged 18 and over who currently smoke cigarettes and use e-cigarettes, by age group: United States, 2021 1Significant quadratic trend by age (p < 0.05). 2Significant linear trend by age (p < 0.05). 3Significantly different from e-cigarettes only (p < 0.05). 4Significantly different from both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (p < 0.05). 5Significantly different from adults aged 25–44 (p < 0.05). 6Significantly different from adults aged 45 and over (p < 0.05). NOTES: Current e-cigarette use was based on responses of “every day” or “some days” to the question, “Do you now use e-cigarettes or other electronic vaping products every day, some days, or not at all?” This question was asked of adults who had ever tried an e-cigarette, even one time. Adults were asked if they had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and, if yes, whether they currently smoked cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all. Those who smoked every day or some days were classified as current cigarette smokers. The sum of e-cigarettes only and both cigarettes and e-cigarettes may not equal total e-cigarette use due to rounding. Estimates are based on household interviews of a sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. SOURCE: National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, 2021. Summary In 2021, 4.5% of adults aged 18 and over were current e-cigarette users, with people aged 18–24 having the highest levels (11.0%) compared with those aged 25–44 (6.5%) and 45 and over (2.0%). Men had higher percentages of e-cigarette use overall and among adults aged 25–44. E-cigarette use among those aged 18 and over was highest among White adults and those living in families with the lowest level of family income. Differences in current e-cigarette use by family income level among adults aged 18–24 and 45 and over, however, were not significant. Dual use of tobacco products is a health concern because it may result in greater exposure to toxins and worse respiratory outcomes than using either product alone (6–9). In 2021, most e-cigarette users aged 18–24 had never smoked cigarettes (11). Despite this, the percentage of adults aged 18–24 who were dual users of e-cigarettes and cigarettes was similar to the percentage among adults aged 25–44 (1.8% compared with 2.0%). Adults aged 45 and over had the lowest levels of e-cigarette only use (1.1%) and dual use of e-cigarettes and cigarettes (0.8%). Definitions Cigarette smoking status: Adults were asked if they had smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and, if yes, whether they currently smoked cigarettes every day, some days, or not at all. Those who smoked every day or some days were classified as current cigarette smokers. Currently use e-cigarettes: Based on a response of “every day” or “some days” to the question, “Do you now use e-cigarettes or other electronic vaping products every day, some days, or not at all?” The question was asked of adults who had ever tried an e-cigarette, even one time. Dual use of tobacco products: Refers to the use of e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, or other tobacco products in addition to regular cigarettes, usually in an attempt to cut back on smoking cigarettes (6). In this report, dual use considers regular cigarettes and e-cigarettes only. Family income as a percentage of FPL: Based on FPL, which was calculated from the family’s income in the previous calendar year and family size using the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty thresholds (12). Family income was imputed when missing (13). Race and Hispanic origin: Adults were categorized as White non-Hispanic, Black or African American non-Hispanic, or Asian non-Hispanic when indicating one race only. Any non-Hispanic or Latino adults indicating multiple or other races are not shown distinctly but are included in the total. Hispanic or Latino respondents can be of any race or combination of races. Estimates for non-Hispanic adults of other races and other single and multiple races are not shown. Data source and methods The National Health Interview Survey is a nationally representative household survey of the civilian noninstitutionalized population. It is conducted continuously throughout the year by the National Center for Health Statistics. Interviews are typically conducted in respondents’ homes, but follow-ups to complete interviews may be conducted over the telephone. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, interviewing procedures were disrupted, and during 2021, 62.8% of Sample Adult interviews were conducted at least partially by telephone (14). For more information about the survey, visit https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm. Point estimates and corresponding variances for this analysis were calculated using SAS-callable SUDAAN software version 11.0 (15) to account for the complex sample design of the survey. All estimates are based on self-report and meet National Center for Health Statistics data presentation standards for proportions (16). Differences between percentages were evaluated using two-sided significance tests at the 0.05 level. Linear and quadratic trends by age group and family income were evaluated using orthogonal polynomials in logistic regression. About the authors Ellen A. Kramarow and Nazik Elgaddal are with the National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Analysis and Epidemiology.

Vitamin D supplementation is not an aid alone or in combination. HealthDay News — The combination of aerobic and resistance exercises with computerized cognitive training may improve cognition in older adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), according to a study published online July 20 in JAMA Network Open. Manuel Montero-Odasso, M.D., Ph.D., from the Gait and Brain Lab at the Parkwood Institute in London, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues assessed whether aerobic-resistance exercises, computerized cognitive training, and vitamin D supplementation can enhance cognition among 175 older adults (aged 65 to 84 years) with MCI. Researchers found that at 6 months, all active intervention arms with aerobic-resistance exercise, regardless of the addition of cognitive training or vitamin D, significantly improved the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive 13 (ADAS-Cog-13) score vs control (mean difference, −1.79 points). Exercise and cognitive training significantly improved the ADAS-Cog-13 score compared with exercise alone (mean difference, −1.45 points). There was no significant improvement seen with vitamin D supplementation. “In this clinical trial, older adults with MCI receiving aerobic-resistance exercises with sequential computerized cognitive training significantly improved cognition, although some results were inconsistent. Vitamin D supplementation had no effect,” the authors write. “Our findings suggest that this multidomain intervention may improve cognition and potentially delay dementia onset in MCI.” One author disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

This book asks us to reexamine anxiety… Life Enhancing Anxiety: Key to a Sane World by Kirk J. Schneider In Life-Enhancing Anxiety, Kirk J. Schneider, PhD—a prominent psychologist and a leading spokesperson for contemporary existential-humanistic psychology—seeks to overturn our collective understanding of anxiety. According to Schneider, even though the contemporary world is overwhelmed with negative affect, we do not need less anxiety; we need more anxiety of a certain variety in order to live our best lives. The particular kind of anxiety we need is termed as life-enhancing anxiety, and is contrasted with its opposite, life-destroying anxiety. “What specifically do I mean by life-enhancing anxiety? I mean anxiety that enables us to live with and make the best of the depth and mystery of existence,” Schneider writes. Through a compilation of both original and previously published essays, the book examines this proposal and explores how anxiety is necessary for us to achieve a state of passionate engagement, ethical attunement, and creative enrichment. Schneider’s understanding of anxiety is in stark contrast to our contemporary attitudes. Instead of relying on the default strategy of avoiding and suppressing anxiety, Schneider makes the case that life-enhancing anxiety is a vital catalyst for embracing the profound depths and mysteries of existence. Our relationship with anxiety stands in for something deeper and existential. Are we willing to immerse ourselves fully in the challenges and uncertainties of life to discover the sense of awe that fuels creativity? Throughout the book, Schneider elaborates on this idea, showing its relevance to clinical work, arts and humanities, spirituality and religion, and societal and political challenges. Schneider sees himself as working within the existential tradition and frequently acknowledges his intellectual debt to Rollo May and his classic 1950 work, The Meaning of Anxiety. In many ways, Schneider is trying to do what May did for his generation. May offered a distinction between anxiety characterized by neurotic distortion of reality and anxiety that allows for creative transformation of reality, and this distinction is also at the heart of Schneider’s book. Existential freedom and anxiety are unavoidably and inseparably linked. One cannot exist without the other. The life-enhancing character of anxiety is not something fixed or inbuilt; it emerges from a particular process of engagement. Schneider explains: “… the state of arousal generated by experiences of difference. We call that arousal anxiety, and anxiety can only become “life-enhancing” if we can bolster our ability to assimilate and accommodate it.” Life-enhancing anxiety, therefore, is not something to be passively discovered, either in our ordinary lives or in the clinic, but something to be actively created. Schneider is careful to acknowledge that anxiety as a clinical problem is not a trifling matter. It is often debilitating, paralyzing, and requires treatment. He also does not dismiss the value of medications or psychological interventions such as cognitive behavioral therapy, and views them as essential clinical tools to be utilized appropriately. Schneider’s fundamental goal is that he does not want us to understand anxiety as a phenomenon restricted to the single dimension of discomfort and pathology. Schneider wants us to approach anxiety—even in anxiety disorders—as multidimensional, as possessing elements of excitement and wonder which need to be recovered even as we seek to alleviate it. Perhaps the most memorable sections of the book are those where Schneider shares his personal experience with anxiety and how his anxiety was transformed during the course of psychotherapy. Schneider’s struggles began after the traumatic loss of his younger brother at the age of 2 and a half. This led his family to take him for therapy with a child psychoanalyst when he was 6 years old. Subsequently at age 22, Schneider experienced a frightening encounter with anxiety that threatened to shake his very grip on reality: “I recall some terrifying moments. For many days and weeks, I was beset by panic and anxiety. It seemed as if the slightest association to feeling helpless or being far from home and my girlfriend, or thinking I might be psychotic would set off a racing heart, physical shaking, and relentless feelings of doom. I also experienced perceptual distortions. For example, I would watch one of my professors speak but only hear every individual word he was saying, not the gist or basic idea he was conveying. This started to happen with other professors and even students, which gave me a growing sense of unraveling that just added to my anguish. Thus was my initiation into the throes of panic and anxiety. I could easily have been diagnosed with an “anxiety disorder” accompanied by features of panic and distorted perceptions, but such a diagnosis would hardly illuminate what I was grappling with. This was a coming-of-age battle and a deep gnawing reactivation of “unfinished business” stemming from childhood fears. My therapist–analyst, Ann G., recognized the complexity of my malady. She conveyed a sense of confidence that I was going through a kind of “dark night of the soul,” and that there was more, so much more, that I could discover from this time. Just this perspective alone was helpful to me.” (p 26-27) This psychological work enabled Schneider to find forms of fulfillment in life that he could not have imagined before: “… I learned something else that has bolstered me for over 40 years: how to be bodily present, even in the most dire moments of vulnerability. With this hard-won discovery, I have been able to pursue romantic relationships that I hardly knew were possible at the time of my breakdown. Foremost among these was what turned out to be a 40-year relationship with my wife, Jurate.” (p 27) Schneider describes how he gradually transitioned from a state of debilitating withdrawal to one characterized by curiosity, awe, and a courageous engagement with life. He reflects that today his treatment would likely have been dominated by medications and short-term symptom-focused treatments which would have fallen well-short of offering the existential engagement that he needed. “… in my experience, if that change is essentially biological or intellectual or behavioral, it is not as likely to endure. On the other hand, if the change is holistic, involving one’s whole bodily being, it is likely to be life altering and profoundly ingrained.” (p 28) The pervasive tendencies of modern society to eradicate anxiety goes beyond clinical interventions. We are surrounded by endless opportunities for distraction, from all the legal and illicit substances we consume to all forms of device-mediated communications: “I have the creeping feeling that we are entering a brave new age where statistical and mechanical manipulation is replacing personal discovery and risk.” (p 33) Schneider wants us to rediscover the richness of face-to-face relationships, the immersive contact with nature, and our unfiltered capacity to genuinely experience the world. The advice he has to offer his readers is simple, but reflects this accumulated wisdom: take the time to reflect and to be present, develop a capacity to slow down, develop a capacity to savor the moment, cultivate a practice of meditation, and cultivate an openness to the mystery of life, etc. That such goals are worthwhile is likely evident to most, but what Schneider wants us to appreciate is that none of it is possible without a courageous and creative engagement with anxiety. “Not since the warnings of such existential visionaries as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Tillich, or their successors Rank, May, Becker, Laing, and Foucault have we needed more desperately to come to grips with anxiety. For these thinkers, and in my own very personal experience, anxiety is assuredly two-edged. It is both an impediment to and potentially a signal of human flourishing; and its viability now is pivotal. Why? Because, again, unlike any other time in history we are in a position to virtually eradicate anxiety.” (p 5) In conclusion, Life Enhancing Anxiety is a thought-provoking book that forces us to reexamine our assumptions about the nature of anxiety and its relationship to psychological flourishing, and is a valuable work for clinicians and patients alike.

Highly Touted MIND Diet The effect of the highly touted MIND diet with mild calorie restriction offered no greater protection against cognitive decline than a control diet with mild calorie restriction alone in healthy adults at risk for dementia, results of a new randomized trial show. Given the strong base of evidence from observational studies that demonstrate the benefits of the MIND diet on cognitive decline, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and neuropathologic changes such as reduced beta amyloid and tau associated with AD, the study's results were "unexpected," study investigator Lisa L. Barnes, PhD, with the Rush Alzheimer's Disease Center, Chicago, Illinois, told Medscape Medical News. "One possibility is the trial may not have been long enough to see an effect. It's also possible that participants in the control diet group benefited just as much as those in the MIND diet group because they also improved their diets to focus on weight loss," Barnes said. "Although we did not see a specific effect of the MIND diet, people in both groups improved their cognitive function, suggesting that a healthy diet in general is good for cognitive function," she added. The findings were presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) 2023 and simultaneously published online July 18 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Randomized Trial A hybrid of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and Mediterranean diet, the MIND diet includes foods and nutrients that have been putatively associated with a decreased risk of dementia. To further investigate, the researchers conducted a randomized trial that included 604 older adults without cognitive impairment who had a family history of dementia, a body mass index greater than 25, and a suboptimal diet determined via a 14-item questionnaire. For 3 years, 301 were randomly assigned to follow the MIND-diet with mild calorie restriction and 303 to follow a control diet with mild calorie restriction only. All participants received counseling to help them adhere to their assigned diet, plus support to promote weight loss of 3% to 5% by year 3. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in global cognition and in specific cognitive domains through year 3. Cognition was assessed with an established battery of 12 publicly available cognitive function tests. The secondary endpoint was the change from baseline in MRI-derived measures of brain characteristics in a nonrandom sample of participants. "We had good adherence to the assigned diets and both groups lost weight, on average about 5 kilograms in both groups," Barnes noted in her presentation. From baseline through 3 years, small improvements in global cognition scores were observed in both groups, with increases of 0.205 standardized units in the MIND-diet group vs 0.170 standardized units in the control-diet group. However, in intention-to-treat analysis, the mean change in score did not differ significantly between groups, with an estimated mean difference at the end of the trial of 0.035 standardized units (P = .23). At the trial's conclusion, there were also no between-group differences in change in white-matter hyperintensities, hippocampal volumes, and total gray- and white-matter volumes on MRI. Barnes noted that the trial was limited to well-educated, older adults, mostly of European descent. Other limitations include the small sample size of those who received MRI and follow-up that was shorter than a typical observational study. Barnes noted that this is a single study and that there needs to be more randomized trials of the MIND diet that, as with the observational research, follow participants for a longer period of time. More to Brain Health Than Diet Reached for comment, Majid Fotuhi, MD, PhD, adjunct professor of neuroscience at George Washington University, Washington, DC, noted that participants who enroll in clinical trials that focus on diet become more aware of their eating habits and shift toward a healthier diet. "This may explain the reason why both groups of participants in this study improved," said Fotuhi, medical director of NeuroGrow Brain Fitness Center, McLean, Virginia. However, he believes better brain health requires a multipronged approach. "In order to see significant results, people need to improve their diet, become physically fit, sleep well, reduce their stress, engage in cognitively challenging activities, and develop a positive mind set," said Fotuhi. "Interventions that target only one of these goals may not produce results that are as remarkable as multimodal programs, which target all of these goals," Fotuhi said. Fotuhi developed a multidimensional "brain fitness program" that has shown to provide multiple benefits for individuals with memory loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and post-concussion syndrome (PCS). "Having provided our 12-week program for thousands of patients in the past 10 years, I have noticed a synergistic effect in patients who incorporate all of these changes in their day-to-day life and maintain it over time. They often become sharper and feel better overall," Fotuhi told Medscape Medical News. The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Disclosures for study authors are listed with the original article. Fotuhi has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) 2023. Presented July 18, 2023.