Memory is preserved in older adults taking AT1 receptor blockers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior work suggests that some but not all antihypertensive treatments may benefit cognition and risk for Alzheimer's disease, independent of stroke. Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been highlighted as one antihypertensive drug class that may confer greatest benefit. METHODS: The participants comprised 1626 nondemented adults, aged 55-91 years, recruited from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative sites. Three groups were compared: ARB users (HTN-ARBs), other antihypertensive drug users (HTN-Other), and normotensives. In post hoc analyses, we also examined (1) users of ARBs and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), (2) users of blood-brain barrier (BBB)-crossing ARBs and users of non-BBB-crossing ARBs, and (3) users of BBB-crossing ARBs and ACEIs (BBB crossers) and users of non-BBB-crossing ARBs and ACEIs (BBB noncrossers). Groups were compared regarding cognition and magnetic resonance imaging measures of brain volume and white matter hyperintensities (WMH), using analysis of covariance and multilevel models. RESULTS: At baseline, the HTN-Other group performed worse than normotensives on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) Immediate Recall (p = 0.002), Delayed Recall (p < 0.001), Recognition Memory (p = 0.001), and Trails A (p < 0.001) and B (p = 0.01). ARB users performed better than the HTN-Other group on Recognition Memory (p = 0.04) and worse than normotensives on Trails A (p = 0.04). The HTN-Other group performed worse than normotensives on Logical Memory Immediate (p = 0.02) and Delayed Recall over the 3-year follow-up (p = 0.007). Over the follow-up period, those taking BBB-crossing ARBs performed better than the HTN-Other group on AVLT Delayed Recall (p = 0.04), Logical Memory Immediate (p = 0.02), and Delayed Recall (p = 0.05). They also had fewer WMH than the HTN-Other group (p = 0.008) and those taking non-BBB-crossing ARBs (p = 0.05). There were no group differences in brain volume. Users of BBB-crossing medications (ARBs or ACEIs) showed better performance on AVLT Delayed Recall over time than all other groups, including normotensives (all p < 0.01), and had less WMH volume over time than the BBB noncrossers group (p = 0.03), although they had more WMH volume than normotensives (p = 0.01). The BBB noncrossers group performed worse than normotensives on Logical Memory Delayed Recall over time (p = 0.01), but the BBB crossers group was not significantly different (p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive participants demonstrated worse baseline memory and executive function, as well as greater memory decline, over the 3-year follow-up than normotensives, unless they were ARB users, who showed preserved memory compared with those taking other antihypertensive drugs. Users of BBB-crossing ARBs showed superior memory performance over time compared with other antihypertensive drug users and had less WMH volume. Users of BBB-crossing medications (ARBs or ACEIs) showed better list-learning memory performance over time than all other groups, including normotensives, and had less WMH volume over time than users of non-BBB-crossing medications. These findings demonstrate that ARBs, especially those of the BBB-crossing variety, are associated with greater memory preservation and less WMH volume than other antihypertensive medications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".