None of the articles I've seen about this include a link to published findings.
None of the articles I've seen about this include a link to published findings. So this was just a presentation so far? Plus, every article has included this or a similar caveat:
It may take a few more years before the study conclusively shows whether the risk of Alzheimer's was actually reduced because of the lower blood pressure, the researchers said.
Guys, I know you have to promote your research. I do. And of course you would present potentially significant preliminary findings from a major arm of a major trial at a meeting. (I am accepting that this was a designed primary part of the SPRINT trial. I'd have to look it up to make sure this wasn't secondary data mining.) I also know that you do not have direct control over what the media does. But you do have control over what you say and how you leverage it.
You can't say something "clearly demonstrated to lower rates of mental decline" while saying you haven't conclusively proven something. I'm guessing what you showed was a strong association, and are waiting for data that might suggest a causal link between lower BP and lower incidence of dementia.
I'm also wondering what substitute end points for Alzheimer's versus, say, vascular dementia are being used. Because afaik the only definitive determination of Alzheimer's is still a piece of brain tissue. And reducing incidence and prevalence of all kinds of dementia is a good thing, but precise language matters, here.
Be prepared for everybody to be diagnosed with high blood pressure, now, though. And for medicare to decide not to pay doctors or nurses who don't force all their patients' blood pressures to 120 or lower. We're not good at moderation with these types of things.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tight-blood-pressure-control-reduces-alzheimer-s-dementia-risk-study-n894481
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tight-blood-pressure-control-reduces-alzheimer-s-dementia-risk-study-n894481
It may take a few more years before the study conclusively shows whether the risk of Alzheimer's was actually reduced because of the lower blood pressure, the researchers said.
Guys, I know you have to promote your research. I do. And of course you would present potentially significant preliminary findings from a major arm of a major trial at a meeting. (I am accepting that this was a designed primary part of the SPRINT trial. I'd have to look it up to make sure this wasn't secondary data mining.) I also know that you do not have direct control over what the media does. But you do have control over what you say and how you leverage it.
You can't say something "clearly demonstrated to lower rates of mental decline" while saying you haven't conclusively proven something. I'm guessing what you showed was a strong association, and are waiting for data that might suggest a causal link between lower BP and lower incidence of dementia.
I'm also wondering what substitute end points for Alzheimer's versus, say, vascular dementia are being used. Because afaik the only definitive determination of Alzheimer's is still a piece of brain tissue. And reducing incidence and prevalence of all kinds of dementia is a good thing, but precise language matters, here.
Be prepared for everybody to be diagnosed with high blood pressure, now, though. And for medicare to decide not to pay doctors or nurses who don't force all their patients' blood pressures to 120 or lower. We're not good at moderation with these types of things.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tight-blood-pressure-control-reduces-alzheimer-s-dementia-risk-study-n894481
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/tight-blood-pressure-control-reduces-alzheimer-s-dementia-risk-study-n894481
Comments
Post a Comment