Evidence Hub

Association between inflammatory biomarkers and the cognitive response to a multidomain intervention: secondary longitudinal analyses from the MAPT study

Emmanuel González-Bautista, Maria Soto, Gabor Abellan van Kan, J. Delrieu

GeroScience, 2025

1,527 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate the association of systemic inflammation measured by plasma biomarkers with the change in cognitive function among participants from the Multidomain Alzheimer Preventive Trial (MAPT) exposed to the multidomain intervention (MI). Secondary analysis of the MAPT longitudinal data. MAPT is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial with 3 interventional groups (omega-3 only, MI only, omega-3 plus MI) and a control group. We tested the association of the change in cognitive function with inflammatory biomarkers (tumoral necrosis factor receptor-1 (TNFR1), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP1), Growth Differentiation Factor-15 (GDF15), Interleukin-6 (IL6) and C reactive protein (CRP)) using mixed-effects models. A subgroup analysis was performed in those exposed to the MI. The response to the MI was defined as the change in the composite cognitive score over the 2-year clinical follow-up period. by modeling the response to the intervention and identifying “good responders”, i.e., those in the 5th quintile of response at the end of the intervention period (2 years after the measurement of inflammatory markers). We included 1,527 participants (mean age 75.3, SD = 4.4; 64% female). Higher levels of GDF15 and TNFR1 were associated with a worse trajectory in the cognitive composite score in adjusted models. "Good responders" had an estimated mean change in the composite score of 0.051 (SD 0.062) over two years of intervention, compared to -0.136 (SD…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,527 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free