Cross-sectional study uncovers links between elevated bone formation markers and worse cognitive performance in older hemodialysis patients, suggesting bone-brain metabolic interactions.
Cognitive impairment is common in patients undergoing hemodialysis; however, evidence linking routinely measured bone turnover markers to cognition remains limited. In this exploratory cross-sectional study, we aimed to evaluate whether bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BAP), total alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase 5b (TRACP-5b) are related to global cognitive function in older patients undergoing hemodialysis. Adults aged ≥65 yr receiving maintenance hemodialysis were enrolled at seven centers in Tokyo and Chiba, Japan (November 2021-November 2022). Global cognition was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Multivariable linear regression with robust SEs and facility fixed effects was used to examine associations with MoCA scores across sequentially adjusted models. Because of a ceiling effect, MMSE was analyzed using logistic regression with MMSE ≤23 as the outcome (unadjusted and age-/sex-adjusted). For statistical analyses, bone turnover markers were natural log-transformed. Among 380 participants (median age 74 yr; 67.6% male), higher BAP was consistently associated with lower MoCA scores (fully adjusted β −1.03; 95% CI, −1.90 to −0.16). Total ALP showed inverse associations in less-adjusted models; however, these associations attenuated after full adjustment (β −.88; 95% CI, −1.89 to 0.14). TRACP-5b was not clearly associated with MoCA scores. Higher BAP and total ALP were associated with higher odds of MMSE-defined cognitive dysfunction, whereas TRACP-5b was not. These findings suggest a potential association between bone formation-related markers and cognitive performance in older patients undergoing hemodialysis. Prospective and mechanistic studies are warranted to clarify causality and clinical utility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kato et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: