Caffeine consumption outcomes on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis disease progression and cognition.

Caffeine consumption outcomes on Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) including progression, survival and cognition remain poorly defined and may depend on its metabolization influenced by genetic variants. 378 ALS patients with a precise evaluation of their regular caffeine consumption were monitored as part of a prospective multicenter study. Demographic, clinical characteristics, functional disability as measured with revised ALS Functional Rating Scale (ALSFRS-R), cognitive deficits measured using Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS), survival and riluzole treatment were recorded. 282 patients were genotyped for six single nucleotide polymorphisms tagging different genes involved in caffeine intake and/or metabolism: CYP1A1 (rs2472297), CYP1A2 (rs762551), AHR (rs4410790), POR (rs17685), XDH (rs206860) and ADORA2A (rs5751876) genes. Association between caffeine consumption and ALSFRS-R, ALSFRS-R rate, ECAS and survival were statistically analyzed to determine the outcome of regular caffeine consumption on ALS disease progression and cognition. No association was observed between caffeine consumption and survival (p = 0.25), functional disability (ALSFRS-R; p = 0.27) or progression of ALS (p = 0.076). However, a significant association was found with higher caffeine consumption and better cognitive performance on ECAS scores in patients carrying the C/T and T/T genotypes at rs2472297 (p-het = 0.004). Our results support the safety of regular caffeine consumption on ALS disease progression and survival and also show its beneficial impact on cognitive performance in patients carrying the minor allele T of rs2472297, considered as fast metabolizers, that would set the ground for a new pharmacogenetic therapeutic strategy.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.