4.3 Article

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and other risk factors of mild cognitive impairment among Chinese type 2 diabetic patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIABETES AND ITS COMPLICATIONS
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 443-446

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2013.06.001

Keywords

Type 2 diabetes; Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; Mild cognitive impairment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To identify some risk factors of MCI among patients with type 2 diabetes(T2DM) and to find if there is any correlation between these factors and the degree of cognitive decline. Methods: A total of 155 patients with T2DM referred to the Department of Endocrinology at First Hospital of Qinhuangdao were enrolled. To assess MCI the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scoring system was used. There were 66 patients with MCI and 89 patients without MCI (control). HbA(Ic), blood lipid, liver and renal functions were measured in all subjects. Results: Compared with the control group, type 2 diabetic patients with MCI had a longer duration of diabetes; higher non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol, HbA(1)c, and BMI; and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (P < 0.05). The rates of patients with a history of habitual light-to-moderate alcohol consumption, a high proportion of Mediterranean-type diet, and regular physical activity were lower; and the rate of current smoking was higher in type 2 diabetic patients with MCI than the control group (P < 0.05). Among patients with MCI, the results indicated that MoCA score was negatively correlated with non-HDL-C (r = 0.761 P < 0.001). Conclusions: Our results suggest that non-HDL-C can act as a readily available method for estimating risk of MCI in Chinese type 2 diabetic patient in routine clinical practice. Good lifestyle likely reduces MCI risk in diabetic patients. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available