4.4 Article

Association between metabolic syndrome and mild cognitive impairment and its age difference in a chinese community elderly population

Journal

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 82, Issue 6, Pages 844-853

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12734

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [D121100004912003]
  2. Military Medicine Innovation Fund [13CXZ029]
  3. Science Technological Innovation Nursery Fund of PLA General Hospital [13KMM26]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo examine associations between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and its individual components with risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among community elderly and explore the age difference. DesignCross-sectional study. SubjectsAbout 2102 aged 60 and older community residents in Beijing metropolitan area, China. MeasurementsCognitive function was assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). MetS was defined by the 2009 harmonizing definition. Overnight-fasting blood samples were obtained to measure biochemistry indicators. ResultsThe prevalence of MetS and MCI was 591% and 159%, respectively. After adjusting age, gender, other demographic factors, lifestyle variables and medication use, participants with MetS or its individual components are at significantly elevated risk for MCI. In terms of MMSE score, as the continuous dependent variable, the (95% CI) of MetS was -068(-099, -037). For prevalence of MCI, as the dichotomy dependent variable, the odds ratio (OR) of Mets is 152 compared to control group (or baseline) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 116 to 195. The multivariate association only showed significant results among participants aged less than 80years old. ConclusionsMetS is associated with worse cognitive function among younger elderly. Managing MetS, as well as its components, may contribute to control cognitive decline and reduce related disease and social burden.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available