4.5 Article

Prevalence of four subtypes of mild cognitive impairment and APOE in a Japanese community

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
卷 24, 期 10, 页码 1119-1126

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.2234

关键词

MCI; pre-dementia; community; prevalence; APOE

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare [2001-dementia and fracture-003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The results of previous reports estimating the prevalence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have varied widely according to the criteria used to define MCI. Methods We assessed the cognitive function of Japanese community-dwelling individuals >= 65 years old and attempted to estimate the prevalence of four MCI Subtypes (amnestic single, amnestic multiple, nonamnestic single, and nonamnestic multiple) using two cutoffs (1 and 1.5 SD) below normative standard. Presence of apolipoprotein E4 allele, (APOE4), which is known as a strong risk factor for AD, is reportedly associated with high risk of conversion from MCI to AD. We therefore calculated the frequency of APOE4 carriers for each MCI subtype. Results Initially 1888 (70%) of 2698 baseline samples participated, and 1433 (53%) subjects who had complete clinical data including APOE typing remained for the final analysis. The prevalence of MCI subtypes varied within the range of 1.7-16.6%, depending on the criteria applied. Prevalence of MCI was higher using a cutoff at -1.0 SD than at -1.5 SD, and prevalence of amnestic MCI single at -1.5 SID was lowest among all subtypes of MCI. Frequency of APOE4 was higher for amnestic MCI than for non-amnestic MCI or the cognitively normal group. Conclusion The prevalence of MCI was highly dependent on the diagnostic criteria applied. A higher frequency of APOE4 in participants with amnestic MCI subtype Suggested a greater risk of future AD. For future interventions to delay the onset of dementia, targeting individuals with amnestic MCI multiple at -1 SD might be desirable. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据