4.5 Article

The Relationship Between Memory Complaints, Perceived Quality of Life and Mental Health in Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 Carriers and Non-Carriers

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 69-79

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2009-1018

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; anxiety; APOE-epsilon 4; depression; health-related quality of life (HRQL); subjective memory complaints

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  2. McCusker Foundation for Alzheimer's Disease Research
  3. Hollywood Private Hospital
  4. National Institutes of Health [52070400]
  5. University of Western Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 (APOE-epsilon 4) is a major genetic risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. In this study, we addressed the question of whether possession of the APOE-epsilon 4 allele results in adverse effects on perceived health-related quality of life (HRQL) and on symptoms of depression and anxiety in people with subjective memory complaints (SMC). 138 healthy, community-dwelling elderly volunteers, aged 52 to 85, were assessed for HRQL, depression, and anxiety. The participants were classified as i) APOE-epsilon 4 carriers or ii) non-carriers with a) SMC or b) without memory complaints. The possible interactions of APOE genotype, gender, and SMC on HRQL, depression, and anxiety were investigated statistically. SMC was significantly associated with poorer outcomes on measures of depression, trait anxiety, and mental health. APOE-epsilon 4 carriers did not significantly differ from non-carriers on HRQL, depression, and anxiety. However, significant interaction was found between APOE-epsilon 4 genotype and SMC on depression. These findings are important from a health perspective and suggest that memory complaints are associated with markers of mental health and quality of life that are independent of possession of the APOE-epsilon 4 allele, despite the importance of this polymorphism in the risk of AD and other health problems.

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