4.6 Article

Lead exposure biomarkers and mini-mental status exam scores in older men

Journal

EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages 713-718

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.EDE.0000081988.85964.db

Keywords

lead; cognition; aging; Mini-Mental Status Examination

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [5 P42 ES05947, K23 ES00381, R01 ES005257] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R01ES005257, K23ES000381, P42ES005947] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Lead is neurotoxic; yet, whether cognitive decline in older persons is associated with lead exposure is unknown. We studied whether lead exposure biomarkers are associated with cognitive test scores, as well as the modifying effects of age on the lead-cognition relationship. Methods: Lead exposure biomarkers and Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE) scores were measured among subjects in the Normative Aging Study. Multiple linear and logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the cross-sectional association of these 2 variables. Results: We found an odds ratio (OR) of 2.1 for MMSE <24 with an increase from the lowest to the highest quartile of patella lead levels (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 4.1). From the lowest to the highest quartile of blood lead the OR for low MMSE was 3.4 (CI = 1.6 to 6.2). There was an interaction between lead biomarkers and age. Among subjects in the lowest quartile of patella lead levels, MMSE score decreased by 0.03 points per year (CI = -0.07 to 0.005), whereas in the highest quartile, MMSE score decreased by 0.13 points per year (CI = -0.19 to -0.07). Similar interactions were found between blood lead levels and age. Conclusions: Increased levels of lead in bone and blood are inversely associated with cognitive performance among older men. Lead exposure might accelerate age-associated cognitive decline.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available