4.6 Article

Kidney Dysfunction and Cognitive Decline in Women

Journal

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05330611

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 DK078202, R01 AG015424, R01 CA087969]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objectives ESRD is associated with substantial cognitive deficits but whether earlier kidney dysfunction predicts cognitive decline is less well defined. Design, setting, participants, & measurements More than 1700 women aged >= 70 years in the Nurses' Health Study had plasma creatinine and urinary albumin/creatinine ratios (ACRs) measured in 2000, within 12 months of their initial cognitive testing. These participants had repeated assessments of cognition administered by phone every 2 years, including tests for general cognition, verbal memory, verbal fluency, and working memory for up to 6 years of follow-up. Mixed-effects regression analysis was applied to calculate mean differences in the rate of cognitive decline between women with an estimated GFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) or an ACR >= 5 mg/g versus referent levels. Results The median age was 74 years at initial cognitive testing, 99% of women were Caucasian, median plasma creatinine was 0.8 mg/dl and 25% had an ACR >= 5 mg/g. The difference in cognitive decline with a baseline ACR >= 5 mg/g versus an ACR <5 mg/g was equivalent to the difference observed with 2-7 years of aging; that is, a higher ACR was associated with 2-7 times faster decline in all four cognitive domains assessed (all P values <0.05) than that attributed to each 1 year of aging alone. No associations were observed between an eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) and cognitive decline. Conclusions A baseline urinary ACR mg/g, a level not traditionally considered clinically significant, is independently associated with faster decline in cognitive function. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 437-443, 2012. doi: 10.2215/CJN.05330611

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