4.2 Article

Prevalence of Dementia and Its Subtypes in an Elderly Urban Korean Population: Results from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA)

Journal

DEMENTIA AND GERIATRIC COGNITIVE DISORDERS
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 270-276

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000160960

Keywords

Dementia, prevalence; Alzheimer's disease; Vascular dementia; Dementia of Lewy body; Korean population

Funding

  1. Pfizer Global Pharmaceuticals [06-05-039]
  2. city government of Seongnam, Korea [800-20050211]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: We estimated the prevalence of dementia and its major subtypes in an elderly urban Korean population. Methods: A study population of 1,118 Korean elders was randomly sampled from the residents aged 65 years or older living in Seongnam, Korea. Standardized face-to-face interviews, and neurological and physical examinations were conducted on 714 respondents. Dementia was diagnosed according to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, and its subtypes were determined according to the criteria of the NINCDS-ADRDA, the NINDS-AIREN, and the consensus guideline proposed by McKeith et al. [Neurology 1996; 47: 1113-1124]. Results: The estimated age- and gender-standardized prevalences were 6.3% for dementia (95% CI = 4.5-8.1), 4.8% for Alzheimer's disease (AD; 95% CI = 3.3-6.4), 1.0% for vascular dementia (VD; 95% CI = 0.3-1.8), and 0.4% for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB; 95% CI = 0.0-0.9). The prevalence of AD consistently increased with age, whereas that of VD peaked at age 75-79 years and decreased thereafter. Of the dementia patients, 72.0% were in the very mild or mild stages of the disease. Conclusions: The prevalence of dementia in a typical urban area of Korea was estimated to be 6.3%, and AD was the most prevalent subtype. DLB was less prevalent than VD among these community-dwelling Korean elders. Copyright (C) 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available