4.7 Article

Motoric cognitive risk syndrome Multicenter incidence study

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 83, 期 24, 页码 2278-2284

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000001084

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/National Institute on Aging [PO1 AG03949, P30AG10161, R01AG15819, R01AG17917, R01AG34374, R01AG33678]
  2. NIH [R00AG037574, 1P01AG034906, R01AG046949, 1R01AG042188, P30AG038072, R37AG18381]
  3. CTSA [KL2TR000088]
  4. Einstein Glenn Center
  5. Paul Glenn Foundation
  6. American Federation for Aging Research
  7. Illinois Department of Public Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:To report incidence and risk factors for motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR), a newly described predementia syndrome characterized by slow gait and cognitive complaints.Methods:We examined incidence rates of MCR in 3,128 adults aged 60 years and older, MCR- and dementia-free at baseline, participating in 4 US-based cohort studies. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association of modifiable risk factors with risk of MCR were computed using Cox models.Results:Over a median follow-up time of 3.2 years, 823 of the 3,128 participants met MCR criteria. The overall age- and sex-adjusted incidence of MCR was 65.2/1,000 person-years (95% CI: 53.3-77.1), and ranged from 50.8/1,000 person-years to 79.6/1,000 person-years in the individual cohorts. MCR incidence was higher with older age but there were no sex differences. In the pooled sample adjusted for age, sex, education, and cohort source, strokes (HR 1.42, 95% CI: 1.14-1.77), Parkinson disease (HR 2.52, 95% CI: 1.68-3.76), depressive symptoms (HR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.28-2.13), sedentariness (HR 1.76, 95% CI: 1.44-2.17), and obesity (HR 1.39, 95% CI: 1.17-1.65) predicted risk of incident MCR.Conclusions:The incidence of MCR is high in older adults. Identification of modifiable risk factors for MCR will improve identification of high-risk individuals and help develop interventions to prevent cognitive decline in aging.

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

4.7
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