4.5 Article

Elevated Fasting Blood Glucose Level Increases the Risk of Cognitive Decline Among Older Adults with Diabetes Mellitus: The Shanghai Aging Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 67, 期 4, 页码 1255-1265

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-180662

关键词

Cognitive function; cohort study; dementia; diabetes mellitus; fasting glucose; incidence

资金

  1. Scientific Research Plan Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee [17411950701, 17411950106]
  2. National Chronic Disease Project [2016YFC1306402]
  3. Shanghai Brain-Intelligence Project from STCSM [16JC1420500]
  4. Natural Science Foundation
  5. Major Basic Research Program of Shanghai [16JC1420100]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81773513]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Several studies have demonstrated that the elevated fasting blood glucose (FBG) may increase the risk of incident dementia in older adults with or without diabetes mellitus (DM). However, similar results are rarely reported in Chinese population. Objective: This study aimed to demonstrate the association between FBG and risk of incident cognitive decline in older Chinese adults. Methods: We prospectively followed up 1,555 dementia-free participants with baseline FBG measurement in the Shanghai Aging Study. Results: We identified 126 incident dementia cases across a mean of 5.2 years. Cumulative dementia incidence in type II DM participants with higher FBG (>6.1 mmol/L) increased most dramatically, second with that of non-DM participants with higher FBG, than that of participants with lower FBG (<= 6.1 mmol/L). DM participants had a significant higher risk of incident dementia (adjusted HR 1.51, 95%CI 1.25-1.82) by every 1 mmol/L increment of FBG. Among DM participants, baseline FBG was positively related to the rate of annual decline of MMSE (beta=0.10, p = 0.0018). Conclusions: Our results suggest that especially in people with type II DM, effective blood glucose control may help to prevent cognitive impairment in later life.

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