4.7 Article

A Prospective Study on Risk Factors for Olfactory Dysfunction in Aging

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/glz265

关键词

Olfactory impairment; Epidemiology; Sensory; Longitudinal design

资金

  1. Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs
  2. Swedish Research Council [2017-01759]
  3. Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [M14-0375:1]
  4. Swedish Research Council [2017-01759] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Olfactory dysfunction (OD) refers to a reduced or absent ability to smell. OD negatively impacts health and quality of life and its prevalence increases with advancing age. Since OD may be an early marker of dementia and impending death, more knowledge regarding risk factors of OD in aging is warranted. The objective was therefore to explore longitudinally which demographic, genetic, clinical, lifestyle, and cognitive factors predict the development of OD. Methods The study included participants aged 60-90 years from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K), who did not have OD at baseline and were reassessed with an odor identification task at a 6-year follow-up (n = 1,004). Risk factors of OD were assessed with multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results The percentage of incident OD cases was 14.2% over 6 years in the total sample and this number increased monotonically with age. Increasing age, carrying the epsilon 4 allele of the APOE gene, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, and current smoking were found to be risk factors for the development of OD, whereas better olfactory identification and verbal episodic memory proficiency at baseline were identified as protective factors. Conclusions In addition to nonmodifiable factors (age and genetic risk), several modifiable risk factors of OD were identified. This suggests that it might be possible to reduce OD incidence through the management of vascular risk factors and maintenance of a healthy lifestyle.

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