4.7 Article

Risk of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia by sex and race/ethnicity: The Multiethnic Cohort Study

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 1625-1634

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12528

关键词

Alzheimer's dementia; dementia with Lewy bodies; diagnostic incidence rates; frontotemporal dementia; prospective studies; racial; ethnic disparities; vascular dementia

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. National Institute on Aging at the U.S. National Institutes of Health [CA164973 08S1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Limited data is available for comparing sex- and race/ethnicity-specific risks of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. The study found differences in risk of ADRD among different sexes and race/ethnicities, which were attenuated by adjusting for education and cardiometabolic diseases. More research is needed to further understand these differences.
Introduction Data are limited for comparison of sex- and race/ethnicity-specific risks of Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD). Methods In the population-based Multiethnic Cohort, we estimated the age-standardized diagnostic incidence rate (ASDIR) and relative risk of late-onset ADRD (n = 16,410) among 105,796 participants based on Medicare claims (1999-2014) by sex and race/ethnicity. Results The ASDIR for ADRD was higher for women (17.0 per 1000 person-years) than for men (15.3) and varied across African Americans (22.9 in women, 21.5 in men), Native Hawaiians (19.3, 19.4), Latinos (16.8, 14.7), Whites (16.4, 15.5), Japanese Americans (14.8, 13.8), and Filipinos (12.5, 9.7). Similar risk patterns were observed for AD. Adjustment for education and cardiometabolic diseases attenuated the differences. Accounting for deaths from competing causes increased the sex difference, while reducing the racial/ethnic differences. Less racial/ethnic disparity was detected among apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 carriers. Discussion More research is needed to understand the sex and racial/ethnic differences in ADRD.

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