4.5 Article

Estimating the Prevalence of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the US The 2016 Health and Retirement Study Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol Project

期刊

JAMA NEUROLOGY
卷 79, 期 12, 页码 1242-1249

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2022.3543

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [U01 AG009740]
  2. Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol [U01 AG058499]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study provides national estimates of dementia and MCI prevalence in the US in 2016 using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and a large sample, revealing a higher burden of dementia and MCI among older Black and Hispanic adults, as well as those with lower education levels.
IMPORTANCE Nationally representative data are critical for understanding the causes, costs, and outcomes associated with dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in the US and can inform policies aimed at reducing the impact of these conditions on patients, families, and public programs. The nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is an essential resource for such data, but the HRS substudy providing dementia diagnostic information was fielded more than 20 years ago and more recent data are needed. OBJECTIVE The Harmonized Cognitive Assessment Protocol (HCAP) was developed to update national estimates of the prevalence of MCI and dementia in the US and examine differences by age, race, ethnicity, and sex. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS HRS is an ongoing longitudinal nationally representative study of people 51 years and older with staggered entry dates from 1992 to 2022 and follow-up ranging from 4 to 30 years. HCAP is a cross-sectional random sample of individuals in HRS who were 65 years or older in 2016. Of 9972 age-eligible HRS participants, 4425 were randomly selected for HCAP, and 3496 completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and informant interview, none of whom were excluded. Dementia and MCI were classified using an algorithm based on standard diagnostic criteria and comparing test performance to a robust normative sample. EXPOSURES Groups were stratified by age, sex, education, race, and ethnicity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES National prevalence estimates using populationweights. RESULTS The mean (SD) age of the study population sample (N = 3496) was 76.4 (7.6) years, and 2095 participants (60%) were female. Therewere 551 participants who self-identified as Black and not Hispanic (16%), 382 who self-identified as Hispanic regardless of race (16%), 2483 who self-identified as White and not Hispanic (71%), and 80 who self-identified as another race (2%), including American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, NativeHawaiian or Pacific Islander, or another self-described race. A total of 393 individuals (10%; 95% CI, 9-11) were classified as having dementia and 804 (22%; 95% CI, 20-24) as having MCI. Every 5-year increase in agewas associated with higher risk of dementia (weighted odds ratio [OR], 1.95 per 5-year age difference; 95%, CI, 1.77-2.14) and MCI (OR, 1.17 per 5-year age difference, 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). Each additional year of educationwas associated with a decrease in risk of dementia (OR, 0.93 per year of school, 95% CI, 0.89-0.97) and MCI (OR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.91-0.97). Dementiawas more common among non-Hispanic Black individuals (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.20-2.75) and MCI in Hispanic individuals (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.03-1.96) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Other group comparisons by race and ethnicitywere not possible owing to small numbers. No differences in prevalencewere found between female individuals and male individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Using a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and large sample, the national prevalence of dementia and MCI in 2016 found in this cross-sectional study was similar to that of other US-based studies, indicating a disproportionate burden of dementia and MCI among older Black and Hispanic adults and those with lower education.

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