4.7 Article

Joint effect of the APOE gene and midlife systolic blood pressure on late-life cognitive impairment -: The Honolulu-Asia aging study

期刊

STROKE
卷 32, 期 12, 页码 2882-2887

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hs1201.100392

关键词

blood pressure; cognition; genetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-The aim of this study, was to explore the joint effect of the APOE epsilon4 allele and midlife systolic blood pressure (SBP) on the risk for poor cognitive function in late life. Methods-The study includes 3605 surviving members of the cohort of the Japanese-American men followed prospectively over 26 years (1965-1991) as a part of the Honolulu Heart Program, In 1965 men were aged 45 to 68 years and were living in the island of Oahu, Hawaii. For this study the sample was divided into 4 categories: normal SBP (< 160 mm Hg)/No epsilon4, as the reference category; normal SBP/epsilon4; high S betaP/no epsilon4 high SBP/epsilon4. The relative risk (RR) of late-life intermediate and poor cognitive function relative to good function was measured by the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI) test. Results-After adjusting for age, education, smoking, alcohol use, and body mass index, the RR for poor cognitive function (CASI < 74) compared with good cognitive function (CASI > 82) in never-treated subjects, was 1.3 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.9) for the normal SBP/epsilon4 category, 2.6 (0.7 to 10.0) for the high SBP/no epsilon4, and 13.0 (1.9 to 83.8) for the high SBP/epsilon4. Adjustment for diabetes, prevalent stroke. coronary disease, and ankle-brachial index reduced the RR of poor cognition by 25.5% (RR 13.0 to 10.8) in those with both risk factors. In the treated group, the RR was 1.9 (0.7 to 4.5) for those with both risk factors. Conclusions-The results suggest that midlife high SBP has a stronger adverse effect oil cognitive function in persons with higher genetic susceptibility, but this effect may be modified by antihypertensive treatment.

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