4.6 Article

Impact of a premature menopause on cognitive function in later life

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12828

关键词

Cognition; dementia; hormone treatment; ovariectomy; premature menopause

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo determine whether premature menopause (40years) can have long-lasting effects on later-life cognition and investigate whether this association varies depending on the type of menopause and use of hormone treatment (HT). DesignPopulation-based cohort study. SettingThe French Three-City Study. PopulationFour thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight women aged at least 65years. MethodsMultivariable-adjusted logistic regression models were used to determine the association between age at menopause, type of menopause (surgical, natural), and the use of menopausal HT and later-life cognitive function. Main outcome measuresPerformance on a cognitive test battery (at baseline and over 7years) and clinical dementia diagnosis. ResultsMenopause at or before the age of 40years, both premature bilateral ovariectomy and premature ovarian failure (non-surgical loss of ovarian function), was associated with worse verbal fluency (OR 1.56, 95%CI 1.12-1.87, P=0.004) and visual memory (OR 1.39, 95%CI 1.09-1.77, P=0.007) in later life. HT at the time of premature menopause appeared beneficial for later-life visual memory but increased the risk of poor verbal fluency. Type of menopause was not significantly associated with cognitive function. Premature menopause was associated with a 30% increased risk of decline in psychomotor speed and global cognitive function over 7years. ConclusionBoth premature surgical menopause and premature ovarian failure were associated with long-term negative effects on cognitive function, which are not entirely offset by menopausal HT. In terms of surgical menopause, these results suggest that the potential long-term effects on cognitive function should form part of the risk/benefit ratio when considering ovariectomy in younger women.

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

4.6
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