4.6 Review

Risk factors for predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2014-310095

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective We sought to identify the risk factors for predicting the progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods We searched 6 electronic databases for cohort studies published from January 1966 to March 2015. Eligible studies were required to be relevant to the subject and provide sufficient data for our needs. Results 60 cohort studies with 14 821 participants from 16 countries were included in the meta-analysis. The strongest positive associations between risk factors and the progression from MCI to AD were found for abnormal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), phosphorylated tau (p-tau) (relative risk (RR)=2.43, 95% CI=1.70 to 3.48), abnormal CSF tau/A beta(1-42) (RR=3.77, 95% CI=2.34 to 6.09), hippocampal atrophy (RR=2.59, 95% CI=1.95 to 3.44), medial temporal lobe atrophy (RR=2.11, 95% CI=1.70 to 2.63) and entorhinal atrophy (RR=2.03, 95% CI=1.57 to 2.62). Further positive associations were found for the presence of apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon 4 epsilon 4 and at least 1 APOE epsilon 4 allele, CSF total-tau (t-tau), white matter hyperintensity volume, depression, diabetes, hypertension, older age, female gender, lower mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score and higher AD assessment scale cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) score. Negative associations were found for high body mass index (RR=0.85, 95% CI=0.76 to 0.96) and higher auditory verbal learning test delay score (RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.77 to 0.96). Conclusions Patients with MCI with APOE epsilon 4, abnormal CSF tau level, hippocampal and medial temporal lobe atrophy, entorhinal atrophy, depression, diabetes, hypertension, older age, female gender, lower MMSE score and higher ADAS-cog score, had a high risk for the progression to AD.

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