C Qiu1, M Kivipelto, H Agüero-Torres, B Winblad, L Fratiglioni. 1. Ageing Research Centre, Division of Geriatric Epidemiology and Medicine, Department of Neurotec, Karolinska Institutet and the Stockholm Gerontology Research Centre, Stockholm, Sweden. chengxuan.qui@neurotec.ki.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk effect of APOE epsilon 4 allele for Alzheimer's disease is acknowledged, whereas the putative protective effect of epsilon 2 allele remains in debate. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether those inconsistent findings may be attributable to differences in age and sex composition of the study populations. METHODS: A community dementia free cohort (n = 985) aged > or =75 years was followed up to detect Alzheimer's disease cases (DSM-III-R criteria). Data were analysed using Cox models with adjustment for major potential confounders. RESULTS: Over a median 5.6 year follow up, Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed in 206 subjects. Compared with APOE epsilon 3/epsilon 3 genotype, the relative risk (RR) of Alzheimer's disease was 1.4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 2.0; p = 0.03) for heterozygous epsilon 4 allele and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.9) for homozygous epsilon 4 allele. The association between epsilon 4 allele and Alzheimer's disease risk was stronger in men than in women (RR related to the interaction term epsilon 4 allele by sex, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9). The epsilon 4 allele accounted for one third of Alzheimer's disease cases among men, but only one tenth among women. The epsilon 2 allele was related to a reduced Alzheimer's disease risk mainly in people aged <85 years (RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.8). The RR of Alzheimer's disease related to the interaction term of epsilon 2 allele by age was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.0 to 6.0; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The APOE genotype specific effects on Alzheimer's disease vary by age and sex, in which the epsilon 4 allele has a stronger risk effect in men, and the epsilon 2 allele confers a protective effect only in younger-old people.
BACKGROUND: The risk effect of APOE epsilon 4 allele for Alzheimer's disease is acknowledged, whereas the putative protective effect of epsilon 2 allele remains in debate. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether those inconsistent findings may be attributable to differences in age and sex composition of the study populations. METHODS: A community dementia free cohort (n = 985) aged > or =75 years was followed up to detect Alzheimer's disease cases (DSM-III-R criteria). Data were analysed using Cox models with adjustment for major potential confounders. RESULTS: Over a median 5.6 year follow up, Alzheimer's disease was diagnosed in 206 subjects. Compared with APOE epsilon 3/epsilon 3 genotype, the relative risk (RR) of Alzheimer's disease was 1.4 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 2.0; p = 0.03) for heterozygous epsilon 4 allele and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.6 to 5.9) for homozygous epsilon 4 allele. The association between epsilon 4 allele and Alzheimer's disease risk was stronger in men than in women (RR related to the interaction term epsilon 4 allele by sex, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9). The epsilon 4 allele accounted for one third of Alzheimer's disease cases among men, but only one tenth among women. The epsilon 2 allele was related to a reduced Alzheimer's disease risk mainly in people aged <85 years (RR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.8). The RR of Alzheimer's disease related to the interaction term of epsilon 2 allele by age was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.0 to 6.0; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The APOE genotype specific effects on Alzheimer's disease vary by age and sex, in which the epsilon 4 allele has a stronger risk effect in men, and the epsilon 2 allele confers a protective effect only in younger-old people.
Authors: Denis A Evans; David A Bennett; Robert S Wilson; Julia L Bienias; Martha Clare Morris; Paul A Scherr; Liesi E Hebert; Neelum Aggarwal; Laurel A Beckett; Rajiv Joglekar; Elizabeth Berry-Kravis; Julie Schneider Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2003-02
Authors: C M van Duijn; P de Knijff; A Wehnert; J De Voecht; J B Bronzova; L M Havekes; A Hofman; C Van Broeckhoven Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: H Payami; S Zareparsi; K R Montee; G J Sexton; J A Kaye; T D Bird; C E Yu; E M Wijsman; L L Heston; M Litt; G D Schellenberg Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: T Polvikoski; R Sulkava; M Haltia; K Kainulainen; A Vuorio; A Verkkoniemi; L Niinistö; P Halonen; K Kontula Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-11-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John V Pearson; Matthew J Huentelman; Rebecca F Halperin; Waibhav D Tembe; Stacey Melquist; Nils Homer; Marcel Brun; Szabolcs Szelinger; Keith D Coon; Victoria L Zismann; Jennifer A Webster; Thomas Beach; Sigrid B Sando; Jan O Aasly; Reinhard Heun; Frank Jessen; Heike Kolsch; Magdalini Tsolaki; Makrina Daniilidou; Eric M Reiman; Andreas Papassotiropoulos; Michael L Hutton; Dietrich A Stephan; David W Craig Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2006-12-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: David Zade; Alexa Beiser; Regina McGlinchey; Rhoda Au; Sudha Seshadri; Carole Palumbo; Philip A Wolf; Charles Decarli; William Milberg Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2010-05-14 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Diddier Prada; Elena Colicino; Melinda C Power; Marc G Weisskopf; Jia Zhong; Lifang Hou; Avron Spiro; Pantel Vokonas; Kasey Brenan; Luis A Herrera; Joel Schwartz; Robert Wright; Howard Hu; Andrea A Baccarelli Journal: Environ Res Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Amy R Borenstein; James A Mortimer; Gerard D Schellenberg; Charles DeCarli; Cathleen Copenhaver; Douglas Galasko; David P Salmon; Ronald Petersen Journal: Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 2.035
Authors: Allen H J Yang; Kuangwen Hsieh; Adriana S Patterson; B Scott Ferguson; Michael Eisenstein; Kevin W Plaxco; H Tom Soh Journal: Angew Chem Int Ed Engl Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 15.336
Authors: H A D Keage; F E Matthews; A Yip; L Gao; C McCracken; I G McKeith; D C Rubinsztein; C Brayne Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 10.668