BACKGROUND: Results of prospective studies examining the association between 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels and cognitive decline have been inconsistent. We tested the hypothesis that lower 25(OH)D levels are associated with a greater likelihood of cognitive impairment and risk of cognitive decline. METHODS: The study is a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort of 6,257 community-dwelling elderly women followed for 4 years. Global cognitive function was measured by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination and executive function was measured by Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B). Cognitive impairment at baseline was defined as a score >1.5 SD below the sample mean; cognitive decline was defined as decline from baseline to follow-up >1 SD from mean change in score. RESULTS: Women with very low vitamin D levels had an increased odds of global cognitive impairment at baseline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.60 (1.05-2.42) for women with 25(OH)D <10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L) compared with those with 25(OH)D levels ≥30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L). Compared with women with baseline 25(OH)D level ≥30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L), women with lower levels had an increased risk of global cognitive decline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.58(1.12-2.22) for women with levels <10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L), and 1.31 (1.04-1.64) for those with levels 10-19.9 ng/mL (25-49 nmol/L). Levels of 25(OH)D were not associated with executive cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Low 25(OH)D levels among older women were associated with a higher odds of global cognitive impairment and a higher risk of global cognitive decline.
BACKGROUND: Results of prospective studies examining the association between 25 hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels and cognitive decline have been inconsistent. We tested the hypothesis that lower 25(OH)D levels are associated with a greater likelihood of cognitive impairment and risk of cognitive decline. METHODS: The study is a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of a prospective cohort of 6,257 community-dwelling elderly women followed for 4 years. Global cognitive function was measured by the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination and executive function was measured by Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B). Cognitive impairment at baseline was defined as a score >1.5 SD below the sample mean; cognitive decline was defined as decline from baseline to follow-up >1 SD from mean change in score. RESULTS:Women with very low vitamin D levels had an increased odds of global cognitive impairment at baseline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.60 (1.05-2.42) for women with 25(OH)D <10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L) compared with those with 25(OH)D levels ≥30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L). Compared with women with baseline 25(OH)D level ≥30 ng/mL (75 nmol/L), women with lower levels had an increased risk of global cognitive decline: odds ratio (95% confidence interval), 1.58(1.12-2.22) for women with levels <10 ng/mL (25 nmol/L), and 1.31 (1.04-1.64) for those with levels 10-19.9 ng/mL (25-49 nmol/L). Levels of 25(OH)D were not associated with executive cognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: Low 25(OH)D levels among older women were associated with a higher odds of global cognitive impairment and a higher risk of global cognitive decline.
Authors: D Corless; E Dawson; F Fraser; M Ellis; S J Evans; J D Perry; C Reisner; C P Silver; M Beer; B J Boucher Journal: Age Ageing Date: 1985-03 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Jugdeep K Dhesi; Stephen H D Jackson; Lindsay M Bearne; Caje Moniz; Michael V Hurley; Cameron G Swift; Theresa J Allain Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Michael Y Lin; Peter R Gutierrez; Katie L Stone; Kristine Yaffe; Kristine E Ensrud; Howard A Fink; Catherine A Sarkisian; Anne L Coleman; Carol M Mangione Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: S R Cummings; M C Nevitt; W S Browner; K Stone; K M Fox; K E Ensrud; J Cauley; D Black; T M Vogt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1995-03-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sofiya Milman; Micol Schulder-Katz; Jennifer Deluty; Molly E Zimmerman; Jill P Crandall; Nir Barzilai; Michal L Melamed; Gil Atzmon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: May A Beydoun; Sharmin Hossain; Marie T Fanelli-Kuczmarski; Hind A Beydoun; Jose-Atilio Canas; Michele K Evans; Alan B Zonderman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Caitlin S Latimer; Lawrence D Brewer; James L Searcy; Kuey-Chu Chen; Jelena Popović; Susan D Kraner; Olivier Thibault; Eric M Blalock; Philip W Landfield; Nada M Porter Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gail A Laughlin; Donna Kritz-Silverstein; Jaclyn Bergstrom; Emilie T Reas; Simerjot K Jassal; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; Linda K McEvoy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Valerie K Wilson; Denise K Houston; Laurel Kilpatrick; James Lovato; Kristine Yaffe; Jane A Cauley; Tamara B Harris; Eleanor M Simonsick; Hilsa N Ayonayon; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Kaycee M Sink Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: A L C Schneider; P L Lutsey; A Alonso; R F Gottesman; A R Sharrett; K A Carson; M Gross; W S Post; D S Knopman; T H Mosley; E D Michos Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Andrea L C Schneider; Di Zhao; Pamela L Lutsey; Rebecca F Gottesman; A Richey Sharrett; Andreea M Rawlings; Alvaro Alonso; David Knopman; Thomas H Mosley; Elizabeth Selvin; Erin D Michos Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: David B Matchar; Choy-Lye Chei; Zhao-Xue Yin; Victoria Koh; Bibhas Chakraborty; Xiao-Ming Shi; Yi Zeng Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 6.053