Kaare Christensen1, Mikael Thinggaard, Anna Oksuzyan, Troels Steenstrup, Karen Andersen-Ranberg, Bernard Jeune, Matt McGue, James W Vaupel. 1. Danish Aging Research Center, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Max Planck Odense Center, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Genetics, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: kchristensen@health.sdu.dk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A rapidly increasing proportion of people in high-income countries are surviving into their tenth decade. Concern is widespread that the basis for this development is the survival of frail and disabled elderly people into very old age. To investigate this issue, we compared the cognitive and physical functioning of two cohorts of Danish nonagenarians, born 10 years apart. METHODS: People in the first cohort were born in 1905 and assessed at age 93 years (n=2262); those in the second cohort were born in 1915 and assessed at age 95 years (n=1584). All cohort members were eligible irrespective of type of residence. Both cohorts were assessed by surveys that used the same design and assessment instrument, and had almost identical response rates (63%). Cognitive functioning was assessed by mini-mental state examination and a composite of five cognitive tests that are sensitive to age-related changes. Physical functioning was assessed by an activities of daily living score and by physical performance tests (grip strength, chair stand, and gait speed). FINDINGS: The chance of surviving from birth to age 93 years was 28% higher in the 1915 cohort than in the 1905 cohort (6·50% vs 5·06%), and the chance of reaching 95 years was 32% higher in 1915 cohort (3·93% vs 2·98%). The 1915 cohort scored significantly better on the mini-mental state examination than did the 1905 cohort (22·8 [SD 5·6] vs 21·4 [6·0]; p<0·0001), with a substantially higher proportion of participants obtaining maximum scores (28-30 points; 277 [23%] vs 235 [13%]; p<0·0001). Similarly, the cognitive composite score was significantly better in the 1915 than in the 1905 cohort (0·49 [SD 3·6] vs 0·01 [SD 3·6]; p=0·0003). The cohorts did not differ consistently in the physical performance tests, but the 1915 cohort had significantly better activities of daily living scores than did the 1905 cohort (2·0 [SD 0·8] vs 1·8 [0·7]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Despite being 2 years older at assessment, the 1915 cohort scored significantly better than the 1905 cohort on both the cognitive tests and the activities of daily living score, which suggests that more people are living to older ages with better overall functioning. FUNDING: Danish National Research Foundation; US National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Aging; Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; VELUX Foundation.
BACKGROUND: A rapidly increasing proportion of people in high-income countries are surviving into their tenth decade. Concern is widespread that the basis for this development is the survival of frail and disabled elderly people into very old age. To investigate this issue, we compared the cognitive and physical functioning of two cohorts of Danish nonagenarians, born 10 years apart. METHODS:People in the first cohort were born in 1905 and assessed at age 93 years (n=2262); those in the second cohort were born in 1915 and assessed at age 95 years (n=1584). All cohort members were eligible irrespective of type of residence. Both cohorts were assessed by surveys that used the same design and assessment instrument, and had almost identical response rates (63%). Cognitive functioning was assessed by mini-mental state examination and a composite of five cognitive tests that are sensitive to age-related changes. Physical functioning was assessed by an activities of daily living score and by physical performance tests (grip strength, chair stand, and gait speed). FINDINGS: The chance of surviving from birth to age 93 years was 28% higher in the 1915 cohort than in the 1905 cohort (6·50% vs 5·06%), and the chance of reaching 95 years was 32% higher in 1915 cohort (3·93% vs 2·98%). The 1915 cohort scored significantly better on the mini-mental state examination than did the 1905 cohort (22·8 [SD 5·6] vs 21·4 [6·0]; p<0·0001), with a substantially higher proportion of participants obtaining maximum scores (28-30 points; 277 [23%] vs 235 [13%]; p<0·0001). Similarly, the cognitive composite score was significantly better in the 1915 than in the 1905 cohort (0·49 [SD 3·6] vs 0·01 [SD 3·6]; p=0·0003). The cohorts did not differ consistently in the physical performance tests, but the 1915 cohort had significantly better activities of daily living scores than did the 1905 cohort (2·0 [SD 0·8] vs 1·8 [0·7]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Despite being 2 years older at assessment, the 1915 cohort scored significantly better than the 1905 cohort on both the cognitive tests and the activities of daily living score, which suggests that more people are living to older ages with better overall functioning. FUNDING: Danish National Research Foundation; US National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Aging; Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation; VELUX Foundation.
Authors: Kenneth M Langa; Eric B Larson; Jason H Karlawish; David M Cutler; Mohammed U Kabeto; Scott Y Kim; Allison B Rosen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Dana E King; Eric Matheson; Svetlana Chirina; Anoop Shankar; Jordan Broman-Fulks Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-03-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Hanne Nybo; Hans Chr Petersen; David Gaist; Bernard Jeune; Kjeld Andersen; Matt McGue; James W Vaupel; Kaare Christensen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Henriette Engberg; Kaare Christensen; Karen Andersen-Ranberg; James W Vaupel; Bernard Jeune Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Linda Juel Ahrenfeldt; Sören Möller; Mikael Thinggaard; Kaare Christensen; Rune Lindahl-Jacobsen Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Magali Barbieri; John R Wilmoth; Vladimir M Shkolnikov; Dana Glei; Domantas Jasilionis; Dmitri Jdanov; Carl Boe; Timothy Riffe; Pavel Grigoriev; Celeste Winant Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 7.196