J Ryan1, J Scali, I Carrière, H Amieva, O Rouaud, C Berr, K Ritchie, M-L Ancelin. 1. Inserm, U1061, Neuropsychiatry: Epidemiological and Clinical Research, Montpellier, France; Université Montpellier 1, Montpellier, France; Cancer & Disease Epigenetics, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Vic., Australia; Department of Paediatrics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether premature menopause (≤40 years) 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). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: The French Three-City Study. POPULATION: Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight women aged at least 65 years. METHODS: Multivariable-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 MEASURES: Performance on a cognitive test battery (at baseline and over 7 years) and clinical dementia diagnosis. RESULTS: Menopause at or before the age of 40 years, 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 7 years. CONCLUSION: Both 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.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether premature menopause (≤40 years) 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). DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. SETTING: The French Three-City Study. POPULATION: Four thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight women aged at least 65 years. METHODS: Multivariable-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 MEASURES: Performance on a cognitive test battery (at baseline and over 7 years) and clinical dementia diagnosis. RESULTS: Menopause at or before the age of 40 years, 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 7 years. CONCLUSION: Both 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.
Authors: C Neill Epperson; Sheila Shanmugan; Deborah R Kim; Sarah Mathews; Kathryn A Czarkowski; Jeanette Bradley; Dina H Appleby; Claudia Iannelli; Mary D Sammel; Thomas E Brown Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Jennifer R Klemp; Jamie S Myers; Carol J Fabian; Bruce F Kimler; Qamar J Khan; Susan M Sereika; Annette L Stanton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Rebecca A Clark; Sogol Mostoufi-Moab; Yutaka Yasui; Ngoc Khanh Vu; Charles A Sklar; Tarek Motan; Russell J Brooke; Todd M Gibson; Kevin C Oeffinger; Rebecca M Howell; Susan A Smith; Zhe Lu; Leslie L Robison; Wassim Chemaitilly; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong; Paul C Nathan; Yan Yuan Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Keiko Kurita; Victor W Henderson; Margaret Gatz; Jan St John; Howard N Hodis; Roksana Karim; Wendy J Mack Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 7.329