Kristine E Ensrud1, Li-Yung Lui2, Misti L Paudel3, John T Schousboe4, Allyson M Kats5, Jane A Cauley6, Charles E McCulloch7, Kristine Yaffe8, Peggy M Cawthon2, Teresa A Hillier9, Brent C Taylor10. 1. Department of Medicine and Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota. ensru001@umn.edu. 2. California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute, San Francisco. 3. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 4. Park Nicollet Clinic, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Division of Health Policy & Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 5. Chronic Disease Research Group, Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minnesota. 6. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Department of Neurology and Department of Epidemiology, University of California, San Francisco. 9. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. 10. Department of Medicine and Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines the effects of mobility and cognition on mortality risk in women late in life. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted among 1,495 women (mean age 87.6 years) participating in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Year 20 examination (2006-2008). Mobility (ascertained by Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]) was categorized as poor (SPPB 0-3, n = 312), intermediate (SPPB 4-9, n = 799), or good (SPPB 10-12, n = 384). Cognitive status (adjudicated based on neuropsychological tests) was classified as normal (n = 873), mild cognitive impairment (n = 354), or dementia (n = 268). Deaths (n = 749) were identified from Year 20 through July 31, 2014 (average follow-up 4.9 years). RESULTS: There was not strong evidence of an interaction between mobility and cognition for prediction of mortality risk (p interaction term .16). Compared to women with good mobility, mortality risks were increased among women with intermediate mobility (hazard ratio [HR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.57) and those with poor mobility (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.24-2.16) after consideration of cognition and other mortality risk factors. Similarly, mortality risks were higher among women with mild cognitive impairment (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and those with dementia (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.54-2.31) compared to women with normal cognition after consideration of mobility and other mortality risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among women late in life, 5-year mortality risk was substantially increased among women with deficits in mobility even after accounting for cognition and traditional prognostic indicators. Similarly, deficits in cognition were associated with increased 5-year mortality despite consideration of mobility and conventional risk factors. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America 2015.
BACKGROUND: This study examines the effects of mobility and cognition on mortality risk in women late in life. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted among 1,495 women (mean age 87.6 years) participating in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Year 20 examination (2006-2008). Mobility (ascertained by Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]) was categorized as poor (SPPB 0-3, n = 312), intermediate (SPPB 4-9, n = 799), or good (SPPB 10-12, n = 384). Cognitive status (adjudicated based on neuropsychological tests) was classified as normal (n = 873), mild cognitive impairment (n = 354), or dementia (n = 268). Deaths (n = 749) were identified from Year 20 through July 31, 2014 (average follow-up 4.9 years). RESULTS: There was not strong evidence of an interaction between mobility and cognition for prediction of mortality risk (p interaction term .16). Compared to women with good mobility, mortality risks were increased among women with intermediate mobility (hazard ratio [HR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.57) and those with poor mobility (HR 1.64, 95% CI 1.24-2.16) after consideration of cognition and other mortality risk factors. Similarly, mortality risks were higher among women with mild cognitive impairment (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and those with dementia (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.54-2.31) compared to women with normal cognition after consideration of mobility and other mortality risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Among women late in life, 5-year mortality risk was substantially increased among women with deficits in mobility even after accounting for cognition and traditional prognostic indicators. Similarly, deficits in cognition were associated with increased 5-year mortality despite consideration of mobility and conventional risk factors. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America 2015.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cognitive status; Death; Elderly women; Physical function
Authors: B W Penninx; L Ferrucci; S G Leveille; T Rantanen; M Pahor; J M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Malgorzata Mossakowska; Katarzyna Broczek; Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis; Alicja Klich-Rączka; Marta Jonas; Eliza Pawlik-Pachucka; Krzysztof Safranow; Jacek Kuznicki; Monika Puzianowska-Kuznicka Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: S R Cummings; D M Black; M C Nevitt; W S Browner; J A Cauley; H K Genant; S R Mascioli; J C Scott; D G Seeley; P Steiger Journal: JAMA Date: 1990-02-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: N L Watson; C Rosano; R M Boudreau; E M Simonsick; L Ferrucci; K Sutton-Tyrrell; S E Hardy; H H Atkinson; K Yaffe; S Satterfield; T B Harris; A B Newman Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2010-06-25 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kristine Yaffe; Laura E Middleton; Li-Yung Lui; Adam P Spira; Katie Stone; Caroline Racine; Kristine E Ensrud; Joel H Kramer Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-05
Authors: Renée F A G de Bruijn; Saloua Akoudad; Lotte G M Cremers; Albert Hofman; Wiro J Niessen; Aad van der Lugt; Peter J Koudstaal; Meike W Vernooij; M Arfan Ikram Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Erin S LeBlanc; Joanne H Rizzo; Kathryn L Pedula; Kristine Yaffe; Kristine E Ensrud; Jane A Cauley; Peggy M Cawthon; Steven R Cummings; Teresa A Hillier Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Susan J Diem; Li-Yung Lui; Lisa Langsetmo; Brent Taylor; Peggy M Cawthon; Jane A Cauley; Kristine E Ensrud Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kristine E Ensrud; Li-Yung Lui; Misti L Paudel; John T Schousboe; Allyson M Kats; Jane A Cauley; Charles E McCulloch; Kristine Yaffe; Peggy M Cawthon; Teresa A Hillier; Brent C Taylor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Lei Yu; Patricia A Boyle; Sue E Leurgans; Robert S Wilson; David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman Journal: Neuroepidemiology Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Eric J Roseen; Michael P LaValley; Shanshan Li; Robert B Saper; David T Felson; Lisa Fredman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rita Pavasini; Jack Guralnik; Justin C Brown; Mauro di Bari; Matteo Cesari; Francesco Landi; Bert Vaes; Delphine Legrand; Joe Verghese; Cuiling Wang; Sari Stenholm; Luigi Ferrucci; Jennifer C Lai; Anna Arnau Bartes; Joan Espaulella; Montserrat Ferrer; Jae-Young Lim; Kristine E Ensrud; Peggy Cawthon; Anna Turusheva; Elena Frolova; Yves Rolland; Valerie Lauwers; Andrea Corsonello; Gregory D Kirk; Roberto Ferrari; Stefano Volpato; Gianluca Campo Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 8.775