Stephanie P Chen1, Jay Bhattacharya2,3, Suzann Pershing4,5. 1. Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 2. Center for Health Policy/Primary Care Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 3. Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 4. Byers Eye Institute, Department of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 5. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California.
Abstract
Importance: Visual dysfunction and poor cognition are highly prevalent among older adults; however, the relationship is not well defined. Objective: To evaluate the association of measured and self-reported visual impairment (VI) with cognition in older US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of 2 national data sets: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2002, and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), 2011-2015. The NHANES was composed of a civilian, noninstitutionalized community, and the NHATS comprised Medicare beneficiaries in the contiguous United States. Vision was measured at distance, near, and by self-report in the NHANES and by self-report alone in the NHATS. Sample weights were used to ensure result generalizability. Main Outcomes and Measures: The NHANES measured Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score and relative DSST impairment (DSST score ≤28, lowest quartile in study cohort), and the NHATS measured probable or possible dementia, classified per NHATS protocol. Results: The NHANES comprised 2975 respondents aged 60 years and older who completed the DSST measuring cognitive performance. Mean (SD) age was 72 (8) years, 52% of participants were women (n = 1527), and 61% were non-Hispanic white (n = 1818). The NHATS included 30 202 respondents aged 65 years and older with dementia status assessment. The largest proportion (40%; n = 12 212) were between 75 and 84 years of age. Fifty-eight percent were women (n = 17 659), and 69% were non-Hispanic white (n = 20 842). In the NHANES, distance VI (β = -5.1; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.6; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.7) and subjective VI (β = -5.3; 95% CI, -8.0 to -2.6; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.8) were both associated with lower DSST scores and higher odds of DSST impairment after full adjustment with covariates. Near VI was associated with lower DSST scores but not higher odds of DSST impairment. The NHATS data corroborated these results, with all vision variables associated with higher odds of dementia after full adjustment (distance VI: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.2; near VI: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1; either distance or near VI: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.4). Conclusions and Relevance: In a nationally representative sample of older US adults, vision dysfunction at distance and based on self-reports was associated with poor cognitive function. This was substantiated by a representative sample of US Medicare beneficiaries using self-reported visual function, reinforcing the value of identifying patients with visual compromise. Further study of longitudinal interactions between vision and cognition is warranted.
Importance: Visual dysfunction and poor cognition are highly prevalent among older adults; however, the relationship is not well defined. Objective: To evaluate the association of measured and self-reported visual impairment (VI) with cognition in older US adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional analysis of 2 national data sets: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1999-2002, and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS), 2011-2015. The NHANES was composed of a civilian, noninstitutionalized community, and the NHATS comprised Medicare beneficiaries in the contiguous United States. Vision was measured at distance, near, and by self-report in the NHANES and by self-report alone in the NHATS. Sample weights were used to ensure result generalizability. Main Outcomes and Measures: The NHANES measured Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) score and relative DSST impairment (DSST score ≤28, lowest quartile in study cohort), and the NHATS measured probable or possible dementia, classified per NHATS protocol. Results: The NHANES comprised 2975 respondents aged 60 years and older who completed the DSST measuring cognitive performance. Mean (SD) age was 72 (8) years, 52% of participants were women (n = 1527), and 61% were non-Hispanic white (n = 1818). The NHATS included 30 202 respondents aged 65 years and older with dementia status assessment. The largest proportion (40%; n = 12 212) were between 75 and 84 years of age. Fifty-eight percent were women (n = 17 659), and 69% were non-Hispanic white (n = 20 842). In the NHANES, distance VI (β = -5.1; 95% CI, -8.6 to -1.6; odds ratio [OR], 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-6.7) and subjective VI (β = -5.3; 95% CI, -8.0 to -2.6; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.8) were both associated with lower DSST scores and higher odds of DSST impairment after full adjustment with covariates. Near VI was associated with lower DSST scores but not higher odds of DSST impairment. The NHATS data corroborated these results, with all vision variables associated with higher odds of dementia after full adjustment (distance VI: OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.2; near VI: OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 2.2-3.1; either distance or near VI: OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.4). Conclusions and Relevance: In a nationally representative sample of older US adults, vision dysfunction at distance and based on self-reports was associated with poor cognitive function. This was substantiated by a representative sample of US Medicare beneficiaries using self-reported visual function, reinforcing the value of identifying patients with visual compromise. Further study of longitudinal interactions between vision and cognition is warranted.
Authors: William R Swindell; Steven R Cummings; Jason L Sanders; Paolo Caserotti; Caterina Rosano; Suzanne Satterfield; Elsa S Strotmeyer; Tamara B Harris; Eleanor M Simonsick; Peggy M Cawthon Journal: Rejuvenation Res Date: 2012-05-18 Impact factor: 4.663
Authors: Yukari Yamada; Michael D Denkinger; Graziano Onder; Jean-Claude Henrard; Henriëtte G van der Roest; Harriet Finne-Soveri; Tomas Richter; Martina Vlachova; Roberto Bernabei; Eva Topinkova Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Shin Yeu Ong; Carol Y Cheung; Xiang Li; Ecosse L Lamoureux; M Kamran Ikram; Jie Ding; Ching Yu Cheng; Benjamin Adam Haaland; Seang Mei Saw; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Christopher P L Chen; Tien Yin Wong Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-07
Authors: Richard Klaus Gurgel; Preston Daniel Ward; Sarah Schwartz; Maria C Norton; Norman L Foster; JoAnn T Tschanz Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: D Diane Zheng; Bonnielin K Swenor; Sharon L Christ; Sheila K West; Byron L Lam; David J Lee Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Xiaoling Xiang; Vicki A Freedman; Khushali Shah; Rita X Hu; Brian C Stagg; Joshua R Ehrlich Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kathryn E Callahan; Malaz Boustani; Lauren Ferrante; Daniel E Forman; Jerry Gurwitz; Kevin P High; Frances McFarland; Thomas Robinson; Stephanie Studenski; Mia Yang; Kenneth E Schmader Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Taylor J Krivanek; Seth A Gale; Brittany M McFeeley; Casey M Nicastri; Kirk R Daffner Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Annie M Wu; Connie M Wu; Victoria L Tseng; Paul B Greenberg; JoAnn A Giaconi; Fei Yu; Flora Lum; Anne L Coleman Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Lee Smith; Jae Il Shin; Louis Jacob; Guillermo F López-Sánchez; Hans Oh; Yvonne Barnett; Shahina Pardhan; Laurie Butler; Pinar Soysal; Nicola Veronese; Ai Koyanagi Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Frances McFarland; Michael Avidan; Miles Berger; Sharon K Inouye; Jason Karlawish; Frank R Lin; Edward Marcantonio; John C Morris; David B Reuben; Raj C Shah; Heather E Whitson; Sanjay Asthana; Joe Verghese Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.562