Alina Solomon1,2,3, Heidi Turunen1, Tiia Ngandu3,4, Markku Peltonen4, Esko Levälahti4, Seppo Helisalmi1, Riitta Antikainen5,6, Lars Bäckman2, Tuomo Hänninen7, Antti Jula4, Tiina Laatikainen4,8,9, Jenni Lehtisalo4,10, Jaana Lindström4, Teemu Paajanen11, Satu Pajala12, Anna Stigsdotter-Neely13,14, Timo Strandberg5,15, Jaakko Tuomilehto4,16,17,18,19,20, Hilkka Soininen1,7, Miia Kivipelto1,2,3,4,21. 1. Institute of Clinical Medicine/Neurology, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 2. Aging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Center for Alzheimer Research, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Chronic Disease Prevention Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 5. Institute of Health Sciences/Geriatrics, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 6. Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and Oulu City Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 7. Department of Neurology, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. 8. Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland. 9. Hospital District of North Karelia, Joensuu, Finland. 10. Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Helskinki, Finland. 11. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland. 12. Welfare and Health Promotion Unit, National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 13. Department of Social and Psychological Studies, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden. 14. Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden. 15. Department of Medicine, Geriatric Clinic, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. 16. Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. 17. South Ostrobothnia Central Hospital, Seinäjoki, Finland. 18. Department of Neurosciences and Preventive Medicine, Danube-University Krems, Krems, Austria. 19. Diabetes Research Group, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 20. Dasman Diabetes Institute, Dasman, Kuwait. 21. Neuroepidemiology and Ageing Research Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Importance: The role of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele as an effect modifier in lifestyle interventions to prevent cognitive impairment is still unclear. Objective: To examine whether the APOE ε4 allele modifies the previously reported significant cognitive benefits of a multidomain lifestyle intervention (prespecified subgroup analysis). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) was a randomized clinical trial in 6 centers across Finland (screening and randomization performed from September 7, 2009, through November 24, 2011; intervention duration, 2 years). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The study population was at-risk older individuals from the general population. Inclusion criteria were age of 60 to 77 years; Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia risk score of at least 6 points; and cognition at a mean level or slightly lower than expected for age. Individuals with dementia or substantial cognitive impairment and conditions that prevented cooperation or safe engagement in the intervention were excluded. APOE genotype data were available for 1175 of the 1260 participants. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a multidomain intervention group (diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk management) or a control group (general health advice). Group allocation was not actively disclosed to participants, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in cognition measured through a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Analysis was based on modified intention to treat (participants with at least 1 postbaseline assessment). Results: A total of 1109 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [4.7] years; 514 [46.3%] female) were included in the analysis: 362 APOE ε4 allele carriers (173 intervention and 189 control) and 747 noncarriers (380 intervention and 367 control). The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). The difference between the intervention and control groups in annual neuropsychological test battery total score change was 0.037 (95% CI, 0.001 to 0.073) among carriers and 0.014 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.039) among noncarriers. Intervention effect was not significantly different between carriers and noncarriers (0.023; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.067). Conclusions and Relevance: Healthy lifestyle changes may be beneficial for cognition in older at-risk individuals even in the presence of APOE-related genetic susceptibility to dementia. Whether such benefits are more pronounced in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers should be further investigated. The findings also emphasize the importance of early prevention strategies that target multiple modifiable risk factors simultaneously. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01041989.
RCT Entities:
Importance: The role of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele as an effect modifier in lifestyle interventions to prevent cognitive impairment is still unclear. Objective: To examine whether the APOE ε4 allele modifies the previously reported significant cognitive benefits of a multidomain lifestyle intervention (prespecified subgroup analysis). Design, Setting, and Participants: The Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) was a randomized clinical trial in 6 centers across Finland (screening and randomization performed from September 7, 2009, through November 24, 2011; intervention duration, 2 years). Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The study population was at-risk older individuals from the general population. Inclusion criteria were age of 60 to 77 years; Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia risk score of at least 6 points; and cognition at a mean level or slightly lower than expected for age. Individuals with dementia or substantial cognitive impairment and conditions that prevented cooperation or safe engagement in the intervention were excluded. APOE genotype data were available for 1175 of the 1260 participants. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a multidomain intervention group (diet, exercise, cognitive training, and vascular risk management) or a control group (general health advice). Group allocation was not actively disclosed to participants, and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in cognition measured through a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery. Analysis was based on modified intention to treat (participants with at least 1 postbaseline assessment). Results: A total of 1109 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [4.7] years; 514 [46.3%] female) were included in the analysis: 362 APOE ε4 allele carriers (173 intervention and 189 control) and 747 noncarriers (380 intervention and 367 control). The APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were not significantly different at baseline (except for serum cholesterol level). The difference between the intervention and control groups in annual neuropsychological test battery total score change was 0.037 (95% CI, 0.001 to 0.073) among carriers and 0.014 (95% CI, -0.011 to 0.039) among noncarriers. Intervention effect was not significantly different between carriers and noncarriers (0.023; 95% CI, -0.021 to 0.067). Conclusions and Relevance: Healthy lifestyle changes may be beneficial for cognition in older at-risk individuals even in the presence of APOE-related genetic susceptibility to dementia. Whether such benefits are more pronounced in APOE ε4 carriers compared with noncarriers should be further investigated. The findings also emphasize the importance of early prevention strategies that target multiple modifiable risk factors simultaneously. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01041989.
Authors: Miriam E Nelson; W Jack Rejeski; Steven N Blair; Pamela W Duncan; James O Judge; Abby C King; Carol A Macera; Carmen Castaneda-Sceppa Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Lars Bäckman; Lars Nyberg; Anna Soveri; Jarkko Johansson; Micael Andersson; Erika Dahlin; Anna S Neely; Jere Virta; Matti Laine; Juha O Rinne Journal: Science Date: 2011-08-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Patrick J Smith; James A Blumenthal; Benson M Hoffman; Harris Cooper; Timothy A Strauman; Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer; Jeffrey N Browndyke; Andrew Sherwood Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2010-03-11 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Beth E Snitz; Ellen S O'Meara; Michelle C Carlson; Alice M Arnold; Diane G Ives; Stephen R Rapp; Judith Saxton; Oscar L Lopez; Leslie O Dunn; Kaycee M Sink; Steven T DeKosky Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Niels D Prins; Wiesje A van der Flier; Dirk L Knol; Nick C Fox; H Robert Brashear; Jeffrey S Nye; Frederik Barkhof; Philip Scheltens Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2014-07-21 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Philip Scheltens; Bart De Strooper; Miia Kivipelto; Henne Holstege; Gael Chételat; Charlotte E Teunissen; Jeffrey Cummings; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Xurui Jin; Wanying He; Yan Zhang; Enying Gong; Zhangming Niu; John Ji; Yaxi Li; Yi Zeng; Lijing L Yan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 11.613