Literature DB >> 31641638

Cognitive Impairment and its Association with Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients.

Coredath Venugopal Lalithambika1, Chankramath S Arun2, Lakshmi Ammal Saraswathy1, Renjitha Bhaskaran3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the major causes of increasing morbidity worldwide. Effective screening is carried out routinely for diabetic retinopathy, neuropathy, and nephropathy. Of late, studies have reported that cognitive decline can occur in people with diabetes, which could go undetected for a long period, and hence routine screening could be warranted.
METHODOLOGY: Our objective was to study the prevalence of previously unknown mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in type 2 diabetic patients visiting a tertiary care center with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and to study the correlations of HbA1c, fasting blood sugar (FBS), postprandial blood sugar (PPBS), age, and duration of diabetes with the MoCA scores. Seventy patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus were included in the study. Patients with MoCA scores ≥26 were considered to have normal cognition (NC) and those with <26 MCI.
RESULTS: MCI was noted in 38 (54.29%) type 2 diabetes mellitus patients and NC in 32 (45.71%). Those with MCI had higher HbA1c (8.79 ± 1.85 vs. 7.78 ± 1.60), higher FBS (177.05 ± 62.48 vs. 149.38 ± 54.38), and PPBS (282.03 ± 85.61 vs. 214.50 ± 82.43), which were statistically significant. The cognitive domains of executive function, naming, attention, language, and memory showed a statistically significant difference between those with MCI and NC. There were no differences in the mean age, duration of diabetes, and educational status between the groups.
CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of MCI in type 2 diabetic patients highlights the importance of implementing routine cognitive testing. The correlation of cognitive impairment with poor glucose control needs further studies to find out whether improving glycemic control will help improve cognition. Copyright:
© 2019 Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mild cognitive impairment; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; normal cognition; type 2 diabetes mellitus

Year:  2019        PMID: 31641638      PMCID: PMC6683683          DOI: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_24_19

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Endocrinol Metab        ISSN: 2230-9500


INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The incidence is on the rise and it is seen that the age of onset of type 2 diabetes is also earlier. Screening tests are now routinely employed for early detection of diabetic retinopathy, peripheral neuropathy, and nephropathy. It is well known that type 2 diabetes is also associated with cognitive impairment.[123] The spectrum of cognitive impairment could range from mild to severe dementia with the delay in detection of the problem. Early identification of cognitive decline in previously undetected cases could help deal with this better. Over the years, researchers have used many tools like Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Hopkins verbal learning test, Addenbrooke's cognitive examination-revised, clock-drawing test, six-item cognitive impairment test, and others for assessing the cognitive function.[4] A few studies from India have shown cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus.[567] A correlation between glycemic control and cognition has also been well documented in the literature.[5] However, there are no studies from India using MoCA score, which is regarded by many as the best tool to assess subjects for mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

METHODOLOGY

Our main objective was to find the prevalence of cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in the age group 35–65 years attending the endocrinology outpatient department in a tertiary care center. Secondary objectives were to find if there is an association between HbA1c levels, duration of diabetes, and cognitive impairment and to see if there is a correlation between blood glucose levels and MoCA scores. Our study design was cross-sectional. Based on the prevalence rate observed in an earlier publication,[8] and with 95% confidence and 20% allowable error, minimum sample size obtained was 66. We included 70 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus of age group 35–65 years attending endocrinology outpatient department in a tertiary care hospital. Patients who are illiterate, who had significant hearing or visual impairment, patients with acute illness, psychiatric problems, epilepsy, Alzheimer's disease (AD), stroke, and those who were unable to consent for participation were excluded from the study. As MoCA is a cognitive screening tool with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting MCI, we selected this to use for the study.[9] We used the English version of MoCA, which is a test with 30-point score. Clearance was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee. Patients were recruited from June 2017 to February 2018 after written informed consent. MoCA screening tool was administered to the patients who were asked to follow a set of instructions and scored according to their performance. Most recent value of HbA1c, fasting blood sugar (FBS), and postprandial blood sugar (PPBS) values on the day of administering the MoCA test were taken from the electronic medical records. Patients with MoCA scores ≥26 were considered to have normal cognition (NC) and those with <26 MCI.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 20.0 software. Means and standard deviations were calculated for the continuous variables, counts, and percentages for the categorical variables. To estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus, frequency and percentage were calculated. To test the statistical significance of the association of categorical variables with cognitive impairment, Chi-square test was used. To test the significance of the correlation of HbA1c and duration of diabetes with MoCA scores, Pearson's correlation method was used. To test the statistical significance of the differences in the mean values of continuous variables between those with MCI and NC, Student's t-test was used.

RESULTS

There were 70 participants in this study, of whom 57 (81.4%) were males [Table 1].
Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes included in the study (n=70)

VariablesN = 70
Age (years)53.30±7.69
Sex (M/F)57/13
Height (cm)165.66±7.80
Weight (kg)72.27±12.66
BMI (kg/m2)26.56±4.18
Type 2 diabetes duration (years)12.04±6.04
MoCA score24.91±2.69
HbA1c* (%)8.33±1.8

*Mean±standard deviation

Baseline characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes included in the study (n=70) *Mean±standard deviation Thirty-eight (54.29%) type 2 diabetes mellitus patients had MCI (MoCA score <26) and 32 (45.71%) had normal cognitive function (MoCA score ≥26). The HbA1c, fasting, and PPBS levels were significantly higher in patients with MCI [Table 2]. There were no significant differences in mean age and the duration of diabetes between the groups. HbA1c, FBS, and PPBS levels showed a negative correlation with the MoCA scores [Table 3]. Of the domains tested, executive function, naming, attention, language, and memory showed a statistically significant difference between those with NC and MCI [Table 4].
Table 2

Comparison of means and P values of variables between those with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition

VariableMCI (n=38) mean±SDNC (n=32) mean±SDP
Age54.82±6.8251.50±8.370.072
HbA1c8.79±1.857.78±1.600.013*
FBS177.05±62.48149.38±54.380.034*
PPBS282.03±85.61214.50±82.430.001*
Duration of diabetes12.79±6.2811.16±5.710.318

*Statistically significant

Table 3

Correlations between HbA1c, FBS, PPBS, duration of diabetes, and MoCA scores

VariablesMoCA score

Pearson correlation coefficientPn
HbA1c−0.2870.016*70
FBS−0.3090.009*70
PPBS−0.4000.001*70
Duration of diabetes−0.1420.24070

*Statistically significant

Table 4

Cognitive domains in normal cognition and mild cognitive impairment group

Cognitive domainScore (number of patients)Mild cognitive impairment n (%)Normal cognition n (%)P
Executive function2 (3)3 (100)0 (0)
3 (24)19 (79.2)5 (20.8)
4 (25)12 (48)13 (52)0.001*
5 (18)4 (22.2)14 (77.8)
Naming2 (18)15 (83.3)3 (16.7)
3 (52)23 (44.2)29 (55.8)0.009*
Attention2 (1)1 (100)0 (0)
3 (3)3 (100)0 (0)
4 (6)5 (83.3)1 (16.7)0.009*
5 (19)14 (73.7)5 (26.3)
6 (41)15 (36.6)26 (63.4)
Language0 (7)6 (85.7)1 (14.3)
1 (25)18 (72)7 (28)0.001*
2 (20)11 (55)9 (45)
3 (18)3 (16.7%)15 (83.3)
Abstraction1 (3)3 (100)0 (0)
2 (67)35 (52.2)32 (47.8)0.302
Memory1 (6)6 (100)0 (0)
2 (17)14 (82.4)3 (17.6)0.001*
3 (19)10 (52.6)9 (47.4)
4 (19)7 (36.8)12 (63.2)
5 (9)1 (11.1)8 (88.9)
Orientation5 (12)10 (83.3)2 (16.7)0.057#
6 (58)28 (48.3)30 (51.7)

*Statistically significant. #Borderline significance

Comparison of means and P values of variables between those with mild cognitive impairment and normal cognition *Statistically significant Correlations between HbA1c, FBS, PPBS, duration of diabetes, and MoCA scores *Statistically significant Cognitive domains in normal cognition and mild cognitive impairment group *Statistically significant. #Borderline significance Twenty-five percent of those with normal scores named all the five words used for testing memory correctly, whereas only 2.6% of those with abnormal scores could do it in the MCI group. Around 53.1% of those with NC could repeat both the administered questions, whereas in MCI group, only 10.5% could do it. Orientation scores between the groups showed borderline significance. Abstraction scores were not statistically significant between the two groups.

DISCUSSION

The present study examined the prevalence of MCI in patients with type 2 diabetes in South India. The prevalence of MCI was found to be 54.3% in our study population. This is higher than that shown in the previous studies from India, which range from 19.5% to 48.0%.[567] However, previous studies used MMSE, trail-making tests, modified MMSE, and other neuropsychological tests like digit span test, digit symbol substitution test, and others, which are less sensitive in detecting MCI and hence could have contributed to the difference. As MoCA is a more sensitive test, it might have helped detect MCI more accurately. In our study, patients with cognitive impairment had significantly higher FBS, PPBS, and HbA1c, which negatively correlated with MOCA scores. In a study by Roy et al., cognitive impairment was observed in 11.6% of the patients who had optimal glycemic control (HbA1c under 7%) and 30.2% with HbA1c 7% or above.[5] Khullar et al. showed that subjects having glucose levels >125 mg/dl had 1.73 times higher risk of developing neurocognitive impairment.[67] ACCORD-MIND trial done on 2977 type 2 diabetes subjects found a statistically significant age-adjusted association between HbA1c level and score on four cognitive tests.[10] Both clock in a box and clock-drawing test have been shown to inversely correlate with HbA1c.[11] Hence, our results are consistent with existing literature that poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes is associated with cognitive decline. While there is vast epidemiologic data linking poor glycemia and cognitive impairment, it is not clear whether improving glucose control leads to improvement in cognition. The diabetes control and complications trial in type 1 diabetes demonstrated that improved HbA1c was related to improved cognition in nonamnestic domains.[12] Luchsinger et al. showed that improving HbA1c levels in an elderly population over a period of 5 years was associated with slowing down of global cognitive decline.[13] Being a woman and longer duration of diabetes have been shown to be independent risk factors in previous studies.[6] Our study did not find any difference between sex or any relation to duration of diabetes perhaps because of inadequate sample size. The MoCA is now accepted as an excellent tool for brief cognitive screening measure and is freely available with multiple editions in various languages. The original MoCA reported a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 87% in detecting mild AD using a cutoff score of 26.[9] Amnestic MCI (aMCI) is said to have a high likelihood of progressing to AD.[10] It has previously been shown that the total score of the MoCA was a better discriminator for aMCI and had a modest accuracy in differentiating Nonamnestic MCI (naMCI) patients from healthy controls that were better than the MMSE.[14] Hence, the differences noted in the MOCA scoring in our study could be suggestive of risk for development of AD in the future. In the present study, executive function, naming, attention, language, and memory showed a statistically significant difference between those with NC and MCI. It has been shown that attention, language, orientation, visual perception, organization of visual movement, and logical questioning improved with proper cognitive training in patients with MCI.[15] A study on the effectiveness of cognitive training program in people with MCI underlines the importance of early detection of MCI.[16] We used the English version of MOCA as the local language version is not available. However, all patients understood English and were comfortable using it for the study. The level of education among subjects in both groups was similar. In summary, our study shows a high prevalence of undetected MCI in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients attending an outpatient clinic setting. A strong negative correlation was noticed between all parameters of glycemic control and MOCA scores representative of cognitive function. These observations make a strong case for routine screening of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients to detect MCI with a sensitive tool such as MoCA. Studies on the benefits of improved glycemic control on cognitive function would need to be performed in the future to help us understand the significance of our finding in the long-term management of these patients.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.
  15 in total

1.  Cognitive Training in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment.

Authors:  Xin Yan Liu; Li Li; Jia Qing Xiao; Chang Zhi He; Xiu Lin Lyu; Lei Gao; Xiao Wei Yang; Xin Gang Cui; Li Hua Fan
Journal:  Biomed Environ Sci       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 3.118

2.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.562

3.  Cognitive dysfunction is associated with poor diabetes control in older adults.

Authors:  Medha Munshi; Laura Grande; Mellody Hayes; Darlene Ayres; Emmy Suhl; Roberta Capelson; Susan Lin; William Milberg; Katie Weinger
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 19.112

4.  Improved diabetes control in the elderly delays global cognitive decline.

Authors:  J A Luchsinger; W Palmas; J A Teresi; S Silver; J Kong; J P Eimicke; R S Weinstock; S Shea
Journal:  J Nutr Health Aging       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.075

5.  Risk factors of mild cognitive impairment in middle aged patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-section study.

Authors:  Rui-Hua Chen; Xiao-Zhen Jiang; Xiao-Hui Zhao; Yu-Lan Qin; Zhe Gu; Pei-Li Gu; Bin Zhou; Zhen-Hong Zhu; Lin-Yan Xu; Yu-Feng Zou
Journal:  Ann Endocrinol (Paris)       Date:  2012-06-13       Impact factor: 2.478

6.  DUPLICATE: The effectiveness of a cognitive training program in people with mild cognitive impairment: A study in urban community.

Authors:  Chalermpong Sukontapol; Sasithorn Kemsen; Sirintorn Chansirikarn; Daochompu Nakawiro; Orawan Kuha; Unchulee Taemeeyapradit
Journal:  Asian J Psychiatr       Date:  2018-05-26

7.  Effects of Type 2 Diabetes on Brain Structure and Cognitive Function: African American-Diabetes Heart Study MIND.

Authors:  C T Whitlow; K M Sink; J Divers; S C Smith; J Xu; N D Palmer; C E Hugenschmidt; J D Williamson; D W Bowden; B I Freedman; J A Maldjian
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  The role of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and its memory tasks for detecting mild cognitive impairment.

Authors:  Xudong Li; Shuhong Jia; Zhi Zhou; Yi Jin; Xiangfei Zhang; Chunlei Hou; Wenjing Zheng; Pei Rong; Jinsong Jiao
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2018-03-17       Impact factor: 3.307

9.  Cognitive impairment in diabetes and poor glucose utilization in the intracellular neural milieu.

Authors:  Carlos M Contreras; Ana G Gutiérrez-García
Journal:  Med Hypotheses       Date:  2017-06-08       Impact factor: 1.538

Review 10.  Review of brief cognitive tests for patients with suspected dementia.

Authors:  Latha Velayudhan; Seung-Ho Ryu; Malgorzata Raczek; Michael Philpot; James Lindesay; Matthew Critchfield; Gill Livingston
Journal:  Int Psychogeriatr       Date:  2014-03-31       Impact factor: 3.878

View more
  4 in total

1.  Spot Urine Albumin Creatinine Ratio can be a Predictor of Cognitive Function in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Deepak Kumar Panigrahi; Debasish Chaudhury
Journal:  Indian J Nephrol       Date:  2021-01-27

2.  Metformin improves cognitive impairment in diabetic mice induced by a combination of streptozotocin and isoflurane anesthesia.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhang; Lingxia Zhao; Jianwen Zhang; Pengfei Li; Zhigan Lv
Journal:  Bioengineered       Date:  2021-12       Impact factor: 3.269

3.  Sweet Memories or Not? A Comparative Study on Cognitive Impairment in Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Sangeetha Merrin Varghese; Niva Joy; Anulekha Mary John; Geomcy George; George Mateethra Chandy; Anoop Ivan Benjamin
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2022-02-04

4.  Effect of poor glycemic control in cognitive performance in the elderly with type 2 diabetes mellitus: The Mexican Health and Aging Study.

Authors:  Alberto J Mimenza-Alvarado; Gilberto A Jiménez-Castillo; Sara G Yeverino-Castro; Abel J Barragán-Berlanga; Mario U Pérez-Zepeda; J Alberto Ávila-Funes; Sara G Aguilar-Navarro
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 3.921

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.