Mikael Thinggaard1, Bernard Jeune1, Merete Osler2, James W Vaupel3, Matt McGue1,4, Kaare Christensen1,5. 1. Danish Aging Research Center, Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Biodemography, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C. 2. Center for Clinical Research and Prevention, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospitals, Denmark. 3. Interdisciplinary Center on Population Dynamics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense C. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 5. Department of Clinical Genetics and Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mortality rates have been reduced by half over the last 60 years for nonagenarians, and the progress is continuing. The greater survival might be due to overtreatment of severely physically and cognitively disabled individuals, which is a big concern for societies and individuals. METHODS: The study population comprised two Danish birth cohorts: the 1905 Cohort and the 1915 Cohort. At age 95, all from the two cohorts who were still alive and living in Denmark were invited to participate in a health survey that used the same assessment instrument. A total of 2,670 (56.8%) persons participated in the two surveys and survival was assessed through a 7.3-year follow-up period during which 2,497 (93.5%) had died, and with virtually no loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Despite the increasing chance of surviving to age 95, the 1915 Cohort had significantly better health and functioning than the 1905 Cohort. The survival advantage in the 1915 Cohort continued in the follow-up period after age 95: Median survival length was 2.4 months longer, p = .011. This advantage was not statistically associated with different levels of activities of daily living, physical performance, cognitive functioning, self-rated health and life satisfaction. However, the advantage tended to be more pronounced among people with better health. CONCLUSIONS: Life span and health increases among the oldest old. The improvement in survival for 95-year olds born in 1915 compared with 1905 was seen across the whole spectrum of health and functioning, with a tendency towards bigger improvement among those in good health.
BACKGROUND:Mortality rates have been reduced by half over the last 60 years for nonagenarians, and the progress is continuing. The greater survival might be due to overtreatment of severely physically and cognitively disabled individuals, which is a big concern for societies and individuals. METHODS: The study population comprised two Danish birth cohorts: the 1905 Cohort and the 1915 Cohort. At age 95, all from the two cohorts who were still alive and living in Denmark were invited to participate in a health survey that used the same assessment instrument. A total of 2,670 (56.8%) persons participated in the two surveys and survival was assessed through a 7.3-year follow-up period during which 2,497 (93.5%) had died, and with virtually no loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Despite the increasing chance of surviving to age 95, the 1915 Cohort had significantly better health and functioning than the 1905 Cohort. The survival advantage in the 1915 Cohort continued in the follow-up period after age 95: Median survival length was 2.4 months longer, p = .011. This advantage was not statistically associated with different levels of activities of daily living, physical performance, cognitive functioning, self-rated health and life satisfaction. However, the advantage tended to be more pronounced among people with better health. CONCLUSIONS: Life span and health increases among the oldest old. The improvement in survival for 95-year olds born in 1915 compared with 1905 was seen across the whole spectrum of health and functioning, with a tendency towards bigger improvement among those in good health.
Authors: Mikael Thinggaard; Matt McGue; Bernard Jeune; Merete Osler; James W Vaupel; Kaare Christensen Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kaare Christensen; Mikael Thinggaard; Anna Oksuzyan; Troels Steenstrup; Karen Andersen-Ranberg; Bernard Jeune; Matt McGue; James W Vaupel Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Fiona E Matthews; Antony Arthur; Linda E Barnes; John Bond; Carol Jagger; Louise Robinson; Carol Brayne Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 79.321