Chloë Verhagen1, Jolien Janssen2, Lieza G Exalto3, Esther van den Berg4, Odd Erik Johansen5, Geert Jan Biessels6. 1. Department of Neurology, UMCU Brain Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.verhagen@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Department of Neurology, UMCU Brain Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands; Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.janssen-9@umcutrecht.nl. 3. Department of Neurology, UMCU Brain Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: l.g.exalto-2@umcutrecht.nl. 4. Department of Neurology, UMCU Brain Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands; Department of Neurology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: E.vandenberg@erasmusmc.nl. 5. Clinical Development, Therapeutic Area Cardio Metabolism, Boehringer Ingelheim, Asker, Norway. Electronic address: odd-erik.johansen@boehringer-ingelheim.com. 6. Department of Neurology, UMCU Brain Centre, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.j.biessels@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the relationship between the diabetes-specific dementia risk score (DSDRS) and concurrent and future cognitive impairment (CI) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: DSDRS were calculated for participants with T2D aged ≥60 years from the CARMELINA-cognition substudy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01897532). Cognitive assessment included Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a composite attention and executive functioning score (A&E). The relation between baseline DSDRS and probability of CI (MMSE < 24) and variation in cognitive performance was assessed at baseline (n = 2241) and after 2.5 years follow-up in patients without baseline CI (n = 1312). RESULTS: Higher DSDRS was associated with a higher probability of CI at baseline (OR = 1.17 per point, 95% CI 1.12-1.22) and follow-up (OR = 1.24 per point, 95% CI 1.14-1.35). Moreover, in patients without baseline CI, higher DSDRS was also associated with lower baseline cognitive performance (MMSE: F(1, 1930) = 47.07, p < .0001, R2 = 0.02); A&E z-score: (F(1, 1871) = 33.44 p < .0001, R2 = 0.02) and faster cognitive decline at follow-up (MMSE: F(3, 1279) = 38.41, p < .0001; A&E z-score: F(3, 1206) = 148.48, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The DSDRS identifies patients with T2D at risk of concurrent as well as future CI. The DSDRS may thus be a supportive tool in screening strategies for cognitive dysfunction in patients with T2D.
AIM: To investigate the relationship between the diabetes-specific dementia risk score (DSDRS) and concurrent and future cognitive impairment (CI) in type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: DSDRS were calculated for participants with T2D aged ≥60 years from the CARMELINA-cognition substudy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01897532). Cognitive assessment included Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and a composite attention and executive functioning score (A&E). The relation between baseline DSDRS and probability of CI (MMSE < 24) and variation in cognitive performance was assessed at baseline (n = 2241) and after 2.5 years follow-up in patients without baseline CI (n = 1312). RESULTS: Higher DSDRS was associated with a higher probability of CI at baseline (OR = 1.17 per point, 95% CI 1.12-1.22) and follow-up (OR = 1.24 per point, 95% CI 1.14-1.35). Moreover, in patients without baseline CI, higher DSDRS was also associated with lower baseline cognitive performance (MMSE: F(1, 1930) = 47.07, p < .0001, R2 = 0.02); A&E z-score: (F(1, 1871) = 33.44 p < .0001, R2 = 0.02) and faster cognitive decline at follow-up (MMSE: F(3, 1279) = 38.41, p < .0001; A&E z-score: F(3, 1206) = 148.48, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The DSDRS identifies patients with T2D at risk of concurrent as well as future CI. The DSDRS may thus be a supportive tool in screening strategies for cognitive dysfunction in patients with T2D.
Authors: Omar Yaxmehen Bello-Chavolla; Carlos Alberto Aguilar-Salinas; José Alberto Avila-Funes Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 3.921