OBJECTIVE: To determine whether apolipoprotein E (Apo E) phenotype is associated with cognitive decline in community-dwelling nondemented elderly women. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A university-affiliated clinic near Pittsburgh, Pa. PATIENTS: A total of 1750 nondemented community-dwelling women, aged 65 years and older, who were enrolled in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The women completed a baseline interview and performed 3 cognitive tests: the modified Mini-Mental State Examination, Trials B, and Digit Symbol. Serum samples were obtained for Apo E typing. Baseline cognitive scores and repeated scores approximately 6 years after study enrollment were compared in women with and without Apo E epsilon 4. Cognitive decline, defined as the worst 10th percentile change scores, was assessed for each test and by phenotype group. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, education, presence of severe tremor, and depression, baseline scores did not differ by Apo E epsilon 4 status except for lower scores on Trails B in the homozygous epsilon 4 group (mean score, 159.7 compared with 127.7 for the heterozygous epsilon 4 group and 125.4 for the no epsilon 4 group; P = .01). However, repeated test performance on follow-up examination was worse on all tests in those women with 1 or more epsilon 4. Reduction on the modified Mini-Mental State Examination was 0% for no epsilon 4 allele, 1.9% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 3.7% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P < .001); reduction on Digit Symbol was 6.2% for no epsilon 4 allele, 9.0% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 17.5% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P = .04); and reduction on Trials B was 5.9% for no epsilon 4 allele, 25.0% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 10.9% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P = .002). Women with at least 1 epsilon 4 had an odds ratio of 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) of having cognitive decline during the study period. CONCLUSION: Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 is associated with cognitive decline in community-dwelling nondemented women.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether apolipoprotein E (Apo E) phenotype is associated with cognitive decline in community-dwelling nondemented elderly women. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: A university-affiliated clinic near Pittsburgh, Pa. PATIENTS: A total of 1750 nondemented community-dwelling women, aged 65 years and older, who were enrolled in the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The women completed a baseline interview and performed 3 cognitive tests: the modified Mini-Mental State Examination, Trials B, and Digit Symbol. Serum samples were obtained for Apo E typing. Baseline cognitive scores and repeated scores approximately 6 years after study enrollment were compared in women with and without Apo E epsilon 4. Cognitive decline, defined as the worst 10th percentile change scores, was assessed for each test and by phenotype group. RESULTS: After adjustment for age, education, presence of severe tremor, and depression, baseline scores did not differ by Apo E epsilon 4 status except for lower scores on Trails B in the homozygous epsilon 4 group (mean score, 159.7 compared with 127.7 for the heterozygous epsilon 4 group and 125.4 for the no epsilon 4 group; P = .01). However, repeated test performance on follow-up examination was worse on all tests in those women with 1 or more epsilon 4. Reduction on the modified Mini-Mental State Examination was 0% for no epsilon 4 allele, 1.9% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 3.7% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P < .001); reduction on Digit Symbol was 6.2% for no epsilon 4 allele, 9.0% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 17.5% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P = .04); and reduction on Trials B was 5.9% for no epsilon 4 allele, 25.0% for 1 epsilon 4 allele, and 10.9% for 2 epsilon 4 alleles (P = .002). Women with at least 1 epsilon 4 had an odds ratio of 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.3) of having cognitive decline during the study period. CONCLUSION:Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 is associated with cognitive decline in community-dwelling nondemented women.
Authors: May A Beydoun; Adel Boueiz; Marwan S Abougergi; Melissa H Kitner-Triolo; Hind A Beydoun; Susan M Resnick; Richard O'Brien; Alan B Zonderman Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: G C Chiang; P S Insel; D Tosun; N Schuff; D Truran-Sacrey; S T Raptentsetsang; C R Jack; P S Aisen; R C Petersen; M W Weiner Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dena B Dubal; Jennifer S Yokoyama; Lei Zhu; Lauren Broestl; Kurtresha Worden; Dan Wang; Virginia E Sturm; Daniel Kim; Eric Klein; Gui-Qiu Yu; Kaitlyn Ho; Kirsten E Eilertson; Lei Yu; Makoto Kuro-o; Philip L De Jager; Giovanni Coppola; Gary W Small; David A Bennett; Joel H Kramer; Carmela R Abraham; Bruce L Miller; Lennart Mucke Journal: Cell Rep Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 9.423
Authors: J Raber; D Wong; M Buttini; M Orth; S Bellosta; R E Pitas; R W Mahley; L Mucke Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1998-09-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Paul K Crane; Kaavya Narasimhalu; Laura E Gibbons; Dan M Mungas; Sebastien Haneuse; Eric B Larson; Lewis Kuller; Kathleen Hall; Gerald van Belle Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-05 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Kathleen M Hayden; Peter P Zandi; Nancy A West; Joann T Tschanz; Maria C Norton; Chris Corcoran; John C S Breitner; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2009-11
Authors: Karin Fehsel; Tamara Schikowski; Michaela Jänner; Anke Hüls; Mohammed Voussoughi; Thomas Schulte; Andrea Vierkötter; Tom Teichert; Christian Herder; Dorothea Sugiri; Ursula Krämer; Christian Luckhaus Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.575