We aimed to investigate the correlation of factors involved in the change of Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and type 2 diabetes in the elderly.
Methods
This study was a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study. Type 2 diabetes patients aged > 55 years were recruited and assigned into three groups based on their glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels: HbA1c < 7, 7% ≤ HbA1c < 8% and HbA1c ≥8%. MMSE decline was considered the endpoint. Factors related to MMSE decline were identified by univariate and multivariate regression analyses.
Results
Altogether, 1519 subjects were included, 883 in the Low group, 333 in the Median group, and 303 in the High group. Age ≥ 75 years, education below elementary school level, not participating in seminars or consultation on healthcare, physical activity less than 30 min/day, cerebrovascular disease history, MMSE score at baseline, and HBA1c ≥8% were associated with cognitive decline by univariate and multivariate analysis. When the other factors were adjusted for, HBA1c ≥8% was independently associated with the severity of cognitive decline (β = 0.58, 95%CI:0.06–1.11, P = 0.029) and the occurrence of cognitive decline (odds ratio (OR) = 1.55, 95%CI:1.13–2.12, P = 0.007).
Conclusions
In elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c ≥8% is an independent factor for cognitive decline and is also associated with the severity of the cognitive decline.
Hinweise
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
HbA1c
Glycated hemoglobin
MMSE
Mini-Mental State Examination
T2DM
Type 2 diabetes mellitus
BMI
Body mass index
CED
Cerebrovascular disease
CVD
Cardiovascular disease
ALT
Alanine aminotransferase
TG
Triglyceride
TC
Total cholesterol
HDL
High-density lipoprotein
LDL
Low-density lipoprotein
GLU
Glucose
UA
Urinary albumin
Cr
Creatinine
SD
Standard deviation
IQR
Interquartile range
ANOVA
Analysis of variance
Background
The number of people with diabetes mellitus is increasing rapidly and has more than doubled globally in thirty years, making it a major public health challenge for all nations [1]. Around 90% of cases of diabetes are type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and this is particularly important in China, which is an epicenter for the global T2DM epidemic [2]. T2DM is associated with a wide range of complications, including cardiac diseases, diabetic foot, and diabetic nephropathy [3]. However, the adverse impact of T2DM is not limited to these common diseases, and it is also associated with exacerbation of age-related decline in physical and cognitive function [4].
Individuals with T2DM score less well on cognitive function tests such as the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) than those without diabetes [5], and a clear relationship between diabetes in midlife and greater cognitive decline has been demonstrated [6, 7]. Although the association in elderly patients is less clear because of the small numbers investigated [8].
Anzeige
Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) or glycated hemoglobin represents a measure of the blood glucose levels over the previous three months. HbA1c can evaluate glucose control in individuals with diagnosed diabetes and can also be used in diagnosing diabetes and people at risk of developing diabetes [9]. HbA1c is associated with cognitive decline [10]. Most, but not all [11], cross-sectional studies associate higher levels of HbA1c with worse cognitive function in individuals with T2DM [12, 13]. This suggests that poor glycemic control is an important factor related to cognitive decline. But the studies using high HbA1c levels to measure this have shown some conflicting results [4, 14‐17]. Therefore, at the moment, the association between HbA1c and cognitive decline in patients with T2DM remains unclear. A study in elderly patients found diabetes, poor glycemic control, and longer diabetes duration were all associated with incident cognitive impairment. However, in persons with well-controlled diabetes, as assessed by HbA1c, there was not a significantly higher risk of cognitive impairment compared with persons without diabetes [17]. Another study in middle-aged and young older adults with T2DM suggested that HbA1c over 7 years of follow-up was not associated with cognitive function [4]. These contradictions between studies suggest that other factors may also influence whether glycemic control is associated with cognitive impairment.
If HbA1c is an important indicator of cognitive decline, this suggests that improving glycemic control in elderly patients is vital to decrease the risk of cognitive decline. However, understanding other factors that are also involved would help target the patients most at risk of cognitive decline. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the association of HbA1c levels with MMSE decline in elderly patients with T2DM and find the correlative factors involved.
Methods
Study design and patients
This was a retrospective analysis of a community-based cohort study (BLSA II) [18], which included the patients with T2DM from 3 urban districts (Xicheng, Dongcheng, and Xuanwu) and 1 outer suburban area (Shunyi) of Beijing. The baseline data were collected from August 2010 to January 2011, and the last follow-up was undertaken in April 2014. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) aged > 55 years; 2) diagnosed with T2DM that was under diet control or medication [9]. The exclusion criteria were: 1) acute critical illness or severe psychiatric diseases that would affect the scale evaluation such as dementia and depression; 2) blind, deaf, dumb, and vegetative; 3) complicated with severe diseases including heart, liver, renal diseases and malignant tumors. The patients were assigned into three groups according to their baseline HbA1c levels: HbA1c < 7, 7% ≤ HbA1c < 8% and HbA1c ≥8%.
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University before study initiation. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for the original data collection.
Anzeige
Clinical data collection and examination method
The baseline information of the subjects was collected, including sex, age, smoking, alcohol consumption, education, whether they lived alone, income, physical exercise, dietary habits, intake of fruit and vegetables, body mass index (BMI), history of cerebrovascular disease (CED), history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and peripheral vascular disease, history of hypertension, participation in community-based healthcare seminars and consultations, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), glucose (GLU), urinary albumin (UA), creatinine (Cr), apolipoprotein E (ApoE), and HbA1c. The biochemical analysis was performed by a Hitachi 7600 automatic biochemical analyzer (Hitachi high-tech, Fukuoka, Japan). The HbA1c level was determined by a Bio-Rad VARIANT™ II TURBO Hemoglobin Testing System for HbA1c when baseline information was collected.
Assessment of cognitive function
The patient’s cognitive function was evaluated by the Chinese edition of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) [19]. The MMSE was invented in 1975 and since then has been widely used as a scale for dementia. The total score was 30 and assessed by the raw MMSE values stratified threshold based on education years, which was validated by previous research. MMSE was examined at baseline as well as 3 years later during the follow-up.
Definitions and follow up
The change of MMSE was defined as the difference between baseline and follow-up values after 3 years.
The last follow up occurred between November 2013 and April 2014 in the form of a questionnaire in the community hospitals.
Statistical analysis
The data analysis was performed using R software (version 3.5.1; R Development Core Team 2018, www.R-project.org). The continuous variables that followed normal distribution were represented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). The continuous variables that did not follow normal distribution were represented by median (range or interquartile range (IQR)). The categorical variables were represented as n (%). The continuous variables that follow normal distribution were examined by t-test or analysis of variance (ANOVA). The continuous variables that did not follow normal distribution were tested by the Mann-Whitney U or Kruskal-Wallis test. The categorical variables were tested by the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. The association analysis was performed by univariate or multivariate regression. A P < 0.05 value was considered statistically significant.
Results
Baseline characteristics
The study included 1519 subjects. Their mean age was 72 ± 6.3 years old. Among them, 580 (38.2%) were male, and 939 (61.8%) were female. The numbers of subjects in the three groups were 883 in the Low group, 333 in the Median group, and 303 in the High group. The baseline information collected from the patients is shown in Table 1. Age, gender, and most of the clinical indexes were similar between the groups except GLU (P < 0.001), HbA1c (P < 0.001), TGP = 0.01), and UA (P = 0.005). The number of patients educated below elementary school level (P = 0.003), BMI (P = 0.001), and MMSE variation (P = 0.022) but not the MMSE scores at baseline or follow-up were also different between the groups.
Table 1
Baseline information of the patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus included in the study
Characteristics
Total (n = 1519)
Low group
HbA1c < 7% (n = 883)
Median group
7% ≤ HbA1c < 8% (n = 333)
High group
HbA1c ≥8% (n = 303)
P
Age (mean ± SD), years
72 ± 6.3
71.8 ± 6.3
72.3 ± 6.3
72.1 ± 6
0.371
Age, years, n (%)
55–64
249 (16.4)
155 (17.6)
52 (15.6)
42 (13.9)
0.483
65–74
723 (47.6)
413 (46.8)
155 (46.5)
155 (51.2)
≥ 75
547 (36)
315 (35.7)
126 (37.8)
106 (35)
Cr
70.2 ± 26.2
70.3 ± 30.1
70.9 ± 19
69.2 ± 20.4
0.701
GLU
6.7 ± 2.1
5.8 ± 0.9
7 ± 1.1
9.2 ± 3.2
< 0.001
HbA1c
7 ± 1.6
6 ± 0.6
7.4 ± 0.3
9.5 ± 1.6
< 0.001
HDL
1.3 ± 0.3
1.3 ± 0.3
1.3 ± 0.3
1.3 ± 0.3
0.361
LDL
2.9 ± 0.7
2.9 ± 0.8
2.9 ± 0.7
2.9 ± 0.8
0.971
TC
5.2 ± 1
5.2 ± 1.1
5.2 ± 1
5.2 ± 1
0.965
TG
1.7 ± 1
1.6 ± 0.9
1.7 ± 0.8
1.8 ± 1.4
0.01
UA
327.1 ± 89.7
326.3 ± 86.5
339.3 ± 95
316.1 ± 91.5
0.005
ApoE23
1078 (90.4)
621 (91.2)
241 (90.9)
216 (87.4)
0.218
ApoE4
115 (9.6)
60 (8.8)
24 (9.1)
31 (12.6)
Sex
male
580 (38.2)
345 (39.1)
126 (37.8)
109 (36)
0.625
female
939 (61.8)
538 (60.9)
207 (62.2)
194 (64)
Education
Elementary school and below
534 (36.1)
280 (32.6)
137 (42.2)
117 (39.9)
0.003
High school and above
944 (63.9)
580 (67.4)
188 (57.8)
176 (60.1)
Live Alone
yes
104 (6.9)
64 (7.3)
23 (6.9)
17 (5.6)
0.619
no
1413 (93.1)
818 (92.7)
309 (93.1)
286 (94.4)
income
The monthly per capita income in the family ≤3000
1098 (79.6)
643 (80.8)
235 (77.3)
220 (78.9)
0.413
The monthly per capita income in the family > 3000
281 (20.4)
153 (19.2)
69 (22.7)
59 (21.1)
Participation in healthcare seminar/consulting at least once a month
yes
902 (61.2)
534 (62.4)
195 (59.8)
173 (59.2)
0.539
no
572 (38.8)
322 (37.6)
131 (40.2)
119 (40.8)
smoke
no
1361 (89.6)
795 (90)
303 (91)
263 (86.8)
0.181
yes
158 (10.4)
88 (10)
30 (9)
40 (13.2)
drink
no
1334 (87.8)
774 (87.7)
287 (86.2)
273 (90.1)
0.313
yes
185 (12.2)
109 (12.3)
46 (13.8)
30 (9.9)
Physical Activity
Exercise less than 30 min/day
363 (24.6)
218 (25.3)
78 (24)
67 (22.9)
0.671
Exercise more than 30 min/day
1115 (75.4)
642 (74.7)
247 (76)
226 (77.1)
High-protein diet
High-protein diet<=1 item
276 (18.2)
160 (18.1)
50 (15)
66 (21.8)
0.087
High-protein diet: 2–3 items
1243 (81.8)
723 (81.9)
283 (85)
237 (78.2)
Intake of fruits/vegetables more than twice a day
no
165 (10.9)
90 (10.2)
33 (9.9)
42 (13.9)
0.171
yes
1354 (89.1)
793 (89.8)
300 (90.1)
261 (86.1)
BMI
normal
534 (35.2)
346 (39.2)
98 (29.4)
90 (29.7)
0.001
Overweight or obesity
984 (64.8)
536 (60.8)
235 (70.6)
213 (70.3)
CVD History
no
748 (49.2)
417 (47.2)
166 (49.8)
165 (54.5)
0.092
yes
771 (50.8)
466 (52.8)
167 (50.2)
138 (45.5)
CED History
no
1131 (74.5)
646 (73.2)
244 (73.3)
241 (79.5)
0.077
yes
388 (25.5)
237 (26.8)
89 (26.7)
62 (20.5)
HP History
no
128 (8.4)
85 (9.6)
26 (7.8)
17 (5.6)
0.085
yes
1391 (91.6)
798 (90.4)
307 (92.2)
286 (94.4)
MMSE score (baseline)
28.5 ± 2.2
28.5 ± 2.2
28.4 ± 2.2
28.6 ± 2.4
0.51
MMSE score (follow-up)
27.3 ± 3.6
27.4 ± 3.3
27.3 ± 3.9
26.9 ± 3.8
0.086
MMSE variation
−1.2 ± 3.5
−1.1 ± 3.3
−1.1 ± 3.6
−1.7 ± 3.6
0.022
Abbreviations: triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), low-density lipoprotein (LDL), glucose (GLU), urinary albumin (UA), creatinine (Cr), apolipoprotein E (ApoE), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), cardiovascular disease (CVD), cerebrovascular disease (CED), hypertension (HP), mini-mental state examination (MMSE)
Linear regression analysis of factors related to the severity of the decline in MMSE score
Univariate analysis of factors related to a decline in MMSE score (Table 2), identified age ≥ 75 years (Beta = 0.97 95% confidence interval (CI):0.42–1.51, P = 0.001), education below elementary school level (Beta = 1.17 95%CI:0.75–1.59, P < 0.001), not participating in seminars or consultation on healthcare (Beta = 0.43 95%CI:0.08–0.78, P = 0.017), physical activity more than 30 min/day (Beta = − 0.4 95%CI:-0.8–0, P = 0.05), CED history (Beta = 0.49 95%CI:0.1–0.89, P = 0.015), MMSE score at baseline (Beta = 0.56 95%CI:0.47–0.64, P < 0.001), and HBA1c ≥8% (Beta = 0.61 95%CI:0.08–1.14, P = 0.024).
Table 2
Univariate regression analysis for factors related to MMSE decline in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Characteristics
Beta (95%CI)
P-value
Female
0.15 (− 0.29–0.59)
0.505
Age, years
55–64
1
65–74
− 0.06 (− 0.56–0.43)
0.798
≥ 75
0.97 (0.42–1.51)
0.001
Elementary school and below
1.17 (0.75–1.59)
< 0.001
Lives alone, no
0.44 (−0.25–1.13)
0.208
Participation in healthcare seminars/consultation at least once a month, no
0.43 (0.08–0.78)
0.017
Smoker
0.03 (−0.59–0.65)
0.919
Drinking alcohol
−0.18 (− 0.76–0.41)
0.55
Physical Activity of more than 30 min/day
−0.4 (− 0.8–0)
0.05
High-protein diet: 2–3 items
0.3 (− 0.15–0.75)
0.197
Intake of fruits/vegetables more than twice a day, yes
0.08 (− 0.48–0.64)
0.773
Overweight or obese
−0.11 (− 0.48–0.26)
0.555
CVD History, yes
0.05 (− 0.3–0.39)
0.793
CED History, yes
0.49 (0.1–0.89)
0.015
HP History, yes
−0.23 (− 0.86–0.4)
0.476
MMSE score (baseline)
0.56 (0.47–0.64)
< 0.001
TG
−0.04 (− 0.26–0.17)
0.7
TC
0.08 (−0.41–0.57)
0.75
HDL
−0.21 (− 0.92–0.51)
0.571
LDL
−0.19 (− 0.81–0.44)
0.56
UA
0 (0–0)
0.972
Cr
0.01 (0–0.01)
0.099
HbA1c
7% ≤ HbA1c < 8%
1
HbA1c < 7%
0.05 (−0.37–0.48)
0.808
HbA1c ≥8%
0.61 (0.08–1.14)
0.024
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, TG triglyceride, TC total cholesterol, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, UA urinary albumin, Cr creatinine, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, CVD cardiovascular disease, CED cerebrovascular disease, HP hypertension, MMSE mini-mental state examination
Factors that had a level at or close to significance (P < 0.1) were then included in multivariate analysis for independent factors related to MMSE decline (Table 3). This showed that age ≥ 75 years (Beta = 0.99 95%CI:0.45–1.52, P < 0.001), education to elementary school and below (Beta = 1.18 95%CI:0.78–1.58, P < 0.001, not participating in healthcare seminars or consultation at least once a month (Beta = 0.42 95%CI:0.07–0.77, P = 0.018), physical activity for more than 30 min/day (Beta = − 0.44 95%CI:-0.83--0.05, P = 0.029), a CED history (Beta = 0.48 95%CI:0.09–0.87, P = 0.015), MMSE score at baseline (Beta = 0.57 95%CI:0.49–0.65, P < 0.001), and HbA1c ≥8% (Beta = 0.58 95%CI:0.06–1.11, P = 0.029) all remained significant factors.
Table 3
Multivariate analysis of factors independently associated with MMSE decline value in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Characteristics
Beta 95%CI
P-value
Age, years
55–64
1
65–74
−0.05 (−0.54–0.44)
0.841
≥ 75
0.99 (0.45–1.52)
< 0.001
Elementary school and below
1.18 (0.78–1.58)
< 0.001
Participation in healthcare seminar/consulting at least once a month, no
Logistic regression analysis of factors related to the decline in MMSE score
When logistic regression was used for analysis of factors related to a decline in MMSE score (Table 4), the univariate analysis identified age ≥ 75 years (odds ratio (OR) = 1.66 95% CI:1.26–2.19, P < 0.001), physical activity than 30 min/day (OR = 0.77 95%CI:0.62–0.92, P = 0.022), MMSE score at baseline (OR = 1.41 95%CI:1.35–1.49, P < 0.001), LDL (OR = 0.85 95%CI:0.75–0.96, P = 0.01) and HBA1c ≥8% (OR = 1.52 95%CI:1.13–2.03, P = 0.005).
Table 4
Univariate logistic regression analysis of MMSE decline
Characteristics
OR_95CI
P_value
Female
0.94 (0.77–1.14)
0.508
Age, years
55–64
1
65–74
1.13 (0.87–1.48)
0.363
≥ 75
1.66 (1.26–2.19)
< 0.001
Elementary school and below
0.83 (0.68–1.01)
0.069
Lives alone, no
1.3 (0.9–1.88)
0.162
Participation in healthcare seminars/consultation at least once a month, no
1.09 (0.89–1.32)
0.402
Smoker
1.07 (0.79–1.46)
0.648
Drinking alcohol
0.97 (0.73–1.29)
0.837
Physical Activity of more than 30 min/day
0.77 (0.62–0.96)
0.022
High-protein diet: 2–3 items
1.25 (0.98–1.6)
0.066
Intake of fruits/vegetables more than twice a day, yes
0.75 (0.55–1.01)
0.061
Overweight or obese
0.93 (0.76–1.13)
0.443
CVD History, yes
1.06 (0.88–1.27)
0.57
CED History, yes
1.16 (0.94–1.44)
0.177
HP History, yes
1.16 (0.83–1.63)
0.373
MMSE score (baseline)
1.41 (1.35–1.49)
< 0.001
TG
0.99 (0.9–1.08)
0.773
TC
0.92 (0.84–1.01)
0.067
HDL
0.82 (0.61–1.12)
0.21
LDL
0.85 (0.75–0.96)
0.01
UA
1 (1–1)
0.629
Cr
1 (1–1.01)
0.063
HbA1c
7% ≤ HbA1c < 8%
1
HbA1c < 7%
1.13 (0.89–1.42)
0.314
HbA1c ≥8%
1.52 (1.13–2.03)
0.005
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, TG triglyceride, TC total cholesterol, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, UA urinary albumin, Cr creatinine, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, CVD cardiovascular disease, CED cerebrovascular disease, HP hypertension MMSE mini-mental state examination (MMSE)
Anzeige
The multivariate analysis is shown in Table 5. This showed that age ≥ 75 years (OR = 1.97 95%CI:1.43–2.72, P < 0.001), education to elementary school and below (OR = 1.91 95%CI:1.48–2.45, P < 0.001, physical activity less than 30 min/day (OR = 0.79 95%CI:0.62–1, P = 0.048), a CED history (OR = 1.3 95%CI:1.03–1.64, P = 0.029), MMSE score at baseline (OR = 1.56 95%CI:1.47–1.66, P < 0.001), and HbA1c ≥8% (OR = 1.52 95%CI:1.13–2.12, P = 0.007) were all significant factors independently associated with decline in MMSE score.
Table 5
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of MMSE decline
Characteristics
OR_95CI
P-value
Female
1.19 (0.92–1.55)
0.185
Age, years
55–64
1
65–74
1.12 (0.84–1.49)
0.456
≥ 75
1.97 (1.43–2.72)
< 0.001
Elementary school and below
1.91 (1.48–2.45)
< 0.001
Lives Alone, no
1.36 (0.9–2.06)
0.144
Participation in healthcare seminar/consulting at least once a month, no
1.28 (1.04–1.58)
0.022
smoke
1.11 (0.77–1.6)
0.588
drink
0.86 (0.61–1.21)
0.383
PhyAct more than 30 min/day
0.79 (0.62–1)
0.048
High-protein diet: 2–3 items
1.14 (0.87–1.49)
0.344
Intake of fruits/vegetables more than twice a day, yes
0.84 (0.6–1.17)
0.302
Overweight or obesity
0.99 (0.8–1.23)
0.937
CVD His, yes
1.06 (0.86–1.3)
0.601
CED His, yes
1.3 (1.03–1.64)
0.029
HP His, yes
0.92 (0.63–1.34)
0.67
MMSE score (baseline)
1.56 (1.47–1.66)
< 0.001
TG
0.97 (0.85–1.1)
0.644
TC
1.09 (0.81–1.46)
0.585
HDL
0.9 (0.59–1.39)
0.644
LDL
0.84 (0.58–1.23)
0.373
UA
1 (1–1)
0.51
Cr
1 (1–1.01)
0.49
HbA1c
7% ≤ HbA1c < 8%
1
HbA1c < 7%
1.18 (0.91–1.51)
0.205
HbA1c ≥8%
1.55 (1.13–2.12)
0.007
Note analysis was by stepwise regression
Abbreviations: CI confidence interval, TG triglyceride, TC total cholesterol, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, UA urinary albumin, Cr creatinine, HbA1c glycated hemoglobin, CVD cardiovascular disease, CED cerebrovascular disease, HP hypertension, MMSE mini-mental state examination
Association between MMSE decline and HbA1c level
Figure 1 shows the association between MMSE decline and HbA1c level. It can be seen that patients with HbA1c levels ≥8% (the High group) showed more decline than those in the other two groups, and the risk of MMSE decline increased above 8%.
Fig. 1
Graphs showing the association of cognitive decline with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. a: Mini mental state examination (MMSE) decline in the three groups based on HbA1c levels. b: Dose response relationship between HbA1c and risk of MMSE decline
×
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate the association between HbA1c levels and MMSE decline in elderly patients with T2DM. The results show that age ≥ 75 years, education below elementary school level, not participating in seminars or consultation on healthcare, physical activity less than 30 min/day, cerebrovascular disease history, MMSE score at baseline, and HBA1c ≥8% were all associated with MMSE decline by univariate and multivariate analysis. After adjustment for the other factors, HbA1c ≥8% was independently associated with MMSE decline and its severity.
There has been some controversy over whether HbA1c levels as an indicator of glycemic control in patients with T2DM can be used to predict cognitive decline. There is strong evidence that HbA1c is associated with cognitive decline [10]. Most studies suggest higher levels of HbA1c correlate with worse cognitive function in individuals with T2DM [12, 13], but some do not show this correlation [11]. Studies using high HbA1c levels to measure cognitive decline have also shown conflicting results [4, 14‐17]. This conflict is likely to arise from other contributing factors. The results of this study showed that a number of factors were related to cognitive decline in elderly patients with T2DM including age ≥ 75 years, education below elementary school level, not participating in seminars or consultation on healthcare, undertaking physical activity for less than 30 min/day, cerebrovascular disease history, and MMSE score at baseline as well as HbA1c ≥8%. However, when the model was adjusted for these factors, this study found that HbA1c ≥8% was independently associated with cognitive decline. This result suggests that active measures should be taken to ensure that elderly patients make every effort to control their glucose levels below 8% to prevent cognitive decline [20, 21]. There are several potential mechanisms for higher glucose levels, increasing the risk of cognitive decline. These include acute hyperglycemia, where very high blood glucose concentrations may cause alterations in cerebral blood flow or osmotic changes in neurons; chronic hyperglycemia, which may cause structural changes in the brain through mechanisms such as cerebral microvascular disease [22, 23]; and insulin resistance, where the failure of brain cells to respond to insulin might result in synaptic, metabolic and immune response impairments. However, while the results of this study concentrated on HbA1c levels, which indicate glucose levels over the previous 3 months, there is evidence indicating that fluctuations or peaks in glucose levels may also be linked to cognitive decline and dementia risk [20, 21]. Glycemic fluctuations may have a greater adverse effect on endothelial function and induce more oxidative stress than sustained hyperglycemia, potentially leading to greater cognitive decline [24]. So, the relationship between glucose control and cognitive decline is likely to be complex, and efforts to prevent glucose fluctuations might also be important. Further study is needed to fully understand the mechanisms involved.
Anzeige
Age is clearly related to the degree of decline in MMSE scores both in populations with and without T2DM [25, 26]. So, the result that age ≥ 75 years was related to a decline in MMSE was consistent with previous studies. Other factors related to MMSE decline in this study may also influence the glycemic control of the patients. For example, education below elementary school level and monthly participation in seminars or consultation on healthcare are both likely to influence whether the patient adheres to their medication or diet to achieve glycemic control. This is supported by another study that found that higher education level was a protective factor for cognitive impairment in elderly patients with T2DM [27]. Physical activity has also been shown by other studies to be an important protective factor against cognitive decline, as summarized in a systematic review [28]. Cardiovascular disease history was also identified as an important factor in this study. This is supported by the established view that cardiovascular risk factors are related to late-life cognitive decline [29]. Both physical activity and cardiovascular risk factors are considered so important that the World Dementia Council (WDC) concluded that regular physical activity and management of cardiovascular risk factors, including diabetes, obesity, smoking, and hypertension, would reduce the risk of cognitive decline [30].
This study has some limitations. The baseline measurement of HbA1c was undertaken at one time point and may not have been a true reflection of the typical value. As a retrospective study, no cause and effect can be deduced from the results. Cognitive function was based on MMSE alone, and other measures of cognitive function may not support the results. We did not have the full data regarding the medication use for all patients, some drugs such as benzodiazepines are known to impair cognitive function, so there may have been some differences in their use between groups that may have influenced the results of the study. The 3-year follow-up might be too short to study a decrease in cognitive functions. But the follow up has continued, and long-term changes of cognitive functions will be analyzed in the future.
Conclusions
In elderly patients with type 2 diabetes, a number of factors were related to MMSE decline. Nevertheless, the analysis suggested that HbA1c ≥8% was an independent factor for cognitive decline and was also associated with the severity of the cognitive decline.
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
Anzeige
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University before study initiation. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for the original data collection.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
