Event Title
The Mind-Body Connection: Exploring the Defining Characteristics of Two Aging Phenotypes
Location
Suwanee, GA
Start Date
10-5-2021 12:00 AM
End Date
13-5-2021 12:00 AM
Description
Introduction: Built on the theory of mind-body connection, there has been a growing interest in phenotypes combining physical frailty and cognitive decline. Two examples are motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) and cognitive frailty (CF). MCR, defined by co-presentation of slow gait and subjective cognitive complaint without dementia or mobility disability, is considered a “pre-dementia syndrome.” CF, defined as having both physical frailty and cognitive impairment in the absence of dementia, is posited to be caused by physical frailty. Although both MCR and CF have been associated with dementia risk, the relationship between the two is unknown. We aimed to (1) assess the concordance between the two, and (2) describe the characteristics of those with MCR or CF or both. By doing so, we hope to move beyond risk prediction towards a better understanding of heterogeneity in cognitive decline.
Methods: The analysis uses baseline data (year 2011) from the National Health and Aging Trend Study. Frailty was measured by the physical frailty phenotype. Cognitive impairment was based on self/proxy report of dementia and cognitive performance tests. We first estimated the prevalence of 3 groups: having MCR only, having CF only and having both MCR and CF. Next, we examined the associations between group membership and demographic/health characteristics using multinomial logistic regression.
Results: Of the 6,212 eligible subjects, 304 had MCR only, 410 were CF only, and 115 had both. While 21.9% of those with CF had MCR, 27.5% of those with MCR had CF. Those who had both were more likely to be Blacks and Hispanics, in a lower socioeconomic status. The CF only group had a stronger association with comorbidity burden than MCR only. Health characteristics were more similar between the CF only group and the both group. The differences between the MCR only and the CF only were mostly due to the exclusion of mobility disability in the case of MCR.
Conclusions: There are noteworthy areas of discordance between MCR and CF. The exact etiology of their differences remains undetermined and it is unclear if these syndromes are measuring the same underlying process at different stages of advancement or entirely different pathological processes of cognitive decline.
Embargo Period
6-4-2021
The Mind-Body Connection: Exploring the Defining Characteristics of Two Aging Phenotypes
Suwanee, GA
Introduction: Built on the theory of mind-body connection, there has been a growing interest in phenotypes combining physical frailty and cognitive decline. Two examples are motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR) and cognitive frailty (CF). MCR, defined by co-presentation of slow gait and subjective cognitive complaint without dementia or mobility disability, is considered a “pre-dementia syndrome.” CF, defined as having both physical frailty and cognitive impairment in the absence of dementia, is posited to be caused by physical frailty. Although both MCR and CF have been associated with dementia risk, the relationship between the two is unknown. We aimed to (1) assess the concordance between the two, and (2) describe the characteristics of those with MCR or CF or both. By doing so, we hope to move beyond risk prediction towards a better understanding of heterogeneity in cognitive decline.
Methods: The analysis uses baseline data (year 2011) from the National Health and Aging Trend Study. Frailty was measured by the physical frailty phenotype. Cognitive impairment was based on self/proxy report of dementia and cognitive performance tests. We first estimated the prevalence of 3 groups: having MCR only, having CF only and having both MCR and CF. Next, we examined the associations between group membership and demographic/health characteristics using multinomial logistic regression.
Results: Of the 6,212 eligible subjects, 304 had MCR only, 410 were CF only, and 115 had both. While 21.9% of those with CF had MCR, 27.5% of those with MCR had CF. Those who had both were more likely to be Blacks and Hispanics, in a lower socioeconomic status. The CF only group had a stronger association with comorbidity burden than MCR only. Health characteristics were more similar between the CF only group and the both group. The differences between the MCR only and the CF only were mostly due to the exclusion of mobility disability in the case of MCR.
Conclusions: There are noteworthy areas of discordance between MCR and CF. The exact etiology of their differences remains undetermined and it is unclear if these syndromes are measuring the same underlying process at different stages of advancement or entirely different pathological processes of cognitive decline.