@article {7201, title = {Prevalence of cognitive impairment without dementia in the United States.}, journal = {Ann Intern Med}, volume = {148}, year = {2008}, month = {2008 Mar 18}, pages = {427-34}, publisher = {148}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment without dementia is associated with increased risk for disability, increased health care costs, and progression to dementia. There are no population-based prevalence estimates of this condition in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of cognitive impairment without dementia in the United States and determine longitudinal cognitive and mortality outcomes.

DESIGN: Longitudinal study from July 2001 to March 2005.

SETTING: In-home assessment for cognitive impairment.

PARTICIPANTS: Participants in ADAMS (Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study) who were age 71 years or older drawn from the nationally representative HRS (Health and Retirement Study). Of 1770 selected individuals, 856 completed initial assessment, and of 241 selected individuals, 180 completed 16- to 18-month follow-up assessment.

MEASUREMENTS: Assessments, including neuropsychological testing, neurologic examination, and clinical and medical history, were used to assign a diagnosis of normal cognition, cognitive impairment without dementia, or dementia. National prevalence rates were estimated by using a population-weighted sample.

RESULTS: In 2002, an estimated 5.4 million people (22.2\%) in the United States age 71 years or older had cognitive impairment without dementia. Prominent subtypes included prodromal Alzheimer disease (8.2\%) and cerebrovascular disease (5.7\%). Among participants who completed follow-up assessments, 11.7\% with cognitive impairment without dementia progressed to dementia annually, whereas those with subtypes of prodromal Alzheimer disease and stroke progressed at annual rates of 17\% to 20\%. The annual death rate was 8\% among those with cognitive impairment without dementia and almost 15\% among those with cognitive impairment due to medical conditions.

LIMITATIONS: Only 56\% of the nondeceased target sample completed the initial assessment. Population sampling weights were derived to adjust for at least some of the potential bias due to nonresponse and attrition.

CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment without dementia is more prevalent in the United States than dementia, and its subtypes vary in prevalence and outcomes.

}, keywords = {Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition Disorders, Dementia, disease progression, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Prevalence, United States}, issn = {1539-3704}, doi = {10.7326/0003-4819-148-6-200803180-00005}, author = {Brenda L Plassman and Kenneth M. Langa and Gwenith G Fisher and Steven G Heeringa and David R Weir and Mary Beth Ofstedal and James R Burke and Michael D Hurd and Guy G Potter and Willard L Rodgers and David C Steffens and John J McArdle and Robert J. Willis and Robert B Wallace} } @article {7164, title = {Prevalence of dementia in the United States: the aging, demographics, and memory study.}, journal = {Neuroepidemiology}, volume = {29}, year = {2007}, month = {2007}, pages = {125-32}, publisher = {29}, abstract = {

AIM: To estimate the prevalence of Alzheimer{\textquoteright}s disease (AD) and other dementias in the USA using a nationally representative sample.

METHODS: The Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study sample was composed of 856 individuals aged 71 years and older from the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (HRS) who were evaluated for dementia using a comprehensive in-home assessment. An expert consensus panel used this information to assign a diagnosis of normal cognition, cognitive impairment but not demented, or dementia (and dementia subtype). Using sampling weights derived from the HRS, we estimated the national prevalence of dementia, AD and vascular dementia by age and gender.

RESULTS: The prevalence of dementia among individuals aged 71 and older was 13.9\%, comprising about 3.4 million individuals in the USA in 2002. The corresponding values for AD were 9.7\% and 2.4 million individuals. Dementia prevalence increased with age, from 5.0\% of those aged 71-79 years to 37.4\% of those aged 90 and older.

CONCLUSIONS: Dementia prevalence estimates from this first nationally representative population-based study of dementia in the USA to include subjects from all regions of the country can provide essential information for effective planning for the impending healthcare needs of the large and increasing number of individuals at risk for dementia as our population ages.

}, keywords = {Age Distribution, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cohort Studies, Dementia, Female, Geriatric Assessment, Health Surveys, Humans, Logistic Models, Male, Prevalence, Sex Distribution, United States}, issn = {1423-0208}, doi = {10.1159/000109998}, author = {Brenda L Plassman and Kenneth M. Langa and Gwenith G Fisher and Steven G Heeringa and David R Weir and Mary Beth Ofstedal and James R Burke and Michael D Hurd and Guy G Potter and Willard L Rodgers and David C Steffens and Robert J. Willis and Robert B Wallace} } @article {6790, title = {Informal caregiving for diabetes and diabetic complications among elderly americans.}, journal = {J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci}, volume = {57}, year = {2002}, month = {2002 May}, pages = {S177-86}, publisher = {57B}, abstract = {

OBJECTIVES: Little is known regarding the amount of time spent by unpaid caregivers providing help to elderly individuals for disabilities associated with diabetes mellitus (DM). We sought to obtain nationally representative estimates of the time, and associated cost, of informal caregiving provided to elderly individuals with diabetes, and to determine the complications of DM that contribute most significantly to the subsequent need for informal care.

METHODS: We estimated multivariable regression models using data from the 1993 Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old Study, a nationally representative survey of people aged 70 or older (N = 7,443), to determine the weekly hours of informal caregiving and imputed cost of caregiver time for community-dwelling elderly individuals with and without a diagnosis of DM.

RESULTS: Those without DM received an average of 6.1 hr per week of informal care, those with DM taking no medications received 10.5 hr, those with DM taking oral medications received 10.1 hr, and those with DM taking insulin received 14.4 hr of care (p <.01). Disabilities related to heart disease, stroke, and visual impairment were important predictors of diabetes-related informal care. The total cost of informal caregiving for elderly individuals with diabetes in the United States was between $3 and $6 billion per year, similar to previous estimates of the annual paid long-term care costs attributable to DM.

DISCUSSION: Diabetes imposes a substantial burden on elderly individuals, their families, and society, both through increased rates of disability and the significant time that informal caregivers must spend helping address the associated functional limitations. Future evaluations of the costs of diabetes, and the cost-effectiveness of diabetes interventions, should consider the significant informal caregiving costs associated with the disease.

}, keywords = {Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Costs and Cost Analysis, Diabetes Complications, Diabetes Mellitus, Disabled Persons, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin, Male, Time Factors}, issn = {1079-5014}, doi = {10.1093/geronb/57.3.s177}, author = {Kenneth M. Langa and Sandeep Vijan and Rodney A. Hayward and M.E. Chernew and Caroline S Blaum and Mohammed U Kabeto and David R Weir and Steven J. Katz and Robert J. Willis and A. Mark Fendrick} } @inbook {5154, title = {Health, Work, and Economic Well-Being of Older Workers, Aged 51-61: A Cross-National Comparison Using the United States HRS and the Netherlands CERRA Data Sets}, booktitle = {Wealth, Work and Health: Innovations in Measurement in the Social Sciences}, year = {1999}, note = {ProCite field 8 : eds}, pages = {233-66}, publisher = {University of Michigan Press}, organization = {University of Michigan Press}, address = {Ann Arbor, MI}, keywords = {Employment and Labor Force, Health Conditions and Status}, author = {R.V. Burkhauser and Debra S. Dwyer and Maarten Lindeboom and Theeuwes, Jules and Wottiez, Isolde}, editor = {James P Smith and Robert J. Willis} }