FNOA: Antioxidants (2011-2012)

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To examine whether declining selenium levels over time are associated with cognitive decline in a cohort of community-dwelling French elderly.

Inclusion Criteria:

Participants in waves two and six of the Etude de Vieillissement Artériel (EVA) who completed a general questionnaire, cognitive evaluation and a blood sample.

Exclusion Criteria:

Participants in waves two and six of the EVA who did not provide a general questionnaire, cognitive evaluation and a blood sample.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Men and women born between 1922 and 1932 and residing in the town of Nantes, Western France were recruited from electoral rolls and to a lesser extent through informational campaigns.  EVA is a nine-year longitudinal study with six waves of follow-up.

Design

Prospective cohort study. 

Statistical Analysis

  • The characteristics of subjects at inclusion were described in two groups: 
    • Those who completed the follow-up
    • Those who did not complete the follow-up.
  • To test the differences between these two groups, x2 test and the Student T-test were used. Percentile distribution and means with standard deviations (SDs) were described for both cognitive and selenium change variables. Classic linear regressions were used to assess the association between nine-year selenium change and cognitive change, the association between two-year selenium  change and cognitive  changes during the two, four, six and nine years of follow-up.
  • To simultaneously take into account cognitive changes at each wave of the study and the within-subject correlation of measurements, mixed models were used to analyze associations between cognitive and selenium changes. Cognitive decline was dichotomized by using two cutoffs. The cognitive score difference between that wave and baseline was calculated. Cutoff points corresponded to the 25th and 10th percentile of the distributions of the mean of the difference. To analyze these dichotomous cognitive variables, mixed logistic model with Gaussian random effect was used.
  • Selenium changes were analyzed as continuous variables. Analyses were first adjusted for time and selenium level at baseline. Second, analyses were adjusted for the other potential confounding factors associated with cognition or selenium level including sociodemographic factors, consumption habits and health factors. Results of mixed linear models were expressed by linear regression coefficient (β) with their 95% CI. Results of mixed logistic models were expressed by odds ratio (OR) with their 95% CI.
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

1991-1993, June 2000 and December 2001.

Dependent Variables

Cognitive evaluation based on:

  • Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE)
  • Trail Making Test part B (TMTB)
  • Digit Symbol Substitution (DSS)
  • Finger Tapping Test (FTT).

Independent Variables

Selenium levels at EVA waves zero, two and six.

Control Variables

  • Sex
  • High school
  • Smoking status
  • Alcohol consumption
  • Diabetes
  • Hypertension
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Dyslipidemia
  • Age
  • Body mass index (BMI)
  • Baseline selenium level
  • Two-year selenium decrease. 
Description of Actual Data Sample:
  • Initial N: 1,389
  • Attrition (final N): 702
  • Age: 65±3 years
  • Ethnicity: French.

Other Relevant Demographics

Baseline Characteristics of Subjects According to Nine-Year Follow-up Status
   Yes  No
Sex (women) 62.1 55.2
High school 50.8 46.7
Smoking status:  
     Current 8.3 9.0
     Former 30.5 35.5
Alcohol consumption 28.8 30.1
Diabetes 4.9 6.0
Hypertension 46.5 52.8
Cardiovascular diseases 9.7 12.7
Dyslipidemia 47.1 45.3
MMSE score 25th percentile or less 17.7 25.1
DSS score 25th percentile or less 20.3 27.5 
FTT score 25th percentile or less 22.7 26.7 
TMTB score 25th percentile or less 20.8 30.2 
BMI 24.8 25.6 
Two-year selenium decrease (μmol/L), mean 0.049 0.063 

Anthropometrics

Baseline mean plasma selenium level (±SD) was 1.09μmol per L (±0.2μmol per L).

Location

Nantes, Western France. 

Summary of Results:

Key Findings

Classic Linear Regression Analysis

  • A decrease of plasma selenium was found over the entire follow-up period. Means of selenium declined -0.055 (SD±.2) μmol per L at two years and -0.096 (SD±21) μmol per L at the nine-year follow-up
  • Two-year selenium change was not associated with cognitive change during two-, four-, six- or nine-year follow-up for any of the cognitive tests
  • Nine-year selenium change was associated with nine-year cognitive change for MMSE (β=0.38; 95% CI=0.14 to 062), but not for the other cognitive tests.

Mixed Models: Factors Associated with Cognitive Change and Selenium Change

  • Cognitive change was associated with time of follow-up (β=0.09; 95% CI=0.07 to 0.11) but not with age at inclusion
  • Diabetes and hypertension were modestly associated with a higher decrease of cognitive performance [β=0.31 (0.004 to 0.62) and β=0.14 (-0.02 to 0.3)], respectively.
  • During the follow-up, occurrence of cardiovascular events, as well as obesity, were associated with greater declines in plasma selenium.

Mixed Models: Association Between Two-year Selenium Change and Nine-year Cognitive Change

  • Using crude mixed linear models cognitive change (two-, four-, six- and nine-year) by the first two- year selenium change, there was no association with any of the four cognitive tests
  • After controlling for time and plasma selenium level at baseline, the short-term plasma selenium decrease was only weekly associated with cognitive decline. These results were not changed after controlling for potential confounding factors.

Association Between Selenium Change and Cognitive Change During the Nine Years of Follow-up

  • Cognitive and selenium variables were considered simultaneously measured at inclusion, two years and nine years
  • Cognitive performances (as continuous variables) were related to selenium levels and time of follow-up. Interaction terms between selenium and time of follow-up expressed the change of selenium according to cognitive change during follow-up.
  • Selenium changes were associated with DSS and FTT, but not with TMTB or MMSE. Analyses adjusted for time, sex, education, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia and history of cardiovascular diseases gave similar results.
  • In sensitivity analysis, the same models were applied to subjects who had all three selenium measurements and cognitive evaluation. Results were quite similar although with lower power because analysis were carried out on 570 subjects instead of the initial 1,371:
 

 Crude Association

 Adjusted Association  Sensitivity Analysis
  β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI
Decrease in MMSE score  -0.008 (-0.12 to 0.12) 0.0037 (-0.12 to 0.13)  .041 (-0.09 to 0.17)
Decrease in DSS score 0.476 (0.12 to 0.83) 0.38 (0.03 to 0.73)  .34 (0.03 to 0.71)
Delay in TMTB time -0.4 (-2.87 to 2.07) -0.197 (-2.65 to 2.25)  -.24 (-2.98 to 2.50)
Decrease in FTT score 1.25 (0.35 to 2.15) 1.18 (0.28 to 2.08)  .83 (0.17 to 1.83)
  • After studying associations between selenium change and cognitive decline using a mixed logistic model with Gaussian random effect the following was found after adjusting for confounding factors:
    • Among subjects who had an decrease of their plasma selenium levels, the higher the decrease of plasma selenium, the higher the probability of cognitive decline
    • Among subjects who had an increase of their plasma selenium levels, the probability of cognitive decline was higher in subjects with the smallest selenium increase 
    • Plasma selenium change was associated with MMSE decline at the two-point cutoff (OR=2.31; CI: 1.12 to 4.77) but not at the three-point cutoff (1.41; 0.52 to 3.83)
    • An association was observed for  the DSS at the 25th cutoff (2.6; 1.22 to 5.57) and for TMTB at the 10th percentile (3.18; 1.14 to 8.88)
    • For FTT, decline increased when selenium decreased for the two cutoffs considered [the 10th percentile, 2.4 (1.21 to 4.77) and for the 25th percentile, 4.33 (1.6 to 11.72)].   
Author Conclusion:

The results of the study suggest that plasma selenium decease is associated with cognitive decline. The real importance of selenium in the brain and the capacity of the brain to manage selenium depletion is just beginning to be explored. These results, together with information on involvement of selenoproteins in brain functions, support possible relationships between selenium status and neuropsychologic functions in aging people. The preventative effects of selenium supplementation at a nutritional level needs to be evaluated with large-scale studies. This approach could shed new light on the potential benefits of supplementation.

Funding Source:
Government: Inserm
Industry:
Merck, Sharp and Dohme-Chibret Laboratories, EISAI Laboratory
Pharmaceutical/Dietary Supplement Company:
Not-for-profit
French Alzheimer's Disease Association
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:
  • The authors note the following limitations:
    • The main limit was sample selection during follow-up. Subjects who did not complete the whole follow-up had the lowest cognitive performances at inclusion; however, they did not differ with regard to selenium level at baseline or plasma selenium decrease for the first two years.
    • A relationship between plasma selenium and cognition change was found in subjects with weak cognitive decline. Sample selection may limit the interpretation of the results, but should not affect the relationship itself
  • Specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for the EVA was not discussed in this study. It was unclear if this was a representative sample of the population. Specific reasons for withdrawals from EVA were not fully discussed. Blinding was not used in the study.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) N/A
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) N/A
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? No
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? No
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? ???
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? ???
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) ???
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? ???
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? No
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) No
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? No
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? N/A
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? N/A
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? N/A
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? N/A
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? ???