Prevalence of Mild and Severe Cognitive Impairment in World Trade Center Exposed Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) and General Emergency Responders

Frank D Mann, Alexandra K. Mueller, Rachel Zeig-Owens, Jaeun Choi, David J. Prezant, Melissa M. Carr, Alicia M. Fels, Christina M. Hennington, Megan P. Armstrong, Alissa Barber, Ashley E. Fontana, Cassandra H. Kroll, Kevin Chow, Onix A Melendez, Abigail J. Smith, Benjamin J Luft, Charles B. Hall, Sean Clouston
{"title":"Prevalence of Mild and Severe Cognitive Impairment in World Trade Center Exposed Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) and General Emergency Responders","authors":"Frank D Mann, Alexandra K. Mueller, Rachel Zeig-Owens, Jaeun Choi, David J. Prezant, Melissa M. Carr, Alicia M. Fels, Christina M. Hennington, Megan P. Armstrong, Alissa Barber, Ashley E. Fontana, Cassandra H. Kroll, Kevin Chow, Onix A Melendez, Abigail J. Smith, Benjamin J Luft, Charles B. Hall, Sean Clouston","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.04.24311457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The emergency personnel who responded to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks endured severe occupational exposures, yet the prevalence of cognitive impairment remains unknown among WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders. The present study screened for mild and severe cognitive impairment in WTC-exposed FDNY responders using objective tests, compared prevalence rates to a cohort of non-FDNY WTC-exposed responders, and descriptively to meta-analytic estimates of MCI from global, community, and clinical populations. Methods: A sample of WTC-exposed-FDNY responders (n = 343) was recruited to complete an extensive battery of cognitive, psychological, and physical tests. The prevalences of domain-specific impairments were estimated based on the results of norm-referenced tests, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Jak/Bondi criteria, Petersen criteria, and the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer′s Association (NIA-AA) criteria were used to diagnose MCI. NIA-AA criteria were also used to diagnose severe cognitive impairment. Generalized linear models were used to compare prevalence estimates of cognitive impairment to a large sample of WTC-exposed-non-FDNY responders from the General Responder Cohort (GRC; n = 7102) who completed the MoCA during a similar time frame.\nResult: Among FDNY responders under 65 years, the unadjusted prevalence of MCI varied from 52.57% to 71.37% depending on the operational definition of MCI, apart from using a conservative cut-off applied to MoCA total scores (18 < MoCA < 23), which yielded a markedly lower crude prevalence (24.31%) compared to alternative criteria. The prevalence of MCI was higher among WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders, compared to WTC-exposed-non-FDNY-GRC-responders (adjusted RR = 1.53, 95% C.I. = [1.24, 1.88], p < .001) and meta-analytic estimates from different global, community, and clinical populations. Following NIA-AA diagnostic guidelines, 4.96% of WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders met the criteria for severe impairments (95% CI = [2.91% to 7.82%]), a prevalence that remained largely unchanged after excluding responders over the age of 65 years. Discussion: There is a high prevalence of mild and severe cognitive impairment among WTC-responders highlighting the putative role of occupational/environmental and disaster-related exposures in the etiology of accelerated cognitive decline.","PeriodicalId":501071,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Epidemiology","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.04.24311457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The emergency personnel who responded to the World Trade Center (WTC) attacks endured severe occupational exposures, yet the prevalence of cognitive impairment remains unknown among WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders. The present study screened for mild and severe cognitive impairment in WTC-exposed FDNY responders using objective tests, compared prevalence rates to a cohort of non-FDNY WTC-exposed responders, and descriptively to meta-analytic estimates of MCI from global, community, and clinical populations. Methods: A sample of WTC-exposed-FDNY responders (n = 343) was recruited to complete an extensive battery of cognitive, psychological, and physical tests. The prevalences of domain-specific impairments were estimated based on the results of norm-referenced tests, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Jak/Bondi criteria, Petersen criteria, and the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer′s Association (NIA-AA) criteria were used to diagnose MCI. NIA-AA criteria were also used to diagnose severe cognitive impairment. Generalized linear models were used to compare prevalence estimates of cognitive impairment to a large sample of WTC-exposed-non-FDNY responders from the General Responder Cohort (GRC; n = 7102) who completed the MoCA during a similar time frame. Result: Among FDNY responders under 65 years, the unadjusted prevalence of MCI varied from 52.57% to 71.37% depending on the operational definition of MCI, apart from using a conservative cut-off applied to MoCA total scores (18 < MoCA < 23), which yielded a markedly lower crude prevalence (24.31%) compared to alternative criteria. The prevalence of MCI was higher among WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders, compared to WTC-exposed-non-FDNY-GRC-responders (adjusted RR = 1.53, 95% C.I. = [1.24, 1.88], p < .001) and meta-analytic estimates from different global, community, and clinical populations. Following NIA-AA diagnostic guidelines, 4.96% of WTC-exposed-FDNY-responders met the criteria for severe impairments (95% CI = [2.91% to 7.82%]), a prevalence that remained largely unchanged after excluding responders over the age of 65 years. Discussion: There is a high prevalence of mild and severe cognitive impairment among WTC-responders highlighting the putative role of occupational/environmental and disaster-related exposures in the etiology of accelerated cognitive decline.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纽约市消防局(FDNY)和一般紧急救援人员中受世贸中心影响者的轻度和严重认知障碍发生率
背景:应对世界贸易中心(WTC)袭击事件的应急人员承受了严重的职业暴露,但在受到 WTC 暴露的 FDNY 应急人员中,认知障碍的发生率仍然未知。本研究使用客观测试筛查了受 WTC 影响的 FDNY 响应者中的轻度和重度认知障碍,将患病率与非受 FDNY WTC 影响的响应者队列进行了比较,并对全球、社区和临床人群中 MCI 的元分析估计值进行了描述性比较。研究方法我们招募了受世界贸易中心影响的美国联邦纽约州受访者样本(n = 343),让他们完成一系列认知、心理和身体测试。根据常模参照测试的结果估算了特定领域损伤的患病率,并采用蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)、Jak/Bondi 标准、Petersen 标准以及美国国家老龄化研究所和阿尔茨海默氏症协会(NIA-AA)标准来诊断 MCI。NIA-AA 标准也用于诊断严重认知障碍。我们使用广义线性模型将认知功能障碍的患病率估计值与在类似时间段内完成 MoCA 测试的普通响应者队列(GRC;n = 7102)中大量受 WTC 影响的非 FDNY 响应者样本进行比较:在 65 岁以下的 FDNY 受访者中,根据 MCI 的操作定义,未经调整的 MCI 患病率从 52.57% 到 71.37% 不等,除了使用保守的 MoCA 总分截止值(18 < MoCA < 23)之外,与其他标准相比,该标准产生的粗患病率(24.31%)明显较低。与受到 WTC 影响的非 FDNY-GRC 反应者相比,受到 WTC 影响的 FDNY 反应者的 MCI 患病率更高(调整后 RR = 1.53,95% C.I. = [1.24,1.88],p < .001),而且来自不同全球、社区和临床人群的元分析估计值也更高。根据 NIA-AA 诊断指南,4.96% 的 WTC 暴露-FDNY 反应者符合严重损伤标准(95% CI = [2.91% to 7.82%]),在排除 65 岁以上的反应者后,这一流行率基本保持不变。讨论:在世界贸易中心救灾人员中,轻度和重度认知功能障碍的发生率很高,这凸显了职业/环境和灾难相关暴露在加速认知功能衰退的病因中可能扮演的角色。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Climate Change and Malaria: A Call for Robust Analytics Female Infertility and Neurodevelopmental Disorders in Children: associations and evidence for familial confounding in Denmark Surveillance and control of neglected zoonotic diseases: methodological approaches to studying Rift Valley Fever, Crimean-Congo Haemorrhagic Fever and Brucellosis at the human-livestock-wildlife interface across diverse agricultural systems in Uganda Climate variation and serotype competition drive dengue outbreak dynamics in Singapore Leveraging an Online Dashboard to Inform on Infectious Disease Surveillance: A case Study of COVID-19 in Kenya.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1