Pharmacological treatment of increased vascular risk and cognitive performance in middle-aged and old persons: six-year observational longitudinal study

Table 3 Difference in cognitive performance^a between treatment^b group and control group during follow-up: linear mixed model analyses

	Cognitive performance of treatment group as compared to control group (estimated mean difference)^c
	Total study population (n = 1685)						Matched sample 1:1 (n = 478)^d
	Model 1^e			Model 2^f			Model 3^g			Model 4^h
	Mean	95%CI	P value	Mean	95%CI	P value	Mean	95%CI	P value	Mean	95% CI	P value
First measurement	−0.35	− 0.46 to − 0.24	< 0.001	0.03	−0.10 to 0.16	0.68	−0.05	− 0.20 to 0.10	0.53	− 0.05	−0.17 to 0.08	0.49
Second measurement	−0.45	−0.56 to − 0.34	< 0.001	−0.07	− 0.21 to − 0.06	0.28	−0.07	− 0.22 to 0.08	0.36	− 0.07	−0.20 to 0.06	0.28
Third measurement	−0.51	−0.64 to − 0.39	< 0.001	−0.14	− 0.28 to 0.00	0.06	− 0.09	−0.26 to 0.07	0.27	−0.08	− 0.23 to 0.07	0.29

Abbreviations: 95%CI 95% confidence interval
^a Cognitive performance was measured as a composite score of two tests (z-score): the Ruff Figural Fluency Test (RFFT) and the Visual Association Test (VAT) [20, 22]
^b Treatment group included persons who had pharmacological treatment of vascular risk factors for the first time at the first measurement of cognitive function
^c Estimated mean difference was calculated as mean cognitive performance of treatment group minus control group
^d The sample (N = 478) was matched on the following characteristics: age, gender, educational level and treatable vascular risk
^e Model 1 is unadjusted; − 2*log likelihood: 8851.36
^f Model 2 is adjusted for propensity score for treatment of vascular risk factors; − 2*log likelihood: 8752.82
^g Model 3 is unadjusted; − 2*log likelihood: 2521.53
^h Model 4 is adjusted for age, educational level, interaction age x measurement, treatable vascular risk; − 2*log likelihood: 2319.52

ISSN: 1471-2377