Background and Aim: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) increases the risk of cognitive decline in older adults. Evidence from India on cognitive impairment in this population remains limited; hence, this study assessed cognitive impairment using the Mini-Cog screening tool among older adults with T2DM. Materials and Methods: A total of 204 participants aged ≥60 years with T2DM were enrolled at a tertiary care centre in Chennai from February to May 2024. Cognitive status was screened using the Mini-Cog tool. ‘Scores of 0–2’ indicated a positive screen for cognitive impairment, whereas ‘scores of 3–5’ indicated a negative screen for cognitive impairment. Anthropometric, clinical and biochemical information was collected. Results: Among the 204 older adults with T2DM screened using the Mini-Cog, 20.6% screened positive for cognitive impairment. Among those who screened positive, the proportion of women was significantly higher than that of men (61.9% vs. 38.1%, P = .04). The mean BMI was significantly higher among women than men (28.7 ± 5.3 vs. 26.7 ± 3.9 kg/m², P = .003). The combined presence of hypertension and dyslipidemia was significantly higher among screened positive participants compared to screened negative participants (61.9% vs. 38.3%, P = .005). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that HbA1c > 9% (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 1.01–4.98); P = .04] and the presence of hypertension and dyslipidemia [OR 2.4 (95% CI 1.09–4.13); P = .02] were significantly associated with those who screened positive for cognitive impairment. Conclusion: The study findings highlighted that a significant proportion of women with T2DM screened positive for cognitive impairment as assessed by the Mini-Cog tool. Poor glycemic control and the presence of comorbid conditions such as hypertension and dyslipidemia were independently associated with those who screened positive for cognitive impairment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vijay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: