Outcome over seven years of healthy adults with and without subjective cognitive impairment.
ABSTRACT Subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) in older persons without manifest symptomatology is a common condition with a largely unclear prognosis. We hypothesized that (1) examining outcome for a sufficient period by using conversion to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia would clarify SCI prognosis, and (2) with the aforementioned procedures, the prognosis of SCI subjects would differ significantly from that of demographically matched healthy subjects, free of SCI, termed no cognitive impairment (NCI) subjects.
A consecutive series of healthy subjects, aged > or =40 years, presenting with NCI or SCI to a brain aging and dementia research center during a 14-year interval, were studied and followed up during an 18-year observation window. The study population (60 NCI, 200 SCI, 60% female) had a mean age of 67.2 +/- 9.1 years, was well-educated (mean, 15.5 +/- 2.7 years), and cognitively normal (Mini-Mental State Examination, 29.1 +/- 1.2).
A total of 213 subjects (81.9% of the study population) were followed up. Follow-up occurred during a mean period of 6.8 +/- 3.4 years, and subjects had a mean of 2.9 +/- 1.6 follow-up visits. Seven NCI (14.9%) and 90 SCI (54.2%) subjects declined (P < .0001). Of NCI decliners, five declined to MCI and two to probable Alzheimer's disease. Of SCI decliners, 71 declined to MCI and 19 to dementia diagnoses. Controlling for baseline demographic variables and follow-up time, Weibull proportional hazards model revealed increased decline in SCI subjects (hazard ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-10.3), whereas the accelerated failure time model analysis with an underlying Weibull survival function showed that SCI subjects declined more rapidly, at 60% of the rate of NCI subjects (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.80). Furthermore, mean time to decline was 3.5 years longer for NCI than for SCI subjects (P = .0003).
These results indicate that SCI in subjects with normal cognition is a harbinger of further decline in most subjects during a 7-year mean follow-up interval. Relevance for community populations should be investigated, and prevention studies in this at-risk population should be explored.
- SourceAvailable from: Andreas Urs Monsch[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Optimal identification of subtle cognitive impairment in the primary care setting requires a very brief tool combining (a) patients' subjective impairments, (b) cognitive testing, and (c) information from informants. The present study developed a new, very quick and easily administered case-finding tool combining these assessments ('BrainCheck') and tested the feasibility and validity of this instrument in two independent studies. We developed a case-finding tool comprised of patient-directed (a) questions about memory and depression and (b) clock drawing, and (c) the informant-directed 7-item version of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE). Feasibility study: 52 general practitioners rated the feasibility and acceptance of the patient-directed tool. Validation study: An independent group of 288 Memory Clinic patients (mean ± SD age = 76.6 ± 7.9, education = 12.0 ± 2.6; 53.8% female) with diagnoses of mild cognitive impairment (n = 80), probable Alzheimer's disease (n = 185), or major depression (n = 23) and 126 demographically matched, cognitively healthy volunteer participants (age = 75.2 ± 8.8, education = 12.5 ± 2.7; 40% female) partook. All patient and healthy control participants were administered the patient-directed tool, and informants of 113 patient and 70 healthy control participants completed the very short IQCODE. Feasibility study: General practitioners rated the patient-directed tool as highly feasible and acceptable. Validation study: A Classification and Regression Tree analysis generated an algorithm to categorize patient-directed data which resulted in a correct classification rate (CCR) of 81.2% (sensitivity = 83.0%, specificity = 79.4%). Critically, the CCR of the combined patient- and informant-directed instruments (BrainCheck) reached nearly 90% (that is 89.4%; sensitivity = 97.4%, specificity = 81.6%). A new and very brief instrument for general practitioners, 'BrainCheck', combined three sources of information deemed critical for effective case-finding (that is, patients' subject impairments, cognitive testing, informant information) and resulted in a nearly 90% CCR. Thus, it provides a very efficient and valid tool to aid general practitioners in deciding whether patients with suspected cognitive impairments should be further evaluated or not ('watchful waiting').Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 01/2014; 6(9):69. · 3.50 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background Subjective cognitive concerns may represent a simple method to assess likelihood of memory decline among apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 carriers. Methods We examined the relationship of self-reported subjective cognitive concerns, using seven specific cognitive concerns, with memory and memory decline over 6 years among APOE ε4 carriers and non-carriers from the Nurses' Health Study. Results In both groups, increasing subjective cognitive concern score predicted worse baseline memory and faster rates of subsequent memory decline, after adjustment for age, education and depression. The relation with baseline memory appeared statistically stronger in APOE ε4 carriers (P-interaction = 0.03). For memory decline, mean differences in slopes of episodic memory (95% CI) for 4 to 7 versus no concern = −0.05 (−0.10, 0.01) standard units in APOE ε4 carriers, and −0.04 (−0.08, −0.01) standard units in non-carriers. Conclusions APOE ε4 carriers with self-assessed cognitive concerns appear to have worse memory, and possibly accelerated memory decline.Alzheimer's and Dementia 09/2014; · 17.47 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We assessed salience of subjective memory complaints (SMCs) by older individuals as a predictor of subsequent cognitive impairment while accounting for risk factors and eventual neuropathologies.Neurology 09/2014; · 8.30 Impact Factor