Rebecca E Amariglio1, Michael C Donohue2, Gad A Marshall3, Dorene M Rentz3, David P Salmon4, Steven H Ferris5, Stella Karantzoulis5, Paul S Aisen4, Reisa A Sperling3. 1. Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts2Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts3Harvar. 2. Division of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego5Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study, Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego. 3. Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study, Department of Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego. 5. Alzheimer's Disease Center, Center for Cognitive Neurology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Several large-scale Alzheimer disease (AD) secondary prevention trials have begun to target individuals at the preclinical stage. The success of these trials depends on validated outcome measures that are sensitive to early clinical progression in individuals who are initially asymptomatic. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) to track early changes in cognitive function in older individuals without clinical impairment at baseline. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal study from February 2002 through February 2007 at participating Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study sites. Individuals were followed up annually for 48 months after the baseline visit. The study included 468 healthy older individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR] global scores of 0, above cutoff on the modified Mini-Mental State Examination and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test) (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [3.6] years; age range, 75.0-93.8 years). All study participants and their study partners completed the self and partner CFIs annually. Individuals also underwent concurrent annual neuropsychological assessment and APOE genotyping. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The CFI scores between clinical progressors (CDR score, ≥0.5) and nonprogressors (CDR score, 0) and between APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were compared. Correlations of change between the CFI scores and neuropsychological performance were assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P<.001), partner (5.08, SE=0.59, P<.001), and self plus partner (7.04, SE=0.83, P<.001) CFI total scores. At month 48, APOE ε4 carriers had greater progression than noncarriers on the partner (1.10, SE=0.44, P<.012) and self plus partner (1.56, SE=0.63, P<.014) CFI scores. Both self and partner CFI change were associated with longitudinal cognitive decline (self, ρ=0.32, 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46; partner, ρ=0.56, 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68), although findings suggest self-report may be more accurate early in the process, whereas accuracy of partner report improves when there is progression to cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. The CFI appears to be a brief, but informative potential outcome measure that provides insight into functional abilities at the earliest stages of disease.
IMPORTANCE: Several large-scale Alzheimer disease (AD) secondary prevention trials have begun to target individuals at the preclinical stage. The success of these trials depends on validated outcome measures that are sensitive to early clinical progression in individuals who are initially asymptomatic. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of the Cognitive Function Instrument (CFI) to track early changes in cognitive function in older individuals without clinical impairment at baseline. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Longitudinal study from February 2002 through February 2007 at participating Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study sites. Individuals were followed up annually for 48 months after the baseline visit. The study included 468 healthy older individuals (Clinical Dementia Rating scale [CDR] global scores of 0, above cutoff on the modified Mini-Mental State Examination and Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test) (mean [SD] age, 79.4 [3.6] years; age range, 75.0-93.8 years). All study participants and their study partners completed the self and partner CFIs annually. Individuals also underwent concurrent annual neuropsychological assessment and APOE genotyping. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The CFI scores between clinical progressors (CDR score, ≥0.5) and nonprogressors (CDR score, 0) and between APOE ε4 carriers and noncarriers were compared. Correlations of change between the CFI scores and neuropsychological performance were assessed longitudinally. RESULTS: At 48 months, group differences between clinical progressors and non-progressors were significant for self (2.13, SE=0.45, P<.001), partner (5.08, SE=0.59, P<.001), and self plus partner (7.04, SE=0.83, P<.001) CFI total scores. At month 48, APOE ε4 carriers had greater progression than noncarriers on the partner (1.10, SE=0.44, P<.012) and self plus partner (1.56, SE=0.63, P<.014) CFI scores. Both self and partner CFI change were associated with longitudinal cognitive decline (self, ρ=0.32, 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46; partner, ρ=0.56, 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68), although findings suggest self-report may be more accurate early in the process, whereas accuracy of partner report improves when there is progression to cognitive impairment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Demonstrating long-term clinical benefit will be critical for the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials. The CFI appears to be a brief, but informative potential outcome measure that provides insight into functional abilities at the earliest stages of disease.
Authors: Douglas Galasko; David A Bennett; Mary Sano; Daniel Marson; Jeff Kaye; Steven D Edland Journal: Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord Date: 2006 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: A J Saykin; H A Wishart; L A Rabin; R B Santulli; L A Flashman; J D West; T L McHugh; A C Mamourian Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Li Wang; Gerald van Belle; Paul K Crane; Walter A Kukull; James D Bowen; Wayne C McCormick; Eric B Larson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Dorene M Rentz; Mario A Parra Rodriguez; Rebecca Amariglio; Yaakov Stern; Reisa Sperling; Steven Ferris Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2013-11-21 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Rachel L Nosheny; Monica R Camacho; Chengshi Jin; John Neuhaus; Diana Truran; Derek Flenniken; Miriam Ashford; Maria C Carrillo; Keith N Fargo; James Hendrix; Lucy Hanna; Gil Rabinovici; Paul Maruff; R Scott Mackin; Michael W Weiner Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Kirk I Erickson; George A Grove; Jeffrey M Burns; Charles H Hillman; Arthur F Kramer; Edward McAuley; Eric D Vidoni; James T Becker; Meryl A Butters; Katerina Gray; Haiqing Huang; John M Jakicic; M Ilyas Kamboh; Chaeryon Kang; William E Klunk; Phil Lee; Anna L Marsland; Joseph Mettenburg; Renee J Rogers; Chelsea M Stillman; Bradley P Sutton; Amanda Szabo-Reed; Timothy D Verstynen; Jennifer C Watt; Andrea M Weinstein; Mariegold E Wollam Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: José L Molinuevo; Laura A Rabin; Rebecca Amariglio; Rachel Buckley; Bruno Dubois; Kathryn A Ellis; Michael Ewers; Harald Hampel; Stefan Klöppel; Lorena Rami; Barry Reisberg; Andrew J Saykin; Sietske Sikkes; Colette M Smart; Beth E Snitz; Reisa Sperling; Wiesje M van der Flier; Michael Wagner; Frank Jessen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 21.566