BACKGROUND: Self-reported and informant-reported subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be useful in the detection of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (Pre-AD) and cognitive impairment related to abnormal amyloid-β (Aβ 42) levels. OBJECTIVES: a) To compare the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) ratings between Pre-AD subjects and cognitively healthy controls, b) to study the association of SCD-Q scores with levels of AD biomarkers in cognitively healthy and cognitively impaired subjects, and c) to compare SCD-Q ratings in cognitively impaired subjects with or without abnormal Aβ 42. METHODS: Two hundred and seventeen participants (111 subjects; 106 informants) answered the SCD-Q. All subjects underwent a lumbar puncture to determine levels of Aβ 42 and tau, and an extensive neuropsychological battery. Healthy subjects were classified as Controls (CTR) or Pre-AD according to the absence or the presence of abnormal Aβ 42, and those with cognitive impairment (CI) into Non-amyloid (NonAB-CI) or Amyloid (AB-CI) impairment. RESULTS: Informants' SCD-Q scores were significantly higher in the Pre-AD group than in the CTR group (F = 6.75; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in self-ratings. In the cognitively impaired groups, there were no significant differences in the SCD-Q ratings. In the whole sample, informants' ratings of SCD-Q correlated with Aβ 42 (r = -0.21; p = 0.02) and tau levels (r = 0.28; p = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Higher informants' ratings of SCD-Q differentiated Pre-AD subjects from CTR. Informants' ratings of SCD-Q correlated weakly with cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers.
BACKGROUND: Self-reported and informant-reported subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may be useful in the detection of preclinical Alzheimer's disease (Pre-AD) and cognitive impairment related to abnormal amyloid-β (Aβ 42) levels. OBJECTIVES: a) To compare the Subjective Cognitive Decline Questionnaire (SCD-Q) ratings between Pre-AD subjects and cognitively healthy controls, b) to study the association of SCD-Q scores with levels of AD biomarkers in cognitively healthy and cognitively impaired subjects, and c) to compare SCD-Q ratings in cognitively impaired subjects with or without abnormal Aβ 42. METHODS: Two hundred and seventeen participants (111 subjects; 106 informants) answered the SCD-Q. All subjects underwent a lumbar puncture to determine levels of Aβ 42 and tau, and an extensive neuropsychological battery. Healthy subjects were classified as Controls (CTR) or Pre-AD according to the absence or the presence of abnormal Aβ 42, and those with cognitive impairment (CI) into Non-amyloid (NonAB-CI) or Amyloid (AB-CI) impairment. RESULTS: Informants' SCD-Q scores were significantly higher in the Pre-AD group than in the CTR group (F = 6.75; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in self-ratings. In the cognitively impaired groups, there were no significant differences in the SCD-Q ratings. In the whole sample, informants' ratings of SCD-Q correlated with Aβ 42 (r = -0.21; p = 0.02) and tau levels (r = 0.28; p = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: Higher informants' ratings of SCD-Q differentiated Pre-AD subjects from CTR. Informants' ratings of SCD-Q correlated weakly with cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Amyloid-β; preclinical Alzheimer’s disease; subjective cognitive decline; tau proteins
Authors: Samantha L Allison; Thomas L Rodebaugh; Chiharu Johnston; Anne M Fagan; John C Morris; Denise Head Journal: Arch Clin Neuropsychol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 2.813
Authors: Marina Z Nakhla; Lynn Cohen; David P Salmon; Denis S Smirnov; María J Marquine; Alison A Moore; Dawn M Schiehser; Zvinka Z Zlatar Journal: J Clin Exp Neuropsychol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 2.475
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
Authors: Frank Jessen; Rebecca E Amariglio; Rachel F Buckley; Wiesje M van der Flier; Ying Han; José Luis Molinuevo; Laura Rabin; Dorene M Rentz; Octavio Rodriguez-Gomez; Andrew J Saykin; Sietske A M Sikkes; Colette M Smart; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Michael Wagner Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Argonde C van Harten; Michelle M Mielke; Dana M Swenson-Dravis; Clinton E Hagen; Kelly K Edwards; Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Andrea Tales; Frank Jessen; Christopher Butler; Gordon Wilcock; Judith Phillips; Tony Bayer Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472