Argonde C van Harten1, Michelle M Mielke2, Dana M Swenson-Dravis2, Clinton E Hagen2, Kelly K Edwards2, Rosebud O Roberts2, Yonas E Geda2, David S Knopman2, Ronald C Petersen2. 1. From the Alzheimer Center (A.C.v.H.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Behavioral Neurology, Department of Neurology (A.C.v.H., D.S.K., R.C.P.), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research (M.M.M., C.E.H., K.K.E., R.O.R., Y.E.G.), and Department of Neurology (M.M.M., D.M.S.-D.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Translational Neuroscience and Aging Program (Y.E.G.), and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology (Y.E.G.) and Neurology (Y.E.G.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ. a.vanharten@vumc.nl. 2. From the Alzheimer Center (A.C.v.H.), VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Behavioral Neurology, Department of Neurology (A.C.v.H., D.S.K., R.C.P.), Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research (M.M.M., C.E.H., K.K.E., R.O.R., Y.E.G.), and Department of Neurology (M.M.M., D.M.S.-D.), Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; Mayo Clinic Translational Neuroscience and Aging Program (Y.E.G.), and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology (Y.E.G.) and Neurology (Y.E.G.), Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We investigated different dimensions of subjective cognitive decline (SCD) to determine which was the best prognostic risk factor for incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among cognitively unimpaired participants. METHODS: We included 1,167 cognitively unimpaired participants, aged 70 to 95 years, from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging based on 2 concurrent SCD scales (part of the Blessed memory test and the 39-item Everyday Cognition [ECog] scale, which included a validated 12-item derivative) and a single question assessing worry about cognitive decline. We evaluated multiple ways to dichotomize scores. In continuous models, we compared average scores on 4 ECog domains and multidomain (39- and 12-item) ECog scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between each measure and risk of MCI in models adjusted for objective memory performance, depression, anxiety, sex, APOE ε4 carriership, and medical comorbidities. RESULTS: It was possible to select a substantial group of participants (14%) at increased risk of incident MCI based on combined baseline endorsement of any consistent SCD on the ECog (any item scored ≥3; 12-item ECog hazard ratio [HR] 2.17 [95% confidence interval 1.51-3.13]) and worry (HR 1.79 [1.24-2.58]) in an adjusted model combining these dimensions. In continuous models, all ECog domains and the multidomain scores were associated with risk of MCI with a small advantage for multidomain SCD (12-item ECog HR 2.13 [1.36-3.35] per point increase in average score). Information provided by the informant performed comparable to self-perceived SCD. CONCLUSION: Prognostic value of SCD for incident MCI improves when both consistency of SCD and associated worry are evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated different dimensions of subjective cognitive decline (SCD) to determine which was the best prognostic risk factor for incident mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among cognitively unimpaired participants. METHODS: We included 1,167 cognitively unimpaired participants, aged 70 to 95 years, from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging based on 2 concurrent SCD scales (part of the Blessed memory test and the 39-item Everyday Cognition [ECog] scale, which included a validated 12-item derivative) and a single question assessing worry about cognitive decline. We evaluated multiple ways to dichotomize scores. In continuous models, we compared average scores on 4 ECog domains and multidomain (39- and 12-item) ECog scores. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between each measure and risk of MCI in models adjusted for objective memory performance, depression, anxiety, sex, APOE ε4 carriership, and medical comorbidities. RESULTS: It was possible to select a substantial group of participants (14%) at increased risk of incident MCI based on combined baseline endorsement of any consistent SCD on the ECog (any item scored ≥3; 12-item ECog hazard ratio [HR] 2.17 [95% confidence interval 1.51-3.13]) and worry (HR 1.79 [1.24-2.58]) in an adjusted model combining these dimensions. In continuous models, all ECog domains and the multidomain scores were associated with risk of MCI with a small advantage for multidomain SCD (12-item ECog HR 2.13 [1.36-3.35] per point increase in average score). Information provided by the informant performed comparable to self-perceived SCD. CONCLUSION: Prognostic value of SCD for incident MCI improves when both consistency of SCD and associated worry are evaluated.
Authors: Melissa J Slavin; Henry Brodaty; Nicole A Kochan; John D Crawford; Julian N Trollor; Brian Draper; Perminder S Sachdev Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Sarah Tomaszewski Farias; Dan Mungas; Bruce R Reed; Deborah Cahn-Weiner; William Jagust; Kathleen Baynes; Charles Decarli Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Frank Jessen; Birgitt Wiese; Cadja Bachmann; Sandra Eifflaender-Gorfer; Franziska Haller; Heike Kölsch; Tobias Luck; Edelgard Mösch; Hendrik van den Bussche; Michael Wagner; Anja Wollny; Thomas Zimmermann; Michael Pentzek; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Heinz-Peter Romberg; Siegfried Weyerer; Hanna Kaduszkiewicz; Wolfgang Maier; Horst Bickel Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2010-04
Authors: Sarah Tomaszewski Farias; Dan Mungas; Danielle J Harvey; Amanda Simmons; Bruce R Reed; Charles Decarli Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Michelle M Mielke; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; David S Knopman; Val J Lowe; Rosebud O Roberts; Yonas E Geda; Dana M Swenson-Dravis; Bradley F Boeve; Matthew L Senjem; Prashanthi Vemuri; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neurology Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Melissa J Slavin; Perminder S Sachdev; Nicole A Kochan; Claudia Woolf; John D Crawford; Katrina Giskes; Simone Reppermund; Julian N Trollor; Brian Draper; Kim Delbaere; Henry Brodaty Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Alicia D Rueda; Karen M Lau; Naomi Saito; Danielle Harvey; Shannon L Risacher; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Andrew J Saykin; Sarah Tomaszewski Farias Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Natalia Valech; María A Mollica; Jaume Olives; Adriá Tort; Juan Fortea; Alberto Lleo; Sánchez-Saudinós Belén; José Luis Molinuevo; Lorena Rami Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 4.472
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: Kathryn V Papp; Rachel Buckley; Elizabeth Mormino; Paul Maruff; Victor L Villemagne; Colin L Masters; Keith A Johnson; Dorene M Rentz; Reisa A Sperling; Rebecca E Amariglio Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-01-04 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: Michelle M Mielke; Jeremy A Syrjanen; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Ingmar Skoog; Prashanthi Vemuri; Mary M Machulda; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Silke Kern Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Daniel E Gustavson; Amy J Jak; Jeremy A Elman; Matthew S Panizzon; Carol E Franz; Katherine A Gifford; Chandra A Reynolds; Rosemary Toomey; Michael J Lyons; William S Kremen Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472