Dataset Information

Cognitive impairment 18 years before clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease dementia.

ABSTRACT: To examine the relation of performance on brief cognitive tests to development of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia over the following 18 years in a sample of African Americans and European Americans.A composite cognitive test score based on tests of episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition was constructed in a prospective population-based sample of 2,125 participants (55% African American and 61% female) aged 65 years and older residing in 4 Chicago neighborhoods. Time before AD dementia diagnosis was categorized into 6 groups corresponding to data collection periods: 0.1-0.9, 1.0-3.9, 4.0-6.9, 7.0-9.9, 10.0-12.9, and 13.0-17.9 years.Of 2,125 participants without clinical AD dementia, 442 (21%) developed clinical AD dementia over 18 years of follow-up. Lower composite cognitive test scores were associated with the development of AD dementia over the duration of the study. The magnitude of association between composite cognitive test score and development of AD dementia increased from an odds ratio of 3.39 (95% confidence interval 1.72, 6.67; p < 0.001) at 13.0-17.9 years to 9.84 (95% confidence interval 7.41, 13.06; p < 0.001) at 0.1-0.9 years, per SD increment. These associations were consistently larger among European Americans than among African Americans. Performance on individual cognitive tests of episodic memory, executive function, and global cognition also significantly predicted the development of AD dementia, with associations exhibiting a similar trend over 18 years.Our findings suggest that cognitive impairment may manifest in the preclinical phase of AD dementia substantially earlier than previously established.

SUBMITTER: Rajan KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4560057 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, are emerging terms that encompass the clinical state between normal cognition and dementia in elderly people. Controversy surrounds their characterization, definition and application in clinical practice. In this article, we provide physicians with practical guidance on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment, no dementia, based on recommendations from the Third Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, held in March 2006.MethodsWe developed evidence-based guidelines using systematic literature searches, with specific criteria for study selection and quality assessment, and a clear and transparent decision-making process. We selected studies published from January 1996 to December 2005 that had mild cognitive impairment or cognitive impairment, no dementia, as the outcome. Subsequent to the conference, we searched for additional articles published between January 2006 and January 2008. We graded the strength of evidence using the criteria of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.ResultsWe identified 2483 articles, of which 314 were considered to be relevant and of good or fair quality. From a synthesis of the evidence in these studies, we made 16 recommendations. In brief, family physicians should be aware that most types of dementia are preceded by a recognizable phase of mild cognitive decline. They should be familiar with the concepts of mild cognitive impairment and of cognitive impairment, no dementia. Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored because of their increased risk for dementia. Leisure activities, cognitive stimulation and physical activity could be promoted as part of a healthy lifestyle in elderly people and those with mild cognitive impairment. Vascular risk factors should be treated optimally. No other specific therapies can yet be recommended.InterpretationPhysicians will increasingly see elderly patients with mild memory loss, and learning an approach to diagnosing states such as mild cognitive impairment is now warranted. Close monitoring for progression to dementia, promotion of a healthy lifestyle and treatment of vascular risk factors are recommended for the management of patients with mild cognitive impairment.

Project description:The present study examined the predictive values of amyloid PET, 18F-FDG PET, and nonimaging predictors (alone and in combination) for development of Alzheimer dementia (AD) in a large population of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: The study included 319 patients with MCI from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. In a derivation dataset (n = 159), the following Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed, each adjusted for age and sex: amyloid PET using 18F-florbetapir (pattern expression score of an amyloid-β AD conversion-related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); 18F-FDG PET (pattern expression score of a previously defined 18F-FDG-based AD conversion-related pattern, constructed by principle-components analysis); nonimaging (functional activities questionnaire, apolipoprotein E, and mini-mental state examination score); 18F-FDG PET + amyloid PET; amyloid PET + nonimaging; 18F-FDG PET + nonimaging; and amyloid PET + 18F-FDG PET + nonimaging. In a second step, the results of Cox regressions were applied to a validation dataset (n = 160) to stratify subjects according to the predicted conversion risk. Results: On the basis of the independent validation dataset, the 18F-FDG PET model yielded a significantly higher predictive value than the amyloid PET model. However, both were inferior to the nonimaging model and were significantly improved by the addition of nonimaging variables. The best prediction accuracy was reached by combining 18F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables. The combined model yielded 5-y free-of-conversion rates of 100%, 64%, and 24% for the low-, medium- and high-risk groups, respectively. Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET, amyloid PET, and nonimaging variables represent complementary predictors of conversion from MCI to AD. Especially in combination, they enable an accurate stratification of patients according to their conversion risks, which is of great interest for patient care and clinical trials.

Project description:ImportanceInsulin modulates aspects of brain function relevant to Alzheimer disease and can be delivered to the brain using intranasal devices. To date, the use of intranasal insulin to treat persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia remains to be examined in a multi-site trial.ObjectiveTo examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intranasal insulin for the treatment of persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease dementia in a phase 2/3 multisite clinical trial.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized (1:1) double-blind clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2018. Participants received 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months during the blinded phase, which was followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The clinical trial was conducted at 27 sites of the Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute. A total of 432 adults were screened, and 144 adults were excluded. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 55 to 85 years with a diagnosis of amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria), a score of 20 or higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, and a delayed logical memory score within a specified range. A total of 289 participants were randomized. Among the first 49 participants, the first device (device 1) used to administer intranasal insulin treatment had inconsistent reliability. A new device (device 2) was used for the remaining 240 participants, who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2019.InterventionsParticipants received 40 IU of insulin (Humulin-RU-100; Lilly) or placebo (diluent) daily for 12 months (blinded phase) followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. Insulin was administered with 2 intranasal delivery devices.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome (mean score change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale 12) was evaluated at 3-month intervals. Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. Cerebrospinal fluid collection and magnetic resonance imaging scans occurred at baseline and 12 months.ResultsA total of 289 participants (155 men [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.1] years) were randomized. Of those, 260 participants completed the blinded phase, and 240 participants completed the open-label extension phase. For the first 49 participants, the first device used to administer treatment had inconsistent reliability. A second device was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men [51.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [7.1] years), who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. No differences were observed between treatment arms for the primary outcome (mean score change on ADAS-cog-12 from baseline to month 12) in the device 2 ITT cohort (0.0258 points; 95% CI, -1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98) or for the other clinical or cerebrospinal fluid outcomes in the primary (second device) intention-to-treat analysis. No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, no cognitive or functional benefits were observed with intranasal insulin treatment over a 12-month period among the primary intention-to-treat cohort.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01767909.

Dataset Information

Cognitive impairment 18 years before clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer disease dementia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets