Informant‐ and Patient‐reported Subjective Cognitive Decline: a preliminary analysis of the Brazilian Subjective Cognitive Decline Cohort

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Subjective Cognitive Decline (SCD) is characterized by self‐experience of deterioration in cognitive performance in cognitive unimpaired (CU) individuals and may represent a preclinical stage of neurodegenerative diseases, especially Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Informant‐reported cognitive complaints appear to increase the risk for cognitive decline in SCD individuals. We aimed to describe a preliminary analysis of informant‐ and patient‐reported SCD in the ongoing Brazilian SCD (BRASCODE) Cohort. Method We are evaluating CU individuals older than 65 years‐old with cognitive complaints (and at least one SCD‐plus criteria). Biofluid‐ and imaging‐based biomarkers are being performed. Here, we evaluated the concordance of complaints between patients/informants and correlated them with patient’s sociodemographic and clinical variables. We described continuous variables as median (interquartile range, IQR) and categorical as frequencies. We performed a linear regression analysis with informant‐related complaints as the dependent variable, measured by the Subjective Cognitive Decline Scale, that ranges from 0 to 14, with scores ≥ 7 indicating complaint. Result Between March and November 2022, 52 SCD patients were included, 70 (68‐73) years of age, 73.1% (n = 38) women. The median SCD‐patient and SCD‐informant scale was 8.5 (7 ‐ 9.25) and 5 (3 ‐ 7.25), respectively. The minority (20, 38.5%) of the informants agreed with the patients' cognitive complaints. The patients had a median of 3 (2 ‐ 4) SCD‐plus criteria, mainly age at onset of SCD ≥ 60 years‐old (16, 80%) and concerns associated with SCD (15, 75%) (Table 1). The SCD‐patient scale correlated negatively with patient age (rho = ‐ 0.362; p‐value = 0.008) and the SCD‐informant scale correlated negatively with patient education (rho = ‐ 0.349; p‐value = 0.01). In the linear regression analysis, the SCD‐informant scale was associated with the patient’s black race and education (p = 0.00141) (Table 2). Conclusion In the ongoing BRASCODE cohort, the preliminary baseline analysis showed that most informants did not agree with the patients complaints, but education and race seem to influence the informant’s complaints. The increase in the sample size, AD biomarkers analysis, and follow‐up may bring valuable information about the relationship between patient’s and informant’s complaints.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.