The characterisation of subjective cognitive decline

A growing awareness about brain health and Alzheimer's disease in the general population is leading to an increasing number of cognitively unimpaired individuals, who are concerned that they have reduced cognitive function, to approach the medical system for help. The term subjective cognitive decline (SCD) was conceived in 2014 to describe this condition. Epidemiological data provide evidence that the risk for mild cognitive impairment and dementia is increased in individuals with SCD. However, the majority of individuals with SCD will not show progressive cognitive decline. An individually tailored diagnostic process might be reasonable to identify or exclude underlying medical conditions in an individual with SCD who actively seeks medical help. An increasing number of studies are investigating the link between SCD and the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease and other neurodegenerative diseases

A COMBINED MEASURE OF COGNITION AND FUNCTION FOR CLINICAL TRIALS: THE INTEGRATED ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE RATING SCALE (IADRS)

It is generally recognized that more sensitive instruments for the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are needed. The integrated Alzheimer’s Disease Rating Scale (iADRS) combines scores from 2 widely accepted measures, the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study – instrumental Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-iADL). Disease progression and treatment differences as measured by the iADRS were analyzed using data from solanezumab EXPEDITION, EXPEDITION2, and EXPEDITION-EXT Studies; semagacestat IDENTITY Study; and donepezil ADCS – mild cognitive impairment (ADCS-MCI) Study. Psychometric properties of the iADRS were established through principal component analysis (PCA) and estimation of contributions of subscores and individual item scores to the iADRS total score. The iADRS performed better than most composites and scales in detecting disease progression and comparably or better than individual scales in detecting treatment differences. PCA demonstrated the iADRS can be divided into two principal components primarily representing cognitive items and instrumental ADLs. Dynamic ranges of the subscales were similar across all studies, reflecting approximately equal contributions from both subscales to the iADRS total score. In item analyses, every item contributed to the total score, with varying strength of contributions by item and across data sets. The iADRS demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and was effective in capturing disease progression from MCI through moderate AD and treatment effects across the early disease spectrum. These findings suggest the iADRS can be used in studies of mixed populations, ensuring sensitivity to treatment effects as subjects progress during studies of putative disease-modifying agents

Subjective Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: An Overview of Self-Report Measures Used Across 19 International Research Studies

Research increasingly suggests that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in older adults, in the absence of objective cognitive dysfunction or depression, may be a harbinger of non-normative cognitive decline and eventual progression to dementia. Little is known, however, about the key features of self-report measures currently used to assess SCD. The Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD-I) Working Group is an international consortium established to develop a conceptual framework and research criteria for SCD (Jessen et al., 2014, Alzheimers Dement 10, 844-852). In the current study we systematically compared cognitive self-report items used by 19 SCD-I Working Group studies, representing 8 countries and 5 languages. We identified 34 self-report measures comprising 640 cognitive self-report items. There was little overlap among measures- approximately 75% of measures were used by only one study. Wide variation existed in response options and item content. Items pertaining to the memory domain predominated, accounting for about 60% of items surveyed, followed by executive function and attention, with 16% and 11% of the items, respectively. Items relating to memory for the names of people and the placement of common objects were represented on the greatest percentage of measures (56% each). Working group members reported that instrument selection decisions were often based on practical considerations beyond the study of SCD specifically, such as availability and brevity of measures. Results document the heterogeneity of approaches across studies to the emerging construct of SCD. We offer preliminary recommendations for instrument selection and future research directions including identifying items and measure formats associated with important clinical outcome

Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI): development and validation of a patient reported assessment of severity of gastroparesis symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Patient-rated symptom assessments are needed for evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments and for monitoring outcomes in gastroparesis. OBJECTIVE: This paper summarizes the development and psychometric evaluation of a new instrument, the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI), for assessing severity of symptoms associated with gastroparesis. METHODS: The GCSI was based on reviews of the medical literature, patient focus groups, and interviews with clinicians. A sample of 169 patients with a documented diagnosis of gastroparesis participated in the psychometric evaluation study. Patients completed the GCSI, the SF-36 Health Survey, and disability days questions at baseline and after 8 weeks. A randomly selected sub-sample of 30 subjects returned at 2 weeks to assess test retest reliability. Clinicians rated severity of symptoms, and both clinicians and patients rated change in gastroparesis-related symptoms over the 8 week study. RESULTS: The GCSI is based on three subscales: post-prandial fullness/early satiety (4 items); nausea/vomiting (3 items), and bloating (2 items). Internal consistency reliability was 0.84 for the GCSI total score and ranged from 0.83 to 0.85 for the subscale scores. Two week test retest reliability was 0.76 for the total score and ranged from 0.68 to 0.81 for subscale scores. Construct validity was supported, given that we observed significant relationships between clinician assessed symptom severity and GCSI total score, significant differences between gastroparesis and dyspepsia patients (n = 760) on GCSI total (p < 0.0001) and subscale scores (p < 0.03 to p < 0.0001), moderate and significant relationships between GCSI total and SF-36 scores, and significant associations between GCSI total score and reports of restricted activity and bed disability days. Patients with greater symptom severity, as rated by clinicians, reported more symptom severity on GCSI total score. GSCI total scores were responsive to changes in overall gastroparesis symptoms as assessed by clinicians (p < 0.0001) and patients (p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study indicate that the GCSI is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring symptom severity in patients with gastroparesis

Development and psychometric evaluation of the patient assessment of upper gastrointestinal symptom severity index (PAGI-SYM) in patients with upper gastrointestinal disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the development and evaluation of a new self-report instrument, the patient assessment of upper gastrointestinal disorders-symptom severity index (PAGI-SYM) in subjects with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, or gastroparesis. METHODS: Recruited subjects with GERD (n=810), dyspepsia (n = 767), or gastroparesis (n = 169) from the US, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland. Subjects completed the PAGI-SYM, SF-36, a disease-specific HRQL measure (PAGI-QOL), and disability day questions. Two-week reproducibility was evaluated in 277 stable subjects. We evaluated construct validity by correlating subscale scores with SF-36, PAGI-QOL, disability days, and global symptom severity scores. RESULTS: The final 20-item PAGI-SYM has six subscales: heartburn/regurgitation, fullness/early satiety, nausea/vomiting, bloating, upper abdominal pain, and lower abdominal pain. Internal consistency reliability was good (alpha = 0.79-0.91); test-retest reliability was acceptable (Intraclass correlation coefficients alpha=0.60-0.82). PAGI-SYM subscale scores correlated significantly with SF-36 scores (all p < 0.0001), PAGI-QOL scores (all p < 0.0001), disability days (p < 0.0001), and global symptom severity (p < 0.0001). Mean PAGI-SYM scores varied significantly in groups defined by disability days (all p < 0.0001), where greater symptom severity was associated with more disability days. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the PAGI-SYM, a brief symptom severity instrument, has good reliability and evidence supporting construct validity in subjects with GERD, dyspepsia, or gastroparesis

Responsiveness and interpretation of a symptom severity index specific to upper gastrointestinal disorders.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Determining clinically meaningful change of patient-reported outcome measures is important for evaluating effectiveness of treatments for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases. This study evaluates responsiveness of the Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index (PAGI-SYM) in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyspepsia. METHODS: The PAGI-SYM was based on a review of the published literature and interviews with patients and clinicians. Items were developed to be linguistically and culturally appropriate for multicountry studies. The PAGI-SYM includes 6 subscales: heartburn/regurgitation, fullness/early satiety, nausea/vomiting, bloating, upper abdominal pain, and lower abdominal pain. Subjects with GERD (n = 810) or dyspepsia (n = 767) participated in this multicountry, observational study. All subjects completed the PAGI-SYM, a global symptom relief questionnaire, and a measure of patient-rated change in GI-related symptoms, the Overall Treatment Effect (OTE) scale. Responsiveness was evaluated at 8 weeks by comparing groups by disease, symptom relief, and OTE (improved, stable, and worsened). RESULTS: Subjects reporting symptom relief reported significantly lower (better) PAGI-SYM scores than those reporting no symptom relief ( P < 0.0001 to P < 0.0005). Subjects with improvements in overall GI symptoms exhibited significant decreases in PAGI-SYM subscale scores compared with those who remained the same or worsened (all P values < 0.0001). Effect sizes ranged from 0.21-1.28, and standard errors of measurement ranged from 0.29-0.63, depending on subscale and disease sample. CONCLUSIONS: The PAGI-SYM is a brief symptom severity instrument that measures common GI symptoms. Results suggest that the PAGI-SYM is responsive and sensitive to change in clinical status in subjects with GERD or dyspepsia

Cross-cultural development and validation of a patient self-administered questionnaire to assess quality of life in upper gastrointestinal disorders: the PAGI-QOL.

OBJECTIVE: Summarize the Patient Assessment of Upper GastroIntestinal Disorders-Quality of Life (PAGI-QOL) development and provide results on its reliability and validity from the international psychometric validation in dyspepsia, GastroEsophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), and gastroparesis. METHODS: Subjects completed the pilot PAGI-QOL at baseline and 8 weeks; and a subsample also at 2 weeks. Other assessments were: Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Symptom Severity Index, SF-36, number of disability days. RESULTS: 1736 patients completed the PAGI-QOL at baseline. The questionnaire was reduced, producing a 30-item final version covering five domains: Daily Activities, Clothing, Diet and Food Habits, Relationship (REL), and Psychological Well-Being and Distress. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha range: 0.83-0.96). Test-retest reproducibility was good: intraclass correlations coefficients were over 0.70 except for the REL scale (0.61). Concurrent validity between the PAGI-QOL total score and all SF-36 subscale scores was good with moderate (0.52) to strong (0.72) correlations. PAGI-QOL scores showed excellent discriminant properties: patients who had spent some days in bed, had missed some days at work, and were kept from usual activities had much lower PAGI-QOL scores than those who did not (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The PAGI-QOL is a valid and reliable instrument assessing quality of life in patients with dyspepsia, GERD, or gastroparesis

Responsiveness and interpretation of a quality of life questionnaire specific to upper gastrointestinal disorders.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Patient Assessment of Upper Gastrointestinal Disorders-Quality of Life (PAGI-QOL) has been developed and validated to assess quality of life in gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspepsia, and gastroparesis. The aim of this work was to assess responsiveness of the PAGI-QOL to clinical changes and provide guidance for the interpretation of score changes. METHODS: The analysis was based on 2 observational multicenter, longitudinal, 8-week observation studies, one in the United States and one in 5 European countries. The Overall Treatment Effect scale completed by patients and clinicians at 8 weeks was used to define groups of improved, worsened, and stable patients. Responsiveness was assessed by describing the change in PAGI-QOL scores for each of these groups, comparing these changes over time, and calculating effect sizes and standardized response means. These data were used to define the minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: A total of 1736 patients with upper gastrointestinal disorders were analyzed. High sensitivity to change over time was demonstrated, with effect sizes and standardized response means in improved patients for the PAGI-QOL total score ranging from 0.79-1.41. A change of 0.4 for the PAGI-QOL total score might be considered as the minimal clinically important difference when comparing pretreatment and post-treatment PAGI-QOL total scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PAGI-QOL questionnaire is a responsive and clinically relevant instrument for assessing quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal disorders

Prevalence and socioeconomic impact of upper gastrointestinal disorders in the United States: results of the US Upper Gastrointestinal Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study examined the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and symptom groupings and determined impact on disability days in a nationally representative US sample. METHODS: A telephone survey of 21,128 adults was conducted including questions about the presence of upper GI symptoms during the past 3 months. Respondents were categorized as symptomatic (ie, reported GI symptoms once per month) or asymptomatic. The survey included questions about missed work, leisure activity, or household activity days. Symptom groupings were identified by using factor analysis, and cluster analysis was used to assign respondents into distinct groups on the basis of these symptom groupings. RESULTS: The prevalence of an average of 1 or more upper GI symptoms during the past 3 months was 44.9%. The most common symptoms experienced during the past 3 months were early satiety, heartburn, and postprandial fullness. Factor analysis identified 4 symptom groupings: (1) heartburn/regurgitation; (2) nausea/vomiting; (3) bloating/abdominal pain; and (4) early satiety/loss of appetite. Five respondent clusters were identified; the largest clusters were primarily early satiety/fullness (44%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease-like symptoms (28%). Two small clusters reflected nausea and vomiting (7%) and a heterogeneous symptom profile (4%). Symptomatic respondents reported significantly more missed work, leisure, and household activity days than asymptomatic respondents (all P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Factor analysis separated GI symptoms into groupings reflecting gastroesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia: early satiety, postprandial fullness, and loss of appetite; bloating and abdominal pain/discomfort; and nausea and vomiting. These upper GI symptoms were associated with significant loss of work and activity days