Objective

Identifying individuals at risk for cognitive decline, Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), and dementia due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a critical need. Functional decline is associated with risk and can be efficiently assessed by participants and study partners (SPs). We tested the hypothesis that SP-reported functional decline is an independent predictor of dementia risk and cognitive decline.

Methods

In 1048 older adults in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), we measured associations between Everyday Cognition Scale scores (ECog, self- and SP-reported versions) and (1) baseline and longitudinal change in neuropsychological test (NPT scores) across multiple cognitive domains; (2) diagnostic conversion to MCI or dementia. Models included Mini Mental Status Exam (MMSE) score and ApoE ε4 genotype (APOE) as predictors. Model fits were compared with and without predictors of interest included.

Results

SP-reported ECog was the strongest predictor of cognitive decline across multiple domains, as well as diagnostic conversion. Self-reported ECog was associated with baseline NPT scores in some cognitive domains, and diagnostic conversion to MCI in participants with biomarker evidence for AD (elevated brain β-amyloid, Aβ). Models including SP-reported ECog were significantly stronger at predicting outcomes.

Conclusions

SP-reported functional decline is an independent indicator of cognitive decline and dementia risk, even when accounting for cognitive screening, genetic risk, demographics, and self-report decline. The results provide a rationale for greater utilization of SP-reported functional decline to identify those at risk for dementia due to AD and other causes.

Introduction

This study aimed to understand whether older adults' longitudinal completion of assessments in an online Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD)-related registry is influenced by self-reported medical conditions.

Methods

Brain Health Registry (BHR) is an online cognitive aging and ADRD-related research registry that includes longitudinal health and cognitive assessments. Using logistic regressions, we examined associations between longitudinal registry completion outcomes and self-reported (1) number of medical conditions and (2) eight defined medical condition groups (cardiovascular, metabolic, immune system, ADRD, current psychiatric, substance use/abuse, acquired, other specified conditions) in adults aged 55+ (N = 23,888). Longitudinal registry completion outcomes were assessed by the completion of the BHR initial questionnaire (first questionnaire participants see at each visit) at least twice and completion of a cognitive assessment (Cogstate Brief Battery) at least twice. Models included ethnocultural identity, education, age, and subjective memory concern as covariates.

Results

We found that the likelihood of longitudinally completing the initial questionnaire was negatively associated with reporting a diagnosis of ADRD and current psychiatric conditions but was positively associated with reporting substance use/abuse and acquired medical conditions. The likelihood of longitudinally completing the cognitive assessment task was negatively associated with number of reported medical conditions, as well as with reporting cardiovascular conditions, ADRD, and current psychiatric conditions. Previously identified associations between ethnocultural identity and longitudinal assessment completion in BHR remained after accounting for the presence of medical conditions.

Discussion

This post hoc analysis provides novel, initial evidence that older adults' completion of longitudinal assessments in an online registry is associated with the number and types of participant-reported medical conditions. Our findings can inform future efforts to make online studies with longitudinal health and cognitive assessments more usable for older adults with medical conditions. The results need to be interpreted with caution due to selection biases, and the under-inclusion of minoritized communities.

Background

Treatment for hoarding disorder is typically performed by mental health professionals, potentially limiting access to care in underserved areas.

Aims

We aimed to conduct a non-inferiority trial of group peer-facilitated therapy (G-PFT) and group psychologist-led cognitive-behavioural therapy (G-CBT).

Method

We randomised 323 adults with hording disorder 15 weeks of G-PFT or 16 weeks of G-CBT and assessed at baseline, post-treatment and longitudinally (≥3 months post-treatment: mean 14.4 months, range 3-25). Predictors of treatment response were examined.

Results

G-PFT (effect size 1.20) was as effective as G-CBT (effect size 1.21; between-group difference 1.82 points, t = -1.71, d.f. = 245, P = 0.04). More homework completion and ongoing help from family and friends resulted in lower severity scores at longitudinal follow-up (t = 2.79, d.f. = 175, P = 0.006; t = 2.89, d.f. = 175, P = 0.004).

Conclusions

Peer-led groups were as effective as psychologist-led groups, providing a novel treatment avenue for individuals without access to mental health professionals.

Declaration of interest

C.A.M. has received grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and travel reimbursement and speakers' honoraria from the Tourette Association of America (TAA), as well as honoraria and travel reimbursement from the NIH for serving as an NIH Study Section reviewer. K.D. receives research support from the NIH and honoraria and travel reimbursement from the NIH for serving as an NIH Study Section reviewer. R.S.M. receives research support from the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Aging, the Hillblom Foundation, Janssen Pharmaceuticals (research grant) and the Alzheimer's Association. R.S.M. has also received travel support from the National Institute of Mental Health for Workshop participation. J.Y.T. receives research support from the NIH, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the California Tobacco Related Research Program, and honoraria and travel reimbursement from the NIH for serving as an NIH Study Section reviewer. All other authors report no conflicts of interest.