This is a preprint.
Informant characteristics are associated with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores in the Alzheimer's Disease patients participating in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set
- PMID: 38559129
- PMCID: PMC10980151
- DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3982448/v1
Informant characteristics are associated with the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores in the Alzheimer's Disease patients participating in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set
Update in
-
Informant characteristics influence Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes scores-based staging of Alzheimer's disease.Nat Aging. 2024 Nov;4(11):1538-1543. doi: 10.1038/s43587-024-00732-x. Epub 2024 Oct 25. Nat Aging. 2024. PMID: 39455890
Abstract
Background: The Clinical Dementia Rating® Sum of Boxes (CDR®-SB) is used to stage dementia severity; it is one of the most common outcome measurements in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) research and clinical trials. The CDR®-SB requires an informant to provide input to stage a patient's dementia severity. The effect of the informant's characteristics on the CDR®-SB is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the informant's sex, relationship to the patient, and frequency of contact on the CDR®-SB scores in patients with Alzheimer's Disease with mild cognitive impairment or dementia included in the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center Uniform Data Set (NACC-UDS).
Methods: We included all participants from the NACC-UDS that had AD as diagnosis, and information about the Mini-Mental State Examination or Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, informant sex, relationship to patient and frequency of contact; we also analyzed the possible interaction between these characteristics on the CDR®-SB as the outcome. We performed a multilevel linear regression analysis.
Results: We included data from 20636 participants, totalling 47727 visits. Patients' age was 74.0 ± 9.4 years and 54.1% were females. Informant characteristics were mean age of 66.2 ± 13.2 years, 69.1% were females, and the relationship to patients was 60.5% spouse or partner, 26.7% children and 12.8% other relation. The CDR®-SB scores were 0.20 higher (CI 95%: 0.11 to 0.29) when the informant was female. When comparing to informant's relationship with the baseline being spouse or partner, the CDR®-SB was 0.39 higher (CI 95%: 0.25 to 0.53) when the informant was the patient's child and 0.18 lower (CI 95%: -0.35 to -0.01) if relationship was other. Regarding the frequency of contact, CDR®-SB scores were 0.38 higher (CI95%: 0.28 to 0.47) when contact was at least once a week, 0.65 higher (CI95%: 0.52 to 0.78) when contact was daily, and 0.57 higher (CI95%: 0.46 to 0.69) when informant was living with the patient, baseline was a frequency of less than once per week. Finally, the interaction between informant relationships other and female patients showed a 0.24 higher CDR®-SB score (CI95%: 0.03 to 0.46).
Conclusions: We found that the CDR®-SB scores are significantly modified by informant characteristics and frequency of contact in the NACC-UDS patients with AD diagnosis. These findings hold clinical significance as informant characteristics ideally should not impact the staging of AD patients, and any such effects could introduce bias into clinical evaluations in clinical trials. Future research endeavours should investigate strategies to address and mitigate the influence of these confounding variables.
References
-
- Morris J. C. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology 43, 2412–2414 (1993). - PubMed
-
- Cedarbaum J. M. et al. Rationale for use of the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes as a primary outcome measure for Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials. Alzheimers Dement. J. Alzheimers Assoc. 9, S45–55 (2013). - PubMed
-
- Ferretti M. T. et al. Sex differences in Alzheimer disease — the gateway to precision medicine. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 14, 457–469 (2018). - PubMed
Publication types
Grants and funding
- P20 AG068053/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066515/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG062421/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066508/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066519/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072973/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066462/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066530/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066509/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P20 AG068077/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066546/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072972/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072979/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P20 AG068082/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072975/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066444/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066507/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072946/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066518/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066511/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- U24 AG072122/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066512/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072978/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG062429/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG062422/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- R01 AG079280/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072977/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG062677/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P20 AG068024/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072958/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG062715/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066506/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066468/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072976/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072947/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072931/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG066514/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
- P30 AG072959/AG/NIA NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
