Dyadic patterns of subjective cognitive decline relate to Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers differently in preclinical and prodromal clinical states

Michelle L Houston,Panpan Zhang,Dandan Liu,Timothy J. Hohman,Kaj Blennow,Henrik Zetterberg,Angela L. Jefferson,Katherine A. Gifford

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.075637

2023-12-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) may provide an early indicator of evolving neurodegenerative disease. Dyadic SCD patterns, or understanding the self/patient’s in relation to an informant/loved one’s endorsement of SCD, may more accurately reflect underlying Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology in particular. We related dyadic discrepancies in SCD to markers of core AD pathology, including amyloid‐β 42 (Aβ 42 ) and phosphorylated tau (p‐tau). Method Vanderbilt Memory and Aging Project participants free of clinical dementia [n = 150, 72±7years, 37% mild cognitive impairment (MCI)] and their informants completed the Everyday Cognition questionnaire. Dyadic discrepancy (self‐reported score minus informant‐reported score) was calculated. Positive scores indicate self>informant SCD and negative scores indicate informant>self SCD. Participants also underwent fasting lumbar puncture to obtain cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) for quantification of Aβ 42 and p‐tau. Linear mixed‐effects regression models related dyadic score to individual CSF biomarkers adjusting for age, sex, self‐reported race/ethnicity, cognitive status, apolipoprotein E‐ ε4 status (positive, negative), and depression symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale) with false discovery rate (FDR) corrections for multiple comparisons. Models were repeated with a diagnosis x biomarker interaction. Result SCD discrepancy in the negative direction (informant>self‐SCD) was associated with higher CSF p‐tau (β = ‐0.64, pFDRself‐SCD) had lower Aβ 42 levels (β = 5.592, pFDR = 0.02), indicating more cerebral amyloid deposition. The opposite pattern was observed in cognitively unimpaired participants, though findings did not survive FDR correction (β = 1.16, p = 0.03, pFDR = 0.24). Additionally, in MCI participants, negative SCD discrepancy was associated with higher p‐tau levels (β = ‐0.7223, pFDR = 0.02). All significant results survived outlier exclusion. See Figure for details. Conclusion Dyadic SCD discrepancy correlates with AD biomarkers differently in preclinical and prodromal states. In MCI, greater informant‐SCD related to more amyloid and p‐tau deposition, likely due to patient anosognosia and increasing functional changes noted by others. Conversely, in an earlier, preclinical stage before the onset of overt problems, more self‐SCD appears indicative of greater amyloid pathology. Results are consistent with the purported pathological cascade of AD and highlight the relevance of considering dyadic SCD to inform underlying disease.

clinical neurology