No abstract

Objective: A systemized approach to subjective cognitive complaints (SCCs) in elderly people is needed owing to the high prevalence of such complaints and their impact on the psychosocial well-being of those affected. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the characteristics and effectiveness of intervention programmes that use a neuropsychological approach to target SCCs in cognitively unimpaired older people and that are tested in randomized controlled trials. Methods:The search included a time-unlimited query of Scopus, PsycInfo and Medline, yielding 215 articles, of which only 7 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Results:The number of intervention programmes was very limited (11 interventions), but diverse, with cognitive stimulation, physical exercise, psychoeducation and cognitive restructuring all used to address SCCs. Conclusions: Interventions including only cognitive stimulation were not effective in reducing SCCs, but interventions including cognitive stimulation and psychoeducation, physical exercise, and group sessions and discussions reinforced by the therapist were effective.

BackgroundThe validity of Subjective Cognitive Complaints (SCCs) from dyadic patterns to predict progression to dementia is not yet clear. Some studies suggest that the validity of informant report in predicting dementia increases as cognitive function and awareness of symptoms decline. Our aim was to compare validity of informant and participant reports, and its agreement, to predict progression to MCI and conversion to dementia.MethodA total of 226 participants from the CompAS study were longitudinally assessed (intervals 18–24 months). The sample consisted of SCD (198) and MCI (28) participants. SCCs from participants and informants were assessed at baseline, 1st and 2nd follow‐ups using the QAM questionnaire. Informant‐participant total score agreement (disagreement, over‐ and under‐estimation, were identically considered) were calculated. Logistic regressions were separately performed to distinguish SCD stables and participants progressing either from SCD to MCI/dementia or from MCI to dementia using SCCs reports from participants, informants and agreement as predictive variables.ResultsInformant report at baseline significantly predicted conversion to dementia from baseline to the 3rd follow‐up (β = .173; SE = .048; p<.001; OR = 1.189, CI = 1.082‐1.306), similarly to that observed for informant reports at 1st follow‐up to predict conversion from 1st to the 3rd follow‐up (β = .225; SE = .050; p = .001; OR = 1.252; CI = 1.135‐1.381), and at 2nd follow‐up to predict conversion from 2nd to the 3rd follow‐up (β = .271; SE = .083; p<.001; OR = 1.313; CI = 1.110–1.552) (see Table 1).Informant report at baseline also successfully predicted the progression to MCI from baseline to the 3rd follow‐up (β = .139; SE = .057; p = .017; OR = 1.49; CI = 1.025‐1.288), similarly to that observed for informant reports at 1st (β = .124; SE = .056; p = .026; OR = 1.132; CI = 1.015‐1.264), and the 2nd follow‐ups (β = .195; SE = .073; p = .008; OR = 1.216; CI = 1.053‐1.404) (see Table 2).Conversion to dementia (β = .113; SE = .048; p = .018; OR = 1.119; CI = 1.020‐1.229) and progression to MCI (β = .138; SE = .054; p = .011; OR = 1.148; CI = 1.032‐1.277) using Self‐report were only significantly predicted using 1st follow‐up reports.Agreement did not significantly predict the progression to MCI or dementia at any of measurement points.ConclusionsInformant report successfully predicted progression and conversion at any transition point. Self‐reports were only predictive at 1st follow‐up. Agreement did not significantly predict progression and conversion.

No abstract

Acknowledgements: Not applicable. Conflict of Interest (COI) statement: No conflict of interest to declare IRB protocol/human subjects approval numbers: The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 2017/498) of the Xunta de Galicia (Galician Government, Spain).