Comparison of cognitive performance measures in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY Lupus Science & Medicine Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1136/lupus-2024-001151
Laura Plantinga, Jinoos Yazdany, C Barrett Bowling, Charmayne Dunlop-Thomas, Courtney Hoge, Brad D Pearce, S Sam Lim, Patricia Katz
{"title":"Comparison of cognitive performance measures in individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus","authors":"Laura Plantinga, Jinoos Yazdany, C Barrett Bowling, Charmayne Dunlop-Thomas, Courtney Hoge, Brad D Pearce, S Sam Lim, Patricia Katz","doi":"10.1136/lupus-2024-001151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Cognitive impairment is a common complaint in SLE, but approaches to measuring cognitive performance objectively vary. Leveraging data collected in a population-based cohort of individuals with validated SLE, we compared performance and potential impairment across multiple measures of cognition. Methods During a single study visit (October 2019–May 2022), times to complete the Trail Making Test B (TMTB; N=423) were recorded; potential impairment was defined as an age-corrected and education-corrected T-score <35 (>1.5 SD longer than the normative time). A clock drawing assessment (CLOX; N=435) with two parts (free clock draw (CLOX1) and copy (CLOX2)) was also performed (score range: 0–15; higher scores=better performance); potential impairment was defined as CLOX1 <10 or CLOX2 <12. Fluid cognition (N=199; in-person visits only) was measured via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery and expressed as age-corrected standard scores; potential impairment was defined by a score <77.5 (>1.5 SD lower the normative score). Results Participants (mean age 46 years; 92% female; 82% black) had a median (IQR) TMTB time of 96 (76–130) s; median (IQR) CLOX1 and CLOX2 scores of 12 (10–13) and 14 (13–15); and a mean (SD) fluid cognition standard score of 87.2 (15.6). TMTB time and fluid cognition score (ρ=−0.53, p<0.001) were the most highly intercorrelated measures. Overall, 65%, 55% and 28% were potentially impaired by the TMTB test, CLOX task and NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery, respectively. While there was overlap in potential impairment between TMTB and CLOX, more than half (58%) had impairment by only one of these assessments. Few (2%) had impairment in fluid cognition only. Conclusion The TMTB, CLOX and NIH Fluid Cognition Battery each provided unique and potentially important information about cognitive performance in our SLE cohort. Future studies are needed to validate these measures in SLE and explore interventions that maintain or improve cognitive performance in this population. Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified data will be made available per NIH requirements when funding is complete.","PeriodicalId":18126,"journal":{"name":"Lupus Science & Medicine","volume":"128 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lupus Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2024-001151","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Cognitive impairment is a common complaint in SLE, but approaches to measuring cognitive performance objectively vary. Leveraging data collected in a population-based cohort of individuals with validated SLE, we compared performance and potential impairment across multiple measures of cognition. Methods During a single study visit (October 2019–May 2022), times to complete the Trail Making Test B (TMTB; N=423) were recorded; potential impairment was defined as an age-corrected and education-corrected T-score <35 (>1.5 SD longer than the normative time). A clock drawing assessment (CLOX; N=435) with two parts (free clock draw (CLOX1) and copy (CLOX2)) was also performed (score range: 0–15; higher scores=better performance); potential impairment was defined as CLOX1 <10 or CLOX2 <12. Fluid cognition (N=199; in-person visits only) was measured via the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery and expressed as age-corrected standard scores; potential impairment was defined by a score <77.5 (>1.5 SD lower the normative score). Results Participants (mean age 46 years; 92% female; 82% black) had a median (IQR) TMTB time of 96 (76–130) s; median (IQR) CLOX1 and CLOX2 scores of 12 (10–13) and 14 (13–15); and a mean (SD) fluid cognition standard score of 87.2 (15.6). TMTB time and fluid cognition score (ρ=−0.53, p<0.001) were the most highly intercorrelated measures. Overall, 65%, 55% and 28% were potentially impaired by the TMTB test, CLOX task and NIH Toolbox Fluid Cognition Battery, respectively. While there was overlap in potential impairment between TMTB and CLOX, more than half (58%) had impairment by only one of these assessments. Few (2%) had impairment in fluid cognition only. Conclusion The TMTB, CLOX and NIH Fluid Cognition Battery each provided unique and potentially important information about cognitive performance in our SLE cohort. Future studies are needed to validate these measures in SLE and explore interventions that maintain or improve cognitive performance in this population. Data are available upon reasonable request. De-identified data will be made available per NIH requirements when funding is complete.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统性红斑狼疮患者的认知能力测量比较
客观认知障碍是系统性红斑狼疮患者的常见症状,但客观测量认知能力的方法各不相同。我们利用在基于人群的系统性红斑狼疮患者队列中收集到的数据,比较了多种认知测量指标的表现和潜在损伤。方法 在单次研究访问期间(2019 年 10 月至 2022 年 5 月),记录完成路径制作测试 B(TMTB;N=423)的时间;潜在损伤定义为经年龄校正和教育校正后的 T 分数比常模时间长 1.5 SD)。此外,还进行了时钟绘制评估(CLOX;N=435),包括两个部分(自由绘制时钟(CLOX1)和复制时钟(CLOX2))(评分范围:0-15;分数越高=表现越好);潜在障碍定义为 CLOX1 比常模分数低 1.5 SD)。结果 参与者(平均年龄 46 岁;92% 为女性;82% 为黑人)的 TMTB 时间中位数(IQR)为 96(76-130)秒;CLOX1 和 CLOX2 的得分中位数(IQR)分别为 12(10-13)分和 14(13-15)分;流体认知标准分数的平均值(SD)为 87.2(15.6)分。TMTB 时间和流体认知得分(ρ=-0.53,p<0.001)是相互关联度最高的测量指标。总体而言,在 TMTB 测试、CLOX 任务和 NIH 工具箱流体认知测试中,分别有 65%、55% 和 28% 的人存在潜在障碍。虽然 TMTB 和 CLOX 之间的潜在障碍存在重叠,但超过半数(58%)的人只在其中一项评估中存在障碍。只有极少数人(2%)仅在流体认知方面存在障碍。结论 TMTB、CLOX 和 NIH 流体认知电池都提供了有关系统性红斑狼疮队列认知表现的独特且潜在的重要信息。未来的研究需要验证这些测量方法在系统性红斑狼疮中的有效性,并探索在这一人群中保持或改善认知能力的干预措施。如有合理要求,可提供相关数据。根据美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的要求,在资助完成后将提供去身份化的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Lupus Science & Medicine
Lupus Science & Medicine RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Lupus Science & Medicine is a global, peer reviewed, open access online journal that provides a central point for publication of basic, clinical, translational, and epidemiological studies of all aspects of lupus and related diseases. It is the first lupus-specific open access journal in the world and was developed in response to the need for a barrier-free forum for publication of groundbreaking studies in lupus. The journal publishes research on lupus from fields including, but not limited to: rheumatology, dermatology, nephrology, immunology, pediatrics, cardiology, hepatology, pulmonology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychiatry.
期刊最新文献
Comparison of a voclosporin-based triple immunosuppressive therapy to high-dose glucocorticoid-based immunosuppressive therapy: a propensity analysis of the AURA-LV and AURORA 1 studies and ALMS. Using photovoice to investigate patient experiences of lupus nephritis in Canada. Effect of hydroxychloroquine on pregnancy outcome in patients with SLE: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Improving routine mental health screening for depression and anxiety in a paediatric lupus clinic: a quality improvement initiative for enhanced mental healthcare. Validating claims-based algorithms for a systemic lupus erythematosus diagnosis in Medicare data for informed use of the Lupus Index: a tool for geospatial research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1