Prevalence of Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936

Identification of MCI

Using data previously collected in the LBC1936, an algorithm was created which identifies participants who fulfil the MCI criteria as outlined by the NIA-AA workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease.⁹ Variables necessary to conduct MCI coding were collected from Wave 3 (age 76) onwards. In order to be classified in the MCI category, participants must have shown met all four criteria reported below:

1. Concern regarding a change in cognition: Self-reported memory problems that are interfering with their life, as recorded in a questionnaire at each wave.

2. Impairment in one or more cognitive domains: Scores at least 1.5 SD below the mean on at least one cognitive domain (memory, executive function, attention, language, or visuospatial skills) AND either shows a decline from the previous wave to below the 10th percentile on one test, a decline from wave 1 to below the 20^th percentile on one test, or a decline from the previous wave to below the 20th percentile on two tests.

3. Preservation of independence in functional abilities: Scores at least 1.5 SD below the mean on the Townsend’s Disability Scale overall score.¹⁶

4. No diagnosis of dementia: Does not self-report or have a formal diagnosis of dementia AND scores at least 24 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).¹⁷

Cognitive domains were assessed using the following cognitive tests

Symbol Search, Digit Symbol Coding, Matrix Reasoning, Letter-Number Sequencing, and Block Design from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale III (WAIS) and Logical Memory I & II from the Wechsler Memory Scale III (WMS-III).¹⁸ A cut-off of ≥1.5 SD below the mean or scoring below specific percentiles was used to indicate cognitive impairment. Two versions of the cognitive impairment criterion were conducted using the means and standard deviations of individual tests from (1) the LBC1936 sample at each wave and (2) a more representative UK sample provided by the WAIS-III-WMS-III technical manual.¹⁸ Preliminary comparisons showed that fewer participants were identified as having MCI using the general population norms, likely due to the higher rates of overall healthiness in the LBC1936.¹³ Therefore, the definition using UK normative data were used here as they were more reflective of the general population.

We also coded two subtypes of MCI

Amnestic MCI (aMCI) and Non-amnestic MCI (naMCI). Creation of these subtypes followed the same procedure as for the general MCI, however aMCI was only identified if the participant showed impairment in the memory domain. Similarly, classification for naMCI was met if the participant showed impairment in cognitive domains other than memory (executive function, attention, language, or visuospatial skills).

Covariates

We examined the association between a range of covariates and MCI status. Covariates included: age, sex, years of education, age 11 cognitive function, body mass index (BMI; calculated in the standard way of kg/m²), occupational social class (professional/managerial/skilled, non-manual/skilled manual or semiskilled/unskilled), APOE ε4 status (allele present/absent), self-reported history of cardiovascular disease, self-reported history of stroke, depression, and physical frailty level (not frail/pre-frail/frail). Physical frailty was derived using the Fried Phenotype guidelines¹⁹, for information on how this was calculated in LBC1936 see Welstead, Muniz-Terrera, Russ, et al. ²⁰. Depression was measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS).²¹ Age 11 cognitive function was based on LBC1936 participant’s scores on the Moray House Test (MHT) at age 11²²; for more detail see Taylor, Pattie, Deary ¹³. To adjust for age in days at time of testing, MHT11 scores were residualised for age at 11 years.

Statistical Analysis

Three participants had been diagnosed with dementia before age 76 (wave 3) by the LBC1936 study doctor and were excluded, leaving 694 participants at that wave. Additionally, since a wide variety of variables were required in order to derive an MCI coding, missing data at each wave meant that some participants were excluded from analyses (wave 3; n=127, wave 4; n=106, wave 5; n=87). Accordingly, MCI status was coded for 567 participants at wave 3 (age 76), 441 at wave 4 (age 79), and 341 at wave 5 (age 82). Descriptive analyses including number and percentages of people with MCI were used to characterise the study sample. Linear Model ANOVAs and Pearson’s Chi-squared tests were used to assess characteristics associated with MCI and Non-MCI participants. All statistical analyses were conducted in R Version 3.6.1.²³

MCI subtypes

We also derived two subtypes of MCI: aMCI and naMCI. As reported in Figure 2, proportions of aMCI remained fairly low across follow-up from 4% at wave 3 (n=24/604), to 4% at wave 4 (n=21/484), and 6% at wave 5 (n=24/376). Prevalence of naMCI was higher and showed a gradual proportional increase over follow-up from 12% at wave 3 (n=73/609), to 14% at wave 4 (n=63/466), and 16% at wave 5 (n=56/361).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Comparisons of aMCI vs Non-aMCI rates in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 study across waves

Normative data comparisons

We compared whether MCI rates were sensitive to the use of different normative data. Comparisons were made between MCI rates when using normative data based on the LBC1936 and a UK-wide sample to derive the identification of MCI. As might be expected with a healthy cohort, at all waves there were higher proportions of MCI when using the LBC1936 norms compared to the UK based norms. Supplementary figure 1 reports MCI rates at each wave according to the LBC1936 normative data.

Comparison with other literature

We observed higher rates of MCI in men, albeit not at a statistically significant level, a finding that is consistent with some previous research^24,25, but not all.^26,27 As discussed by Xue, Li, Liang, Chen ²⁷, sex differences in MCI research are inconsistent and may differ according to alternate methods of deriving MCI. Importantly, the assessment of day-to-day function in men and women presents different challenges, and perhaps surprisingly, there were minimal significant associations between groups of individuals defined by key features. At two of the time points APOE ε4 status was associated with having MCI, a finding which has been consistently found in previous MCI research and is also strongly linked to the risk of progression to dementia.²⁸ The only other characteristic associated with MCI change was having a history of stroke, again somewhat unsurprising given the extensive evidence that stroke patients have higher risk for developing of MCI and dementia.²⁹ The lack of significant association between these factors and MCI status at wave 4 is unexpected and not readily explained. However, it may be related to attrition or other factors leading to sample differences at wave 4; the proportion of participants with MCI who had an APOE ε4 allele present or a history of stroke was lower at wave 4 than waves 3 or 5.

As expected, findings also showed an increase in proportion of participants with MCI at wave 5 compared to wave 3. The rates of MCI we find are consistent with previous research using the same MCI coding guidelines which reports an average prevalence of 14.8% for 70-75 year olds.³⁰ The rates of two subtypes of MCI – aMCI and naMCI – were in partial agreement with previous literature. Some previous research¹⁰ has found rates of around 3-4% of both aMCI and naMCI in older populations, whilst others have found 11% for aMCI and 5% prevalence for naMCI.²⁶ Thus, whilst the aMCI results are expected, the rates of naMCI in the LBC1936 are higher than anticipated. Higher rates of naMCI than aMCI may indicate that participants of the LBC1936 are more prone to non-amnestic cognitive impairment in areas such as language, visual-spatial skills, attention, or executive functioning. Another possibility is that the salient memory problems associated with aMCI may make participants more likely to withdraw from the study, whereas the cognitive problems associated with naMCI (executive function, attention, language, or visuospatial skills) may more often go unnoticed by the participant. However, it is also important to note that making comparisons between our proportions of aMCI and naMCI cannot be done entirely accurately given that cases of missing data differed between them.

Limitations and Strengths

LBC1936’s rates of high physical health and cognitive ability is well documented^13,15, and highlights a limitation of this study: our sample is less representative of the general population who likely have higher rates of MCI. An additional limitation that affects the accuracy of our results was that there was a relatively small number of participants who were identified as having aMCI, which introduces an element of uncertainty into our results. For the participants who withdrew from the study, we did not have systematic information on their reason for dropping out. It is likely that at least some of these participants dropped out due to MCI or dementia, and accordingly we were unable to consider these cases in our analyses. Related to this, other than three cases in which we had confirmation from the LBC1936 study doctor, we relied primarily on the self-reporting of dementia diagnoses for part of the MCI criteria. This could have introduced bias if additional participants had a dementia diagnosis but did not report it. Whilst self-reporting is used extensively in epidemiological studies and biases are usually insignificant³¹, given the nature of dementia, using these measures may have introduced inaccuracies. Current work is being undertaken in the LBC1936 to ascertain dementia status for every participant and so future research will be able to revisit this.

The strengths of this study are our use of data collected at multiple time points over the course of approximately six years in a well-characterised longitudinal cohort study. Using more than one time point gives us better insight into how MCI proportions change over time in the LBC1936. An additional strength is that we derived and compared an MCI coding using normative cognitive data from the LBC1936 sample and the UK wide norms. By doing so, we were able to assess the extent to which the LBC1936 data are representative of the wider population. As anticipated, MCI rates were higher at all waves when using the LBC1936 norms, presumably due to an overestimation caused by the higher rates of healthiness found in the LBC1936 when compared to the general population. Deriving MCI using the cohort’s own normative data will cause the cognitive impairment cut-off points to be more lenient than using normative data from the UK population as we see in our results.

Implications

Our findings have added to the current literature by providing information on the prevalence of MCI in a prominent longitudinal cohort study, reinforcing findings found in similar cohorts. The identification of individuals with MCI in the LBC1936 and their comparison with findings in similar cohorts provides opportunities for future research to further explore MCI in this cohort. In particular, utilising the wealth of longitudinal data in the LBC1936 could prove insightful. MCI has been shown to be relatively fluid over time with both declines and reversions being common^32-34. Accordingly, understanding this fluidity and the predictive factors associated with MCI change will be insightful for future interventions and prevention strategies that aim to lower the risk of MCI developing and progressing.