Abstract
Background: Research on terminal decline has widely documented that cognitive performance steeply declines with nearing death. To date, it is unclear whether these changes are normative, based on pathologies associated with (preclinical) dementia, or both. Objectives: We analyzed heterogeneity in trajectories of terminal cognitive change in Swiss nursing home residents with the objective of examining whether terminal change is normative or whether one or multiple subgroup(s) with relative stability exist. Methods: We performed a longitudinal analysis based on routine assessments with the Resident Assessment Instrument – Minimal Data Set in 341 nursing homes between 1998 and 2014. In sum, we used 143,052 observations from 30,054 residents (69% women, average age at death 87 years) in the last 3 years of life. We analyzed trajectories of the Cognitive Performance Scale (CPS) score with latent class growth curve models and examined sociodemographic factors (age at death, sex, marital status, prior living situation) as well as functional and mental health (Activities of Daily Living Index and Depression Rating Scale) and dementia diagnosis as correlates of group membership. Results: We identified three distinct classes based on longitudinal trajectories of the CPS score. In the first group (transition from no to mild impairment, 27%), cognitive impairment increased with time to death (linear and quadratic), but remained at relatively mild levels at all times. The trajectories of the second group (transition from moderate to severe impairment, 43%) were characterized by linear and quadratic changes across time to death. The trajectories of the third group (severe impairment, 30%) were characterized by the lowest amount of linear increase across all groups and no quadratic increase indicating no accelerated change. Better functional health and absence of a dementia diagnosis predicted less impairment. Fewer depressive symptoms were associated with low as opposed to moderate or severe, but also severe versus moderate impairment. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the majority of residents experience terminal change, with the exception of those at already high levels of impairment. Furthermore, late-life cognitive change is related to functional and mental health.
References
1.
Bäckman L, MacDonald SWS: Death and cognition: synthesis and outlook. Eur Psychol 2006; 11: 224–235.
2.
Hülür G, Infurna FJ, Ram N, Gerstorf D: Cohorts based on decade of death: no evidence for secular trends favoring later cohorts in cognitive aging and terminal decline in the AHEAD study. Psychol Aging 2013; 28: 115–127.
3.
MacDonald SWS, Hultsch DF, Dixon RA: Aging and the shape of cognitive change before death: terminal decline or terminal drop? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2011; 66: 292–301.
4.
Thorvaldsson V, Hofer SM, Johansson B: Ageing and late life terminal decline: a comparison of alternative modeling approaches. Eur Psychol 2006; 11: 196–203.
5.
Wilson RS, Beckett LA, Bienias JL, Evans DA, Bennett DA: Terminal decline in cognitive function. Neurology 2003; 60: 1782–1787.
6.
Batterham PJ, Mackinnon AJ, Christensen H: The effect of education on the onset and rate of terminal decline. Psychol Aging 2011; 26: 339–350.
7.
Hülür G, Ram N, Gerstorf D: Terminal decline of function; in Bengtson VL, Settersten RA Jr (eds): Handbook of Theories of Aging. New York, Springer, 2016, pp 277–300.
8.
Wilson RS, Beck TL, Bienias JL, Bennett DA: Terminal cognitive decline: accelerated loss of cognition in the last years of life. Psychosom Med 2007; 69: 131–137.
9.
Birren JE, Cunningham W: Research on the psychology of aging: principles, concepts, and theory; in Birren JE, Schaie KW (eds): Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985, pp 3–34.
10.
Small BJ, Bäckman L: Time to death and cognitive performance. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1999; 8: 168–172.
11.
Laukka EJ, MacDonald SWS, Bäckman L: Contrasting cognitive trajectories of impending death and preclinical dementia in the very old. Neurology 2006; 66: 833–838.
12.
Laukka EJ, MacDonald SWS, Bäckman L: Terminal-decline effects for select cognitive tasks after controlling for preclinical dementia. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2008; 16: 355–365.
13.
Piccinin AM, Muniz G, Matthews FE, Johansson B: Terminal decline from within- and between-person perspectives, accounting for incident dementia. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2011; 66: 391–401.
14.
Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: “Mini-mental state.” A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198.
15.
Thorvaldsson V, Hofer SM, Berg S, Skoog I, Sacuiu S, Johansson B: Onset of terminal decline in cognitive abilities without dementia. Neurology 2008; 71: 882–887.
16.
Boyle PA, Wilson RS, Yu L, Barr AM, Honer WG, Schneider JA, Bennett D: Much of late life cognitive decline is not due to common neurodegenerative pathologies. Ann Neurol 2013; 74: 478–489.
17.
Yu L, Boyle P, Schneider A, Segawa E, Wilson RS, Leurgans S, Bennet DA: APOE ε4, Alzheimer’s disease pathology, cerebrovascular disease and cognitive change over the years prior to death. Psychol Aging 2013; 28: 1015–1023.
18.
Burns RA, Byles J, Magliano DJ, Mitchell P, Anstey KJ: The utility of estimating population-level trajectories of terminal wellbeing decline within a growth mixture modelling framework. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2015; 50: 479–487.
19.
Marioni RE, Proust-Lima C, Amieva H, Brayne C, Matthews FE, Dartigues JF, Jacqmin-Gadda H: Social activity, cognitive decline and dementia risk: a 20-year prospective cohort study. BMC Public Health 2015; 15: 1089.
20.
Wilkosz PA, Seltman HJ, Devlin B, Weamer EA, Lopez OL, DeKosky ST, Sweet RA: Trajectories of cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr 2010; 22: 281–290.
21.
Zammit AR, Hall CB, Lipton RB, Katz MJ, Muniz-Terrera G: Identification of heterogeneous cognitive subgroups in community-dwelling older adults: a latent class analysis of the Einstein Aging Study. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2018; 24: 511–523.
22.
Masyn KE, Petras H, Liu W: Growth curve models with categorical outcomes; in Bruinsma G, Weisburd D (eds): Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York, Springer, 2014, pp 2013–2025.
23.
Masyn KE: Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling; in Little TD (ed): The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, Volume 2: Statistical Analysis. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp 551–611.
24.
Anliker M, Bartelt B: Resident assessment instrument in Switzerland. History, results and experiences from the application. Z Gerontol Geriatr 2015; 48: 114–120.
25.
Hawes C, Morris JN, Phillips CD, Fries BE, Murphy K, Mor V: Development of the nursing home Resident Assessment Instrument in the USA. Age Ageing 1997; 26(suppl 2): 19–25.
26.
Morris JN, Fries BE, Mehr DR, Hawes C, Phillips C, Mor V, Lipsitz LA: MDS Cognitive Performance Scale. J Gerontol 1994; 49: 174–182.
27.
Hartmeier SL, Sloane PD, Guess HA, Koch GG, Mitchell CM, Phillips CD: Validation of the Minimum Data Set Cognitive Performance Scale: agreement with the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995; 50: 128–133.
28.
Jones K, Perlman CM, Hirdes JP, Scott T: Screening cognitive performance with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Mental Health Cognitive Performance Scale. Can J Psychiatry 2010; 55: 736–740.
29.
Burrows AB, Morris JN, Simon SE, Hirdes JP, Phillips C: Development of a minimum data set-based depression rating scale for use in nursing homes. Age Ageing 2000; 29: 165–172.
30.
Ram N, Grimm KJ: Growth curve modeling and longitudinal factor analysis; in Overton WF, Molenaar PCM, Lerner RM (eds): Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, Volume 1: Theory and Method. Hoboken, Wiley, 2015, pp 758–788.
31.
Lee TK, Wickrama K, O’Neal CW: Application of latent growth curve analysis with categorical responses in social behavioral research. Struct Equ Modeling 2018; 25: 294–306.
32.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO: MPlus User’s Guide, ed 8. Los Angeles, Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017.
33.
Ram N, Grimm KJ: Growth mixture modeling: a method for identifying differences in longitudinal change among unobserved groups. Int J Behav Dev 2009; 33: 565–576.
34.
Wilson RS, Segawa E, Buchman AS, Boyle PA, Hizel LP, Bennett DA: Terminal decline in motor function. Psychol Aging 2012; 27: 998–1007.
35.
Wilson RS, Boyle PA, Segawa E, Yu L, Begeny CT, Anagnos SE, Bennett DA: The influence of cognitive decline on well-being in old age. Psychol Aging 2013; 28: 304–313.
36.
Stern Y: What is cognitive reserve? Theory and research application of the reserve concept. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2002; 8: 448–460.
37.
Stern Y, Albert S, Tang MX, Tsai WY: Rate of memory decline in AD is related to education and occupation: cognitive reserve? Neurology 1999; 53: 1942–1947.
38.
Cadar D, Stehan BCM, Jagger C, Johansson B, Hofer SM, Piccinin AM, Muniz-Terrera G: The role of cognitive reserve on terminal decline: a cross-cohort analysis from two European studies: OCTO-Twin, Sweden, and Newcastle 85+, UK. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2016; 31: 601–610.
39.
Muniz-Terrera G, Minett T, Brayne C, Matthews F: Education associated with a delayed onset of terminal decline. Age Ageing 2013; 43: 26–31.
40.
Thorvaldsson V, Skoog I, Johansson B: IQ as moderator of terminal decline in perceptual and motor speed, spatial, and verbal ability: testing the cognitive reserve hypothesis in a population-based sample followed from age 70 until death. Psychol Aging 2017; 32: 148–157.
41.
Cherubini A, Ruggiero C, Dell’Aquila G, Eusebi P, Gasperini B, Zengarini E, Cerenzia A, Zuliani G, Guaita A, Lattanzio F: Underrecognition and undertreatment of dementia in Italian nursing homes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012; 13: 759.e7–e13.
42.
Lang L, Clifford A, Wei L, Zhang D, Leung D, Augustine G, Danat IM, Zhou W, Copeland JR, Anstey KJ, Chen R: Prevalence and determinants of undetected dementia in the community: a systematic literature review and a meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2017; 7:e011146.
43.
Wicki MT, Riese F: Prevalence of dementia and organization of dementia care in Swiss disability care homes. Disabil Health J 2016; 9: 719–723.
44.
Wellens NI, Flamaing J, Tournoy J, Hanon T, Moons P, Verbeke G, Boonen S, Milisen K: Convergent validity of the Cognitive Performance Scale of the interRAI acute care and the Mini-Mental State Examination. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2013; 21: 636–645.
45.
Bauer DJ: Observations on the use of growth mixture models in psychological research. Multivariate Behav Res 2007; 42: 757–786.
46.
Franco-Marina F, García-González JJ, Wagner-Echeagaray F, Gallo J, Ugalde O, Sánchez-García S, Espinel-Bermúdez C, Juárez-Cedillo T, Rodríguez MA, García-Peña C: The Mini-Mental State Examination revisited: ceiling and floor effects after score adjustment for educational level in an aging Mexican population. Int Psychogeriatr 2010; 22: 72–81.
47.
Spencer RJ, Wendell CR, Giggey PP, Katzel LI, Lefkowitz DM, Siegel EL, Waldstein SR: Psychometric limitations of the Mini-Mental State Examination among nondemented older adults: an evaluation of neurocognitive and magnetic resonance imaging correlates. Exp Aging Res 2013; 39: 382–397.
48.
Muthén B: Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: comment on Bauer and Curran (2003). Psychol Methods 2003; 8: 369–377.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.
