Cognitive impairment in people with multiple sclerosis: Perception vs. performance – factors that drive perception of impairment differ for patients and clinicians

Abstract

BackgroundNeurologists’ perceptions of the presence of cognitive impairment (CI) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) may not always align with findings of objective cognitive assessment. The accuracy of self-reported CI in PwMS can also be highly variable across individuals, and may not align with objective measurement of cognitive disturbances. Research suggests that additional factors impact perceived cognitive ability, such as depression and fatigue. Objective cognitive screening regardless of patient or neurologist perception has been recommended but still is often limited in routine care. Moreover, comprehensive neuropsychological assessment is even less routinely done. ObjectiveTo explore how neurologists’ perceptions of PwMS’ CI compare to the perception of the patient by determining whether PwMS and their clinicians are accurate in detecting the presence and degree of CI as defined by a multi-domain validated computerized test battery in PwMS, as well as investigate what factors influence perception of CI in each group. MethodsPwMS completed a computerized multi-domain cognitive testing battery, and self-reported measures of disease impact (MSIS-29), fatigue (MFIS), and depression (BDI-II). Disability was assessed by the clinician using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Clinicians and patients also provided an estimation of cognitive deficits along a Likert scale. ResultsIn this cohort of PwMS (N=202, age range: 20 to 88, gender: 71% female), their level of accuracy in detecting attention deficits (k = -.028, p = .010) was low but statistically significant. In contrast, clinicians’ accuracy in detecting global CI (k = -.037, p < .001) and a number of specific domain deficits was moderate. Fatigue (p < .001) and cognitive performance (p = .012) significantly predicted patient perceived cognitive deficits. Clinician perceived cognitive performance was significantly predicted by multiple factors: cognitive scores (p < .001), physical disability (p = .011), age (p = .021), and depression (p = .038). ConclusionThe need to objectively screen for CI in PwMS, regardless of perception, can be aided by a better understanding of the agreement and discrepancies between the patient and clinician regarding perceived cognitive disturbances and the presence of CI defined by a multi-dimensional objective screening battery.