open access

Vol 55, No 4 (2021)
Research Paper
Submitted: 2021-04-02
Accepted: 2021-06-08
Published online: 2021-08-11
Get Citation

Predictors of cognitive impairment in pseudotumor cerebri

Olga P. Fermo1, Aruna Rao2, Amy Schwartzbaum3, Samhita Sengupta3, Yifan Zhang4, Jiangxia Wang4, Abhay Moghekar2
·
Pubmed: 34379319
·
Neurol Neurochir Pol 2021;55(4):394-402.
Affiliations
  1. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, United States
  2. Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  3. University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
  4. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe St, MD 21205 Baltimore, United States

open access

Vol 55, No 4 (2021)
Research papers
Submitted: 2021-04-02
Accepted: 2021-06-08
Published online: 2021-08-11

Abstract

Aims of the study: We aimed to define the cognitive burden of the largest pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS) population to date, compare objective to subjective cognitive dysfunction, and determine clinical predictors of cognitive dysfunction amongst an array of previously unstudied factors.
Clinical rationale: Patients with PTCS commonly report cognitive dysfunction, a factor associated with poor quality of life. It is not definitively known whether cognitive impairment is present in these patients, and what features of the syndrome predict impairment.
Materials and methods: We administered a cognitive battery consisting of the National Adult Reading Test, Mini-Mental Status Exam, Digit Span, Boston Naming Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Clock Drawing, Trail Making Test, Controlled Oral Word Association, and Category Fluency. Cognitive impairment was defined as mild-single domain with one test score, and mild-multiple domain with two scores, more than two standard deviations below the mean for age-, gender-, and education-adjusted norms.
Results: One-hundred and one prospectively recruited PTCS patients were enrolled. The objective testing showed 30 patients had mild-single domain impairment, and 25 had mild-multi domain impairment. More patients without objective cognitive impairment had transverse venous sinus stenosis, but otherwise the groups did not differ. Two measures of headache severity, the Headache Impact Test and pain on the Numeric Rating Scale, were negatively associated with the composite cognitive score, as was ocular pain, vision-related disability, and mental health. Opening pressure and visual function were not associated with objective cognitive impairment. We found no association between subjective and objective cognitive impairment.
Conclusions and clinical implications: Patients with PTCS may be cognitively impaired, and this correlates with measures of headache burden. Studies evaluating cognitive impairment before and after remission of the headache disorder would have to be performed to investigate this relationship further. Patients with self-perception of cognitive burden are no more likely to be cognitively impaired.

Abstract

Aims of the study: We aimed to define the cognitive burden of the largest pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS) population to date, compare objective to subjective cognitive dysfunction, and determine clinical predictors of cognitive dysfunction amongst an array of previously unstudied factors.
Clinical rationale: Patients with PTCS commonly report cognitive dysfunction, a factor associated with poor quality of life. It is not definitively known whether cognitive impairment is present in these patients, and what features of the syndrome predict impairment.
Materials and methods: We administered a cognitive battery consisting of the National Adult Reading Test, Mini-Mental Status Exam, Digit Span, Boston Naming Test, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Clock Drawing, Trail Making Test, Controlled Oral Word Association, and Category Fluency. Cognitive impairment was defined as mild-single domain with one test score, and mild-multiple domain with two scores, more than two standard deviations below the mean for age-, gender-, and education-adjusted norms.
Results: One-hundred and one prospectively recruited PTCS patients were enrolled. The objective testing showed 30 patients had mild-single domain impairment, and 25 had mild-multi domain impairment. More patients without objective cognitive impairment had transverse venous sinus stenosis, but otherwise the groups did not differ. Two measures of headache severity, the Headache Impact Test and pain on the Numeric Rating Scale, were negatively associated with the composite cognitive score, as was ocular pain, vision-related disability, and mental health. Opening pressure and visual function were not associated with objective cognitive impairment. We found no association between subjective and objective cognitive impairment.
Conclusions and clinical implications: Patients with PTCS may be cognitively impaired, and this correlates with measures of headache burden. Studies evaluating cognitive impairment before and after remission of the headache disorder would have to be performed to investigate this relationship further. Patients with self-perception of cognitive burden are no more likely to be cognitively impaired.

Get Citation

Keywords

pseudotumor cerebri syndrome, cognition, impairment, headache

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Supplementary Tables
Download
18KB
About this article
Title

Predictors of cognitive impairment in pseudotumor cerebri

Journal

Neurologia i Neurochirurgia Polska

Issue

Vol 55, No 4 (2021)

Article type

Research Paper

Pages

394-402

Published online

2021-08-11

Page views

1609

Article views/downloads

1257

DOI

10.5603/PJNNS.a2021.0057

Pubmed

34379319

Bibliographic record

Neurol Neurochir Pol 2021;55(4):394-402.

Keywords

pseudotumor cerebri syndrome
cognition
impairment
headache

Authors

Olga P. Fermo
Aruna Rao
Amy Schwartzbaum
Samhita Sengupta
Yifan Zhang
Jiangxia Wang
Abhay Moghekar

References (40)
  1. Friedman DI, Liu GT, Digre KB. Revised diagnostic criteria for the pseudotumor cerebri syndrome in adults and children. Neurology. 2013; 81(13): 1159–1165.
  2. Ambika S, Arjundas D, Noronha V, et al. Clinical profile, evaluation, management and visual outcome of idiopathic intracranial hypertension in a neuro-ophthalmology clinic of a tertiary referral ophthalmic center in India. Ann Indian Acad Neurol. 2010; 13(1): 37–41.
  3. D'Amico D, Curone M, Erbetta A, et al. Intracranial idiopathic hypertension: 1-year follow-up study. Neurol Sci. 2014; 35 Suppl 1: 177–179.
  4. Liu IH, Wang AG, Yen MY. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: clinical features in Chinese patients. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2011; 55(2): 138–142.
  5. Pollak L, Zohar E, Glovinsky Y, et al. Reevaluation of presentation and course of idiopathic intracranial hypertension--a large cohort comprehensive study. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013; 127(6): 406–412.
  6. Sørensen PS, Thomsen AM, Gjerris F. Persistent disturbances of cognitive functions in patients with pseudotumor cerebri. Acta Neurol Scand. 1986; 73(3): 264–268.
  7. Kharkar S, Hernandez R, Batra S, et al. Cognitive impairment in patients with Pseudotumor Cerebri Syndrome. Behav Neurol. 2011; 24(2): 143–148.
  8. Digre KB, Bruce BB, McDermott MP, et al. NORDIC Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Study Group. Quality of life in idiopathic intracranial hypertension at diagnosis: IIH Treatment Trial results. Neurology. 2015; 84(24): 2449–2456.
  9. Kaplan CP, Miner ME, McGregor JM. Pseudotumour cerebri: risk for cognitive impairment? Brain Inj. 1997; 11(4): 293–303.
  10. Yri HM, Fagerlund B, Forchhammer HB, et al. Cognitive function in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a prospective case-control study. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(4): e004376.
  11. Arseni C, Simoca I, Jipescu I, et al. Pseudotumor cerebri: risk factors, clinical course, prognostic criteria. . Rom J Neurol Psychiatry. 2016; 30(2): 115–132.
  12. Zur D, Naftaliev E, Kesler A. Evidence of multidomain mild cognitive impairment in idiopathic intracranial hypertension. J Neuroophthalmol. 2015; 35(1): 26–30.
  13. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12(8): 963–974.
  14. Chung F, Yegneswaran B, Liao Pu, et al. STOP Questionnaire. Anesthesiology. 2008; 108(5): 812–821.
  15. Crawford JR, Smith G, Maylor EA, et al. The Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ): Normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Memory. 2003; 11(3): 261–275.
  16. Mangione CM, Lee PP, Pitts J, et al. Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). NEI-VFQ Field Test Investigators. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116(11): 1496–1504.
  17. Crawford JR, Moore JW, Cameron IM. Verbal fluency: a NART-based equation for the estimation of premorbid performance. Br J Clin Psychol. 1992; 31(3): 327–329.
  18. Weschler D. WMS-III Administration and Scoring Manual. The Psychological Corportation/Harcourt Brace & Co. ; 1997.
  19. Tombaugh TN, Hubley AM. The 60-item Boston Naming Test: norms for cognitively intact adults aged 25 to 88 years. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997; 19(6): 922–932.
  20. Savage R. Rey auditory-verbal learning test: The effects of age and gender, and norms for delayed recall and story recognition trials. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 1992; 7(5): 407–414.
  21. Rouleau I, Salmon DP, Butters N. Longitudinal analysis of clock drawing in Alzheimer's disease patients. Brain Cogn. 1996; 31(1): 17–34.
  22. Tombaugh T. Trail Making test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2004; 19(2): 203–214.
  23. Ross TP, Furr AE, Carter SE, et al. The psychometric equivalence of two alternate forms of the Controlled Oral Word Association Test. Clin Neuropsychol. 2006; 20(3): 414–431.
  24. Acevedo A, Loewenstein DA, Barker WW, et al. Category fluency test: normative data for English- and Spanish-speaking elderly. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2000; 6(7): 760–769.
  25. Jak AJ, Bondi MW, Delano-Wood L, et al. Quantification of five neuropsychological approaches to defining mild cognitive impairment. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009; 17(5): 368–375.
  26. Ackerman PL, Cianciolo AT. Cognitive, perceptual-speed, and psychomotor determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2000; 6(4): 259–290.
  27. Riordan H. Constructing Composites to Optimize Cognitive Outcomes. J Clin Stud. 2017; 9(2): 40–45.
  28. Donohue MC, Sperling RA, Salmon DP, et al. Australian Imaging, Biomarkers, and Lifestyle Flagship Study of Ageing, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study. The preclinical Alzheimer cognitive composite: measuring amyloid-related decline. JAMA Neurol. 2014; 71(8): 961–970.
  29. Gil-Gouveia R, Martins IP, Gil-Gouveia R, et al. A subjective cognitive impairment scale for migraine attacks. The MIG-SCOG: development and validation. Cephalalgia. 2011; 31(9): 984–991.
  30. Gil-Gouveia R, Martins IP, Martins IP, et al. Migraine, headaches, and cognition. Headache. 2012; 52(10): 1471–1482.
  31. Bell BD, Primeau M, Sweet JJ, et al. Neuropsychological functioning in migraine headache, nonheadache chronic pain, and mild traumatic brain injury patients. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 1999; 14(4): 389–399.
  32. Domitrz I, Lipa A, Rożniecki J, et al. Treatment and management of migraine in neurological ambulatory practice in Poland by indicating therapy with monoclonal anti-CGRP antibodies. Neurol Neurochir Pol. 2020; 54(4): 337–343.
  33. Kleinschmidt JJ, Digre KB, Hanover R. Idiopathic intracranial hypertension: relationship to depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Neurology. 2000; 54(2): 319–324.
  34. Buie JJ, Watson LS, Smith CJ, et al. Obesity-related cognitive impairment: The role of endothelial dysfunction. Neurobiol Dis. 2019; 132: 104580.
  35. Kerner NA, Roose SP. Obstructive sleep apnea is linked to depression and cognitive impairment: evidence and potential mechanisms. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016; 24(6): 496–508.
  36. Dijk Jv, Willinsky R. Venous congestive encephalopathy related to cranial dural arteriovenous fistulas. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America. 2003; 13(1): 55–72.
  37. Wang HC, Lin WC, Kuo YL, et al. Factors associated with brainstem congestive encephalopathy in dural arterio-venous fistulas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2009; 111(4): 335–340.
  38. Hanson LL, Ahmed Z, Katz BJ, et al. Patients with migraine have substantial reductions in measures of visual quality of life. Headache. 2018; 58(7): 1007–1013.
  39. Bruce BB, Digre KB, McDermott MP, et al. NORDIC Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Study Group, NORDIC Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension Study Group Writing Committee. Effect of acetazolamide on visual function in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension and mild visual loss: the idiopathic intracranial hypertension treatment trial. JAMA. 2014; 311(16): 1641–1651.
  40. Raggi A, Marzoli SB, Chiapparini L, et al. Headache frequency and symptoms of depression as predictors of disability in patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Neurol Sci. 2018; 39(Suppl 1): 139–140.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl