Search

There is a growing need for brief screening measures for HIV Associated Neurocognitive Disorders (HAND). We compared two commonly used measures (the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] and the International HIV Dementia Scale [IHDS]) in their ability to identify asymptomatic HAND (i.e., asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment [ANI]). Participants included 74 Thai PLWH: 38 met Frascati criteria for ANI and 36 were cognitively normal (CN). Participants completed Thai language versions of the MoCA (MoCA-T) and IHDS, and a validated neurocognitive battery. We examined between-group differences for MoCA-T and IHDS total scores, and scale subcomponents. We also conducted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to determine the ability of the MoCA-T and IHDS to discriminate between CN and ANI groups, and compared their area under the curve (AUC) values. Results revealed lower MoCA-T total score, as well as the Visuospatial/Executive and Delayed Recall subtask scores, in the ANI relative to CN group. Groups did not differ on the IHDS. For ROC analyses, the MoCA-T, but not the IHDS, significantly differentiated the ANI from CN group, and there was a significant difference in AUC values between the MoCA-T (AUC = .71) and IHDS (AUC = .56). Sensitivity and specificity statistics were poor for both screening measures. These data indicate while the MoCA-T functions better than the IHDS in detecting Thai PLWH with ANI, the mildest form of HAND, neither cognitive screener, showed strong utility. Our findings reflect the limited efficacy of common screening measures in detecting subtler cognitive deficits among Thai PLWH, and highlight the need for better screening tools.

There is a growing need for brief screening measures for HIV Associated Neurocognitive Disorders (HAND). We compared two commonly used measures (the Montreal Cognitive Assessment [MoCA] and the International HIV Dementia Scale [IHDS]) in their ability to identify asymptomatic HAND (i.e., asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment [ANI]). Participants included 74 Thai PLWH: 38 met Frascati criteria for ANI and 36 were cognitively normal (CN). Participants completed Thai language versions of the MoCA (MoCA-T) and IHDS, and a validated neurocognitive battery. We examined between-group differences for MoCA-T and IHDS total scores, and scale subcomponents. We also conducted receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses to determine the ability of the MoCA-T and IHDS to discriminate between CN and ANI groups, and compared their area under the curve (AUC) values. Results revealed lower MoCA-T total score, as well as the Visuospatial/Executive and Delayed Recall subtask scores, in the ANI relative to CN group. Groups did not differ on the IHDS. For ROC analyses, the MoCA-T, but not the IHDS, significantly differentiated the ANI from CN group, and there was a significant difference in AUC values between the MoCA-T (AUC = .71) and IHDS (AUC = .56). Sensitivity and specificity statistics were poor for both screening measures. These data indicate while the MoCA-T functions better than the IHDS in detecting Thai PLWH with ANI, the mildest form of HAND, neither cognitive screener, showed strong utility. Our findings reflect the limited efficacy of common screening measures in detecting subtler cognitive deficits among Thai PLWH, and highlight the need for better screening tools.