Search

Background: Heterogeneous disease trajectories of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia are frequently encountered in clinical practice, but there is still insufficient knowledge to understand the reasons and mechanisms causing this heterogeneity. In addition to correlates of the disorder, patient characteristics such as their health status, social environment, comorbidities and frailty may contribute to variability in trajectories over time. The current paper outlines the study design and the study population of and provides an overview of the data collected in the Clinical Course of Cognition and Comorbidity in Mild Cognitive Impairment (4C-MCI cohort, n = 315) and Dementia (4C-Dementia cohort, n = 331) Study., Methods: The two complementary longitudinal cohorts part of the 4C study began enrolment in March 2010. Participants were prospectively recruited from three collaborating Dutch Alzheimer Centers, with three annual follow-up assessments after baseline. Extensive neuropsychological assessments, and detailed profiling of comorbidities, health and frailty at each follow up were the key features of the 4C study. As such, the 4C study was designed to study if and how patients' comorbidities and frailty are associated with the course of MCI and dementia measured with a comprehensive and multidimensional set of outcomes including cognition, daily functioning, quality of life, behavioral disturbances, caregiver burden, institutionalization and death and whether the effects of medical health and frailty differ between MCI and dementia stages of cognitive disorders., Conclusion: Sampled in a clinical setting, the 4C study complements population-based studies on neurodegenerative disorders in terms of the type of assessment (e.g. comorbidity, frailty, and functional status were repeatedly assessed). The 4C study complements available clinical cohorts of MCI and dementia patients, because the exclusion criteria were kept to a minimum, to obtain a sample that is representative for the average patient visiting a memory clinic.

Background: Cognitive impairment and neuropsychiatric syndromes, like depression and apathy, are frequent residual consequences of stroke. These have a large impact on quality of life and long-term prognosis. Several factors are involved in the development of these residual syndromes, although their exact role and their interrelationships remain still rather unclear. The Cognition and Affect after Stroke: a Prospective Evaluation of Risks (CASPER) study has been primarily designed to examine whether stroke-specific (e.g. lesion location, volume, type, severity), cerebrovascular and neurodegenerative (e.g. white matter changes, atrophy, microbleeds, perivascular spaces), inflammatory, endothelial, and (epi)genetic markers are associated with cognitive impairment, post-stroke depression, and post-stroke apathy, and whether they predict their course over 12 months. The secondary aims are to investigate how the above-mentioned markers interact with each other, and to determine if patients with apathy and depression after stroke differ in pathogenesis, course, and outcome (e.g. functional outcome, neurocognitive performance, quality of life)., Methods/design: CASPER is a 1-year prospective clinical cohort follow-up study in 250 stroke patients recruited at the neurological in- and outpatient services at Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC+, Maastricht, The Netherlands), and Zuyderland Medical Center (Sittard and Heerlen, The Netherlands). At baseline (3 months post-stroke), a neuropsychological assessment, neuropsychiatric interview, blood sample, and brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan are conducted. Assessment of neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive status are repeated 6 and 12 months later., Discussion: The CASPER study investigates stroke-specific, vascular, neurodegenerative, inflammatory, and genetic markers of the development of vascular cognitive impairment, depression, and apathy after stroke. This creates the possibility to study not only the contribution of these individual markers but also their joint contribution, which differentiates this study from earlier stroke cohorts who lacked long-term follow-up data, a large sample size, an extensive MRI protocol, and markers from the blood. The knowledge we derive from this study might help in identifying markers that are associated with, or can predict the onset, maintenance, and progression of vascular cognitive impairment, depression, and apathy after stroke, and could provide new insights into possibilities for treatment and rehabilitation that result in better functional outcome after stroke., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585349.

Background: The Parelsnoer Institute is a collaboration between 8 Dutch University Medical Centers in which clinical data and biomaterials from patients suffering from chronic diseases (so called "Pearls") are collected according to harmonized protocols. The Pearl Neurodegenerative Diseases focuses on the role of biomarkers in the early diagnosis, differential diagnosis and in monitoring the course of neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's disease. The objective of this paper is to describe the design and methods of the Pearl Neurodegenerative Diseases, as well as baseline descriptive variables, including their biomarker profile., Methods: The Pearl Neurodegenerative Diseases is a 3-year follow-up study of patients referred to a memory clinic with cognitive complaints. At baseline, all patients are subjected to a standardized examination, including clinical data and biobank materials, e.g. blood samples, MRI and cerebrospinal fluid. At present, in total more than 1000 patients have been included, of which cerebrospinal fluid and DNA samples are available of 211 and 661 patients, respectively. First descriptives of a subsample of the data (n = 665) shows that patients are diagnosed with dementia (45%), mild cognitive impairment (31%), and subjective memory complaints (24%)., Discussion: The Pearl Neurodegenerative Diseases is an ongoing large network collecting clinical data and biomaterials of more than 1000 patients with cognitive impairments. The project has started with data analyses of the baseline characteristics and biomarkers, which will be the starting point of future specific research questions that can be answered by this unique dataset.

Background: In the absence of a gold standard, a panel of experts can be invited to assign a reference diagnosis for use in research. Available literature offers limited guidance on assembling and working with an expert panel for this purpose. We aimed to develop a protocol for an expert panel consensus diagnosis and evaluated its applicability in a pilot project., Methods: An adjusted Delphi method was used, which started with the assessment of clinical vignettes by 3 experts individually, followed by a consensus discussion meeting to solve diagnostic discrepancies. A panel facilitator ensured that all experts were able to express their views, and encouraged the use of argumentation to arrive at a specific diagnosis, until consensus was reached by all experts. Eleven vignettes of patients suspected of having a primary neurodegenerative disease were presented to the experts. Clinical information was provided stepwise and included medical history, neurological, physical and cognitive function, brain MRI scan, and follow-up assessments over 2 years. After the consensus discussion meeting, the procedure was evaluated by the experts., Results: The average degree of consensus for the reference diagnosis increased from 52% after individual assessment of the vignettes to 94% after the consensus discussion meeting. Average confidence in the diagnosis after individual assessment was 85%. This did not increase after the consensus discussion meeting. The process evaluation led to several recommendations for improvement of the protocol., Conclusion: A protocol for attaining a reference diagnosis based on expert panel consensus was shown feasible in research practice.

Background: New research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have recently been developed to enable an early diagnosis of AD pathophysiology by relying on emerging biomarkers. To enable efficient allocation of health care resources, evidence is needed to support decision makers on the adoption of emerging biomarkers in clinical practice. The research goals are to 1) assess the diagnostic test accuracy of current clinical diagnostic work-up and emerging biomarkers in MRI, PET and CSF, 2) perform a cost-consequence analysis and 3) assess long-term cost-effectiveness by an economic model., Methods/design: In a cohort design 241 consecutive patients suspected of having a primary neurodegenerative disease are approached in four academic memory clinics and followed for two years. Clinical data and data on quality of life, costs and emerging biomarkers are gathered.Diagnostic test accuracy is determined by relating the clinical practice and new research criteria diagnoses to a reference diagnosis. The clinical practice diagnosis at baseline is reflected by a consensus procedure among experts using clinical information only (no biomarkers). The diagnosis based on the new research criteria is reflected by decision rules that combine clinical and biomarker information. The reference diagnosis is determined by a consensus procedure among experts based on clinical information on the course of symptoms over a two-year time period.A decision analytic model is built combining available evidence from different resources among which (accuracy) results from the study, literature and expert opinion to assess long-term cost-effectiveness of the emerging biomarkers., Discussion: Several other multi-centre trials study the relative value of new biomarkers for early evaluation of AD and related disorders. The uniqueness of this study is the assessment of resource utilization and quality of life to enable an economic evaluation. The study results are generalizable to a population of patients who are referred to a memory clinic due to their memory problems., Trial Registration: NCT01450891.