Search

Introduction: Harmonized neuropsychological assessment for neurocognitive disorders, an international priority for valid and reliable diagnostic procedures, has been achieved only in specific countries or research contexts.Methods: To harmonize the assessment of mild cognitive impairment in Europe, a workshop (Geneva, May 2018) convened stakeholders, methodologists, academic, and non-academic clinicians and experts from European, US, and Australian harmonization initiatives.Results: With formal presentations and thematic working-groups we defined a standard battery consistent with the U.S. Uniform DataSet, version 3, and homogeneous methodology to obtain consistent normative data across tests and languages. Adaptations consist of including two tests specific to typical Alzheimer's disease and behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. The methodology for harmonized normative data includes consensus definition of cognitively normal controls, classification of confounding factors (age, sex, and education), and calculation of minimum sample sizes.Discussion: This expert consensus allows harmonizing the diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders across European countries and possibly beyond.

Background and purpose: Biomarkers support the aetiological diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders in vivo. Incomplete evidence is available to drive clinical decisions; available diagnostic algorithms are generic and not very helpful in clinical practice. The aim was to develop a biomarker-based diagnostic algorithm for mild cognitive impairment patients, leveraging on knowledge from recognized national experts. Methods: With a Delphi procedure, experienced clinicians making variable use of biomarkers in clinical practice and representing five Italian scientific societies (neurology – Società Italiana di Neurologia per le Demenze; neuroradiology – Associazione Italiana di Neuroradiologia; biochemistry – Società Italiana di Biochimica Clinica; psychogeriatrics – Associazione Italiana di Psicogeriatria; nuclear medicine – Associazione Italiana di Medicina Nucleare) defined the theoretical framework, relevant literature, the diagnostic issues to be addressed and the diagnostic algorithm. An N–1 majority defined consensus achievement. Results: The panellists chose the 2011 National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association diagnostic criteria as the reference theoretical framework and defined the algorithm in seven Delphi rounds. The algorithm includes baseline clinical and cognitive assessment, blood examination, and magnetic resonance imaging with exclusionary and inclusionary roles; dopamine transporter single-photon emission computed tomography (if no/unclear parkinsonism) or metaiodobenzylguanidine cardiac scintigraphy for suspected dementia with Lewy bodies with clear parkinsonism (round VII, votes(yes-no-abstained): 3-1-1); 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for suspected frontotemporal lobar degeneration and low diagnostic confidence of Alzheimer’s disease (round VII, 4-0-1); cerebrospinal fluid for suspected Alzheimer’s disease (round IV, 4-1-0); and amyloid positron emission tomography if cerebrospinal fluid was not possible/accepted (round V, 4-1-0) or inconclusive (round VI, 5-0-0). Conclusions: These consensus recommendations can guide clinicians in the biomarker-based aetiological diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment, whilst guidelines cannot be defined with evidence-to-decision procedures due to incomplete evidence.

Objectives The medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA) and the posterior atrophy (PA) scales allow to assess the degree hippocampal and parietal atrophy from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Despite reliable, easy and widespread employment, appropriate normative values are still missing. We aim to provide norms for the Italian population. Methods Two independent raters assigned the highest MTA and PA score between hemispheres, based on 3D T1-weighted MRI of 936 Italian Brain Normative Archive subjects (age: mean ± SD: 50.2 ± 14.7, range: 20–84; MMSE>26 or CDR = 0). The inter-rater agreement was assessed with the absolute intraclass correlation coefficient (aICC). We assessed the association between MTA and PA scores and sociodemographic features and APOE status, and normative data were established by age decade based on percentile distributions. Results Raters agreed in 90% of cases for MTA (aICC = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.69–0.98) and in 86% for PA (aICC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.58–0.98). For both rating scales, score distribution was skewed, with MTA = 0 in 38% of the population and PA = 0 in 52%, while a score ≥ 2 was only observed in 12% for MTA and in 10% for PA. Median denoted overall hippocampal (MTA: median = 1, IQR = 0–1) and parietal (PA: median = 0, IQR = 0–1) integrity. The 90th percentile of the age-specific distributions increased from 1 (at age 20–59) for both scales, to 2 for PA over age 60, and up to 4 for MTA over age 80. Gender, education and APOE status did not significantly affect the percentile distributions in the whole sample, nor in the subset over age 60. Conclusions Our normative data for the MTA and PA scales are consistent with previous studies and overcome their main limitations (in particular uneven representation of ages and missing percentile distributions), defining the age-specific norms to be considered for proper brain atrophy assessment., Highlights • MTA and PA have a skewed scores' distribution, prevailing scores 0 and 1. • The 90th percentile increases from 1 up to 4 for MTA, and from 1 to 2 for PA. • Gender, education and APOE-ε4 status does not affect the percentiles' distribution.