Search

Background: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale allows to detect the presence of dementia and to assess its severity, however its evaluation requires a significant time (45 min). We evaluated the agreement between two methods of collection of the CDR: face-to-face interview or based on the information available in the patient's medical record. Methods: The CLIMER study was conducted among patients attending a memory center. The CDR scale was evaluated during face-to-face interviews between neuropsychologists and patients and their caregivers and based on blind analysis of the information of the patients' medical record by neuropsychologists. The agreement of the CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB), the 5-point scale CDR and the different domains of the CDR evaluated between the different methods was measured using intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, Bland and Altman method, and linearly weighted Kappa. Results: The study included 139 patients (means ± SD age 80.1 ± 6, 58.3% women, 71.9% with dementia). The ICC for the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with all the information available in the patient's medical record was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97). The mean difference between the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with the medical record was 0.098 ± 1.036, and 92.4% of the patients lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The ICC for the 5-point scale CDR assessed by face-to-face and with the patient's medical record was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95) when all the available information of the patient's medical record was used. The linear weighted Kappa coefficients was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68–0.91) for the 5-point scale CDR comparison between the two evaluation methods. The analysis by domain of the CDR showed ICC ranging from 0.65 to 0.91 depending of the domains and the methods of evaluation. Conclusion: This study showed an excellent level of agreement of the evaluation of the CDR- SB and the 5-point scale CDR when using all the information of the patient's medical record compared to the face-to-face interview. Trial registration: https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763941 Registration Date 02/17/2021. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Objectives: Currently, there is a significant focus on the decrease of soluble receptor of advanced glycation end products (sRAGE) in neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders. sRAGE plays a decoy role against the inflammatory response of advanced glycation end products (AGE), which has led to increased interest in its role in these disorders. This meta‐analysis aimed to investigate the significant differences in sRAGE levels between neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders compared to control groups. Method: A systematic review was conducted using the PUBMED, Scopus and Embase databases up to October 2023. Two reviewers assessed agreement for selecting papers based on titles and abstracts, with kappa used to measure agreement and finally publications were scanned according to controlled studies. Effect sizes were calculated as weighted mean differences (WMD) and pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2, followed by subgroup analysis and meta‐regression tests. Quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results: In total, 16 studies were included in the present meta‐analysis. Subjects with neurocognitive (n = 1444) and neuropsychiatric (n = 444) disorders had lower sRAGE levels in case–control (WMD: −0.21, 95% CI: −0.33, −0.10; p <.001) and cross‐sectional (WMD: −0.29, 95% CI = −0.44, −0.13, p <.001) studies with high heterogeneity and no publication bias. In subgroup analysis, subjects with cognitive impairment (WMD: −0.87, 95% CI: −1.61, −0.13, p =.000), and age >50 years (WMD: −0.39, 95% CI: −0.74, −0.05, p =.000), had lower sRAGE levels in case–control studies. Also, dementia patients (WMD: −0.41, 95% CI: −0.72, −0.10, p =.014) with age >50 years (WMD: −0.33, 95% CI: −0.54, −0.13, p = 0.000) and in Asian countries (WMD: −0.28, 95% CI: −0.42, −0.13, p =.141) had lower sRAGE levels in cross‐sectional studies. Conclusion: This meta‐analysis revealed a significant reduction in sRAGE in neurocognitive and neuropsychiatric disorders particularly in Asians and moderate age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives Older adults experiencing neurocognitive disease (NCD) contend with complex care often characterized by high emotional strain. Mitigating complex care with decision support tools can clarify options. When used in conjunction with the practice of shared decision making (SDM), these tools can improve satisfaction and confidence in treatment. The use of these tools for cognitive health has increased, but more is needed to understand how these tools incorporate social needs into treatment plans. Research Design and Methods We conducted an environmental scan using a MEDLINE-informed search strategy and feedback from an expert steering committee to characterize current tools and approaches for engaging older adults experiencing NCD. We assessed their application and development, incorporation of social determinants, goals or preferences, and inclusion of caregivers in their design. Results We identified 11 articles, 7 of which show that SDM helps guide tool development and that most center on clinical decision making. Types of tools varied by clinical site and those differences reflected patient need. A collective value across tools was their use to forge meaningful conversations. Most tools appeared designed without the explicit goal to elicit patient social needs or incorporate nonclinical strategies into treatment plans. Discussion and Implications Several challenges and opportunities exist that center on strategies to engage patients in the design and testing of tools that support conversations with clinicians about cognitive health. Future work should focus on building and testing adaptable tools that support patient and family social care needs beyond clinical care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between a patient and their therapist plays a crucial role in patient engagement. While Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) may assist in preserving cognitive skills in cases of aging, dementia or acquired brain injuries, its effectiveness has not been definitively proven. Improving user engagement, acceptance, and software usability could aid in addressing this issue. The present study aims to identify potential obstacles and facilitators by examining the perspectives of rehabilitation professionals on the current usage of CCT software. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 rehabilitation professionals, familiar with a CCT software. The data were transcribed and followed by an independent iterative thematic analysis. Two major themes were identified: (1) facilitating factors and (2) difficulties related to use. The main obstacles were difficulties related to the computerized nature of the exercises, technology use, understanding the software and general learning difficulties. The main facilitators were the ecological and novel nature of the exercises, and the adaptability of the difficulty levels. The complexity of the CCT presents challenges for its usage by rehabilitation professionals, which in turn can impede patient utilization as well. To address this issue and promote sustainable use of the software, providing instruction delivery to facilitate learning and understanding of the CCT is essential. Additionally, creating a standardized foundation that therapists can refer to for guidance may also aid in optimizing the software's usage. It is recommended to utilize a model for CCT acceptability and acceptance in developing these solutions to enhance patient engagement. Computerized Cognitive Training (CCT) may help sustain cognitive skills or delay its decline due to causes such as aging, dementia or acquired brain injuries. User engagement, user acceptance and software usability could help address these issues. The relationship between a patient and their therapist plays a crucial role in patient engagement. Difficulties related to using and understanding a CCT software could affect behavioral intention/use. Rehabilitation professionals may face difficulties using CCT software, which could in turn, hinder patient utilization. Facilitating learning and understanding of the software through instruction delivery to increase acceptance could respond to the existing obstacles. A model for CCT acceptability/acceptance may be useful for improving the development of these solutions, to optimize patient engagement. Creating a standardized foundation for therapists to refer to could help optimize usage of CCT software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early detection of cognitive impairment is among the top research priorities aimed at reducing the global burden of dementia. Currently used screening tools have high sensitivity but lack specificity at their original cut-off, while decreasing the cut-off was repeatedly shown to improve specificity, but at the cost of lower sensitivity. In 2012, a new screening tool was introduced that aims to overcome these limitations – the Quick mild cognitive impairment screen (Qmci). The original English Qmci has been rigorously validated and demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy with both good sensitivity and specificity. We aimed to determine the optimal cut-off value for the German Qmci, and evaluate its diagnostic accuracy, reliability (internal consistency) and construct validity. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from healthy older adults (HOA; n = 43) and individuals who have a clinical diagnosis of 'mild neurocognitive disorder' (mNCD; n = 37) with a biomarker supported characterization of the etiology of mNCD of three studies of the 'Brain-IT' project. Using Youden's Index, we calculated the optimal cut-off score to distinguish between HOA and mNCD. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy based on the area under the curve (AUC). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Reliability (internal consistency) was analyzed by calculating Cronbach's α. Construct validity was assessed by analyzing convergent validity between Qmci-G subdomain scores and reference assessments measuring the same neurocognitive domain. Results: The optimal cut-off score for the Qmci-G was ≤ 67 (AUC = 0.96). This provided a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 90.7%. The PPV and NPV were 89.5% and 92.9%, respectively. Cronbach's α of the Qmci-G was 0.71 (CI95% [0.65 to 0.78]). The Qmci-G demonstrated good construct validity for subtests measuring learning and memory. Subtests that measure executive functioning and/or visuo-spatial skills showed mixed findings and/or did not correlate as strongly as expected with reference assessments. Conclusion: Our findings corroborate the existing evidence of the Qmci's good diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and construct validity. Additionally, the Qmci shows potential in resolving the limitations of commonly used screening tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. To verify these findings for the Qmci-G, testing in clinical environments and/or primary health care and direct comparisons with standard screening tools utilized in these settings are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Cognition often remains unassessed in primary care. To improve early diagnosis of neurocognitive disorder (NCD) in Switzerland, the tablet-based UCSF brain health assessment (BHA) and brain health survey (BHS) were validated. METHODS: The German BHA, BHS, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered to 67 patients with mild/major NCD and 50 controls. BHA includes subtests of memory, executive, visuospatial, and language functioning, and informant-based BHS asks about behavior and motor functioning. RESULTS: The complete instrument (BHA + BHS) was most accurate at detecting mild NCD (AUC = 0.95) and NCD without amyloid pathology (AUC = 0.96), followed by the BHA. All measures were accurate (all AUCs > 0.95) at distinguishing major NCD and NCD with amyloid pathology (Alzheimers disease [AD]) from controls. DISCUSSION: The German BHA and BHS are more sensitive to mild NCD and non-AD presentations than the MoCA and thus have a high potential to identify patients with NCD in primary care earlier than currently used screens.

Abstract Background The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale allows to detect the presence of dementia and to assess its severity, however its evaluation requires a significant time (45 min). We evaluated the agreement between two methods of collection of the CDR: face-to-face interview or based on the information available in the patient’s medical record. Methods The CLIMER study was conducted among patients attending a memory center. The CDR scale was evaluated during face-to-face interviews between neuropsychologists and patients and their caregivers and based on blind analysis of the information of the patients’ medical record by neuropsychologists. The agreement of the CDR sum of boxes (CDR-SB), the 5-point scale CDR and the different domains of the CDR evaluated between the different methods was measured using intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient, Bland and Altman method, and linearly weighted Kappa. Results The study included 139 patients (means ± SD age 80.1 ± 6, 58.3% women, 71.9% with dementia). The ICC for the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with all the information available in the patient’s medical record was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.93–0.97). The mean difference between the CDR-SB score assessed by face-to-face and with the medical record was 0.098 ± 1.036, and 92.4% of the patients lay within the 95% limits of agreement. The ICC for the 5-point scale CDR assessed by face-to-face and with the patient’s medical record was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.88–0.95) when all the available information of the patient’s medical record was used. The linear weighted Kappa coefficients was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68–0.91) for the 5-point scale CDR comparison between the two evaluation methods. The analysis by domain of the CDR showed ICC ranging from 0.65 to 0.91 depending of the domains and the methods of evaluation. Conclusion This study showed an excellent level of agreement of the evaluation of the CDR- SB and the 5-point scale CDR when using all the information of the patient’s medical record compared to the face-to-face interview. Trial registration https//clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04763941 Registration Date 02/17/2021.