Search

OBJECTIVES: Preliminary evidence suggested that doxycycline and rifampin might stop or slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We carried out a randomized trial to confirm or refute these findings. METHODS: A multicenter, blinded, randomized, 2 x 2 factorial controlled trial, set at 14 geriatric outpatient clinics in Canada. Four hundred and six patients with mild to moderate AD (standardized mini mental state examination (SMMSE) score 14-26) participated. The intervention was 12 months' treatment with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + rifampin 300 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily or rifampin 300 mg daily + placebo-doxycycline twice daily or placebo-doxycycline twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily. Coprimary outcomes were the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SADAS-cog) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of the Boxes (CDR-SB). Secondary outcomes were the SMMSE, Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Geriatric Depression Scale, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, activities of daily living (Lawton Scale), and the Dysfunctional Behavior Rating Instrument frequency and reaction subscales. RESULTS: There was a significant deterioration in SADAS-cog over time with both rifampin and doxycycline in comparison with placebo. When the two were used together, there was no statistically significant decline/deterioration in comparison with placebo (n = 305). For the CDR-SB, there were no significant effects of either rifampin or doxycycline. Secondary outcome results followed similar patterns. CONCLUSION: Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Preliminary evidence suggested that doxycycline and rifampin might stop or slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD). We carried out a randomized trial to confirm or refute these findings. Methods A multicenter, blinded, randomized, 2 × 2 factorial controlled trial, set at 14 geriatric outpatient clinics in Canada. Four hundred and six patients with mild to moderate AD (standardized mini mental state examination (SMMSE) score 14-26) participated. The intervention was 12 months' treatment with doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + rifampin 300 mg daily or doxycycline 100 mg twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily or rifampin 300 mg daily + placebo-doxycycline twice daily or placebo-doxycycline twice daily + placebo-rifampin daily. Coprimary outcomes were the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SADAS-cog) and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of the Boxes (CDR-SB). Secondary outcomes were the SMMSE, Quick mild cognitive impairment screen, Geriatric Depression Scale, Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, activities of daily living (Lawton Scale), and the Dysfunctional Behavior Rating Instrument frequency and reaction subscales. Results There was a significant deterioration in SADAS-cog over time with both rifampin and doxycycline in comparison with placebo. When the two were used together, there was no statistically significant decline/deterioration in comparison with placebo ( n = 305). For the CDR-SB, there were no significant effects of either rifampin or doxycycline. Secondary outcome results followed similar patterns. Conclusion Twelve months' treatment with doxycycline or rifampin, alone or in combination, has no beneficial effects on cognition or function in AD. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundCognitive screening instruments are either too long for routine clinical use or not sensitive to distinguish mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from normal cognition (NC) or dementia. ObjectiveTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) and its subtests with a view to improving its ability to differentiate between dementia, MCI and NC. The influence of age and education on sensitivity and specificity is also examined. DesignCross-sectional study. MethodsParticipants with dementia and MCI were recruited from those presenting to four specialty geriatric clinics in southern Ontario. Participants with NC were recruited from the family and friends of patients. A comprehensive geriatric assessment was done including ABCS, SMMSE and 15 point Geriatric Depression Scale. Analysis of variance and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves compared test scores. SMMSE scores were also analysed for comparison purposes. ResultsThree hundred and two participants had dementia, 166 had MCI and 174 had NC. ABCS total scores were significantly different between NC and MCI (mean difference 7.1, 1.8–12.5 CI, p = 0.000) while SMMSE scores were not (mean difference 0.5, -0.7–1.7, p < 0.628). Of individual ABCS subtests, verbal fluency and delayed recall were most sensitive to differences between NC and MCI. ROC curve analysis, which presents sensitivity and specificity, showed verbal fluency was better than delayed recall in distinguishing between NC and MCI, among participants 75 years of age or older. ConclusionThe AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) can be administered in 3–5 min. The SMMSE and ABCS total and subtests significantly distinguished between dementia and MCI or NC. Verbal fluency and delayed recall were best at distinguishing between MCI and NC. The analysis illustrates how each subtest contributes to the sensitivity of the ABCS and suggests ways that sensitivity might be improved. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of the AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) with the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) to differentiate normal cognition from mild cognitive impairment (MCI), especially when educational level and age are taken into account.Method: This cross-sectional study took place at geriatric outpatient memory clinics. Participants were community-dwelling adults, aged 55 years or over, referred from primary care settings (a minority of participants were referred from specialists) for assessment of memory loss and age-matched control subjects with no complaint of memory loss. Each participant had the ABCS and the SMMSE administered in random order on the same day.Results: Participants included 124 patients diagnosed with MCI and 111 with normal cognitive function. The ABCS showed a statistically significant difference between normal cognition and MCI (ABCS score 111.7 and 104.6 points, respectively, P < 0.001) for the whole group. This difference was significant with the ABCS, regardless of participants' age or education. There was a significant difference between normal cognition and MCI for SMMSE scores (SMMSE score 27.8 and 27.2 points, respectively, P = 0.040), but the differences were not significant when age and education were taken into account. Age and education were shown to affect the scores of both instruments except for the ABCS scores of MCI subjects, which were not significantly affected by education (P = 0.059).Conclusions: The ABCS is more sensitive than the SMMSE in differentiating normal cognition from MCI. The ABCS appears to be less influenced by education. It has improved clinical utility with a wider range of scoring gradations, reduced ceiling effects, and shorter scoring and administration times. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess whether doxycycline and rifampin have a therapeutic role in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Randomized, triple-blind, controlled trial. Three tertiary care and two community geriatric clinics in Canada. One hundred one patients with probable AD and mild to moderate dementia. Oral daily doses of doxycycline 200 mg and rifampin 300 mg for 3 months. The primary outcome was a change in Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (SADAScog) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in the SADAScog at 12 months and tests of dysfunctional behavior, depression, and functional status. There was significantly less decline in the SADAScog score at 6 months in the antibiotic group than in the placebo group, (−2.75 points, 95% confidence interval (CI)=−5.28 to −0.22, P=.034). At 12 months, the difference between groups in the SADAScog was −4.31 points (95% CI=−9.17–0.56, P=.079). The antibiotic group showed significantly less dysfunctional behavior at 3 months. There was no significant difference in adverse events between groups ( P=.34). There were no differences in Chlamydia pneumoniae detection using polymerase chain reaction or antibodies (immunoglobulin (Ig)G or IgA) between groups. Therapy with doxycycline and rifampin may have a therapeutic role in patients with mild to moderate AD. The mechanism is unlikely to be due to their effect on C. pneumoniae. More research is needed to investigate these agents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study which developed a short and a screening version of the Zarit Burden Interview that would be suitable across diagnostic groups of cognitively impaired older adults. Methods; Results; Discussion.

Presents a study which examines the effect of systematically implementing an advance directive in nursing homes on patient and family satisfaction with involvement in decision making and on health care costs. Design; Setting and participants; Intervention; Main outcome measures; Results; Conclusion.

Short but accurate cognitive screening instruments are required in busy clinical practice. Although widely-used, the diagnostic accuracy of the standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) in different dementia subtypes remains poorly characterised. We compared the SMMSE to the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen in patients (n = 3020) pooled from three memory clinic databases in Canada including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's, vascular, mixed, frontotemporal, Lewy Body and Parkinson's dementia, with and without co-morbid depression. Caregivers (n = 875) without cognitive symptoms were included as normal controls. The median age of patients was 77 (Interquartile = ±9) years. Both instruments accurately differentiated cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia) from controls. The SMMSE most accurately differentiated Alzheimer's (AUC 0.94) and Lewy Body dementia (AUC 0.94) and least accurately identified MCI (AUC 0.73), vascular (AUC 0.74), and Parkinson's dementia (AUC 0.81). The Qmci had statistically similar or greater accuracy in distinguishing all dementia subtypes but particularly MCI (AUC 0.85). Co-morbid depression affected accuracy in those with MCI. The SMMSE and Qmci have good-excellent accuracy in established dementia. The SMMSE is less suitable in MCI, vascular and Parkinson's dementia, where alternatives including the Qmci screen may be used. The influence of co-morbid depression on scores merits further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Short cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) are widely used to stratify patients presenting with cognitive symptoms. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Q mci) screen is a new, brief (<5mins) CSI designed to identify mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which can be used across the spectrum of cognitive decline. Here we present the translation of the Q mci into Greek (Q mci -Gr) and its validation against the widely-used Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). Methods Consecutive patients aged ≥55 years presenting with cognitive complaints were recruited from two outpatient clinics in Greece. All patients completed the Q mci -Gr and SMMSE and underwent an independent detailed neuropsychological assessment to determine a diagnostic classification. Results In total, 140 patients, median age 75 years, were included; 30 with mild dementia (median SMMSE 23/30), 76 with MCI and 34 with subjective memory complaints (SMC) but normal cognition. The Q mci -Gr had similar accuracy in differentiating SMC from cognitive impairment (MCI & mild dementia) compared with SMMSE, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84 versus 0.79, respectively; while accuracy was higher for the Q mci -Gr, this finding was not significantly different, (p  = .19). Similarly, the Q mci -Gr had similar accuracy in separating SMC from MCI, AUC of 0.79 versus 0.73 (p  = .23). Conclusions The Q mci -Gr compared favorably with the SMMSE. Further research with larger samples and comparison with other instruments such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment is needed to confirm these findings but given its established brevity, it may be a better choice in busy clinical practice in Greece. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self or home-administered cognitive screening instruments (CSIs) can reduce barriers to the early detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. Objective: To examine the acceptability and diagnostic accuracy of a caregiver-administered CSI, the Quick Memory Check (QMC). Methods: Components of the Quick Mild Cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen (orientation, verbal fluency, and logical memory) were re-weighted to create the QMC, scored out of 100 points. Participants, attending a university hospital memory clinic, were provided administration instructions beforehand. Area under the curve (AUC) scores, adjusted for age and education, were compared with the Qmci screen and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Caregivers or family scored the QMC. Results: In all, 366 participants were recruited; 53 with subjective memory complaints (SMC), 74 with MCI, 193 with dementia, and 46 normal controls. Median QMC scores for controls were 70±13 versus 60±20 for SMC, 52±18 for MCI, and 31±21 for dementia. The QMC had excellent accuracy (AUC 0.97) for cognitive impairment (MCI/dementia from controls), similar to the Qmci screen (AUC 0.98, p = 0.17) and MoCA (AUC 0.95, p = 0.13). At a cut-off of <52/100, the QMC had 83% sensitivity and 100% specificity for cognitive impairment. The QMC had lower accuracy differentiating MCI from SMC (AUC 0.73), albeit similar to the MoCA (AUC 0.70). Conclusion: The QMC, administered by caregivers in advance of clinic, compared favorably to established CSIs scored by trained raters. This caregiver, home-administered CSI is acceptable and can identify cognitive impairment, potentially improving efficiency by reducing testing time and patient stress in busy clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sensitive and specific instruments are required to screen for cognitive impairment (CI) in busy clinical practice. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is widely validated but few studies compare it to tests designed specifically to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objective: Comparison of two "MCI specific" screens: the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen (Qmci) and MoCA. Methods: Patients with subjective memory complaints (SMC; n = 73), MCI (n = 103), or dementia (n = 274), were referred to a university hospital memory clinic and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as normal controls (n = 101). Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the MoCA in differentiating MCI from controls, area under the curve (AUC) of 0.90 versus 0.80, p = 0.009. The Qmci had greater (AUC 0.81), albeit non-significant, accuracy than the MoCA (AUC 0.73) in separating MCI from SMC, p = 0.09. At its recommended cut-off (<62/100), the Qmci had a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 87% for CI (MCI/dementia). Raising the cut-off to <65 optimized sensitivity (94%), reducing specificity (80%). At <26/30 the MoCA had better sensitivity (96%) but poor specificity (58%). A MoCA cut-off of <24 provided the optimal balance. Median Qmci administration time was 4.5 (±1.3) minutes compared with 9.5 (±2.8) for the MoCA. Conclusions: Although both tests distinguish MCI from dementia, the Qmci is particularly accurate in separating MCI from normal cognition and has shorter administration times, suggesting it is more useful in busy hospital clinics. This study reaffirms the high sensitivity of the MoCA but suggests a lower cut-off (<24) in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rising prevalence of cognitive impairment worldwide, clinicians are facing important challenges managing dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease, the most prevalent dementia subtype. Given that current treatments mainly offer symptomatic improvement, without altering disease progression, the challenge now is to identify and integrate new therapeutic strategies. Hypertension is increasingly recognized as a modifiable risk factor for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the precursor of dementia. The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to blood pressure regulation and medications targeting RAAS inhibition are associated with reduced rates of both cognitive and functional decline in those with MCI and dementia. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are widely prescribed anti-hypertensives acting on the RAAS, and there is growing evidence that they act centrally, possibly exerting their effects independent of their blood pressure lowering properties. The relationship is complex however, and given the risks associated with hypotension particularly in older adults, treatment with these agents may not benefit all. Additionally, current evidence is limited to preclinical and observational studies such that there is now a pressing need to confirm preliminary studies with properly conducted randomized control trials. Here, we review some of the salient and complex aspects of these observations to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glaucoma can be considered a disease of the aging eye. Most medications used to treat glaucoma are in topical eyedrop form and may cause numerous untoward systemic effects in older persons. In recent years, several new ocular hypotensive medications have become available. These medications are being used more commonly because there is a growing trend by ophthalmologists to aggressively lower intraocular pressure. Therefore, geriatricians require a comprehensive knowledge of medications used to treat glaucoma, in addition to an understanding of their mechanism of action profiles of untoward effects and possible interactions with other diseases or medications. Therefore, we performed a review of the medications recently introduced into clinical practice. We selected drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between 1996 and September 2001. The safety profiles of these agents and their untoward side effects were reviewed by class: topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (brinzolamide: ocular tolerance, taste perversion), β-adrenoceptor antagonists (timolol: bradycardia and bronchospasm), α-adrenergic agonists (brimonidine: oral dryness, headache, and fatigue), and prostaglandin analogs (latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, and unoprostone isopropyl: ocular hyperemia, iris color changes). The function of this review is to make geriatricians more aware of the efficacy and untoward effects of medications recently introduced into clinical practice. We recommend that geriatricians perform a medication review on all medications their patients use, including eye drops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The prevalence of frailty at population level is unclear. We examined this in population-based studies, investigating sources of heterogeneity. Methods PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases were searched for observational population-level studies published between 1 January 1998 and 1 April 2020, including individuals aged ≥50 years, identified using any frailty measure. Prevalence estimates were extracted independently, assessed for bias and analysed using a random-effects model. Results In total, 240 studies reporting 265 prevalence proportions from 62 countries and territories, representing 1,755,497 participants, were included. Pooled prevalence in studies using physical frailty measures was 12% (95% CI = 11–13%; n  = 178), compared with 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n  = 71) for the deficit accumulation model (those using a frailty index, FI). For pre-frailty, this was 46% (95% CI = 45–48%; n  = 147) and 49% (95% CI = 46–52%; n  = 29), respectively. For physical frailty, the prevalence was higher among females, 15% (95% CI = 14–17%; n  = 142), than males, 11% (95% CI = 10–12%; n  = 144). For studies using a FI, the prevalence was also higher in females, 29% (95% CI = 24–35%; n  = 34) versus 20% (95% CI = 16–24%; n  = 34), for males. These values were similar for pre-frailty. Prevalence increased according to the minimum age at study inclusion. Analysing only data from nationally representative studies gave a frailty prevalence of 7% (95% CI = 5–9%; n  = 46) for physical frailty and 24% (95% CI = 22–26%; n  = 44) for FIs. Conclusions Population-level frailty prevalence varied by classification and sex. Data were heterogenous and limited, particularly from nationally representative studies making the interpretation of differences by geographic region challenging. Common methodological approaches to gathering data are required to improve the accuracy of population-level prevalence estimates. Protocol registration PROSPERO-CRD42018105431. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older adults are frequently prescribed medications with sedative effects, which are associated with numerous adverse consequences. However, the prevalence and longitudinal associations of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) has not been explored to date. Objectives: Our objective was to assess the prevalence of sedative medication use in community-dwelling older adults with mild–moderate AD and examine the longitudinal association between sedative medication use and adverse events (AEs). Methods: The association between baseline sedative load (SL) and AEs, unscheduled healthcare utilisation, delirium and falls was assessed in older adults with mild–moderate AD over 18 months using secondary analysis of NILVAD trial data (collected from 2014 to 2016). Baseline medication use was assessed, and the SL model was applied to each participant's medication individually. The SL model classifies medications into one of four categories: (1) primary sedatives, (2) medications with a sedating component or prominent side effect, (3) medications with sedation as a potential adverse reaction and (4) all other medications with no known sedative side effects. Medications in group 1 were assigned an SL score of 2, those in group 2 were assigned an SL score of 1, and those in categories 3 and 4 an SL score of 0. SL scores for each medication participants were taking were summed and the total SL calculated as an arithmetic sum of individual medications score. A total SL score ≥ 3 was classed as high. Statistical analysis was conducted using Poisson regression and mixed-effects linear regression, with adjustment for important clinical covariates. We also assessed the impact of SL on dementia progression and cognitive decline. Results: Over half (55.7% [284/510]) of those with mild–moderate AD (age 72.8 ± 8.3 years, 61.9% female) were prescribed a regular medication with sedation as a primary effect or prominent side effect, with 22.2% (113/510) having a high SL (≥ 3). The most common medications contributing to SL were antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics and hypnotics. Over 18 months, increasing baseline SL was associated with incident AEs (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11–1.19; p < 0.001), serious AEs (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11–1.36; p < 0.001) and unscheduled general practitioner visits (IRR 1.23; 95% CI 1.13–1.34; p < 0.001). Further, increasing SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident delirium (IRR 1.30; 95% CI 1.11–1.53; p < 0.001) and falls (IRR 1.20; 95% CI 1.03–1.42; p = 0.02). Associations persisted after robust covariate adjustment. SL was not associated with accelerated cognitive decline or AD progression. Conclusions: In the current study, over half of older adults with mild–moderate AD were prescribed at least one drug with a sedative effect, and a significant minority had a high SL. Increasing baseline SL was associated with a greater likelihood of incident AEs, delirium and falls, highlighting the need for optimal prescribing in this potentially vulnerable cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The burden often associated with informal caregiving for patients with dementia is associated with negative effects on health, both physiologically and in terms of caregiver cognition. There is wide variation in the level of burden experienced by dementia caregivers. To better understand caregiver burden, it is thus important to understand the factors associated with level of burden. Methods In the current study, we collected carer burden and putative associated factors at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Hierarchical regression was used to assess the impact of these factors on caregiver burden. We assessed self-reported carer burden, patient behavioural and safety issues, and level of difficulty associated with providing assistance with activities of daily living (ADL). Patients' age was also recorded, and trained nurses assessed patient cognitive performance using the quick mild cognitive impairment screen. Results At baseline, patients' age, cognition and ADLs were associated with burden, and safety and challenging behaviour were both significantly associated with burden independent of the other factors. Change in burden was associated with change in carer-reported safety at 6-month follow-up, and with change in safety and change in carer-reported challenging behaviours at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions Safety issues and challenging behaviours are associated with carer burden, even after accounting for cognitive and functional impairment in the person with dementia. As dementia progresses, monitoring these factors may help to inform stress-management strategies for caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No disease-modifying treatments for dementia are available. Sleep disturbance is strongly associated with cognitive impairment. Non-pharmacological treatments targeting sleep may offer an alternative therapeutic approach. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disturbance in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, published in English from October 1965 to 2018, including all designs, excluding studies of drug therapies. In all, 53 papers representing 48 studies were included. Participant age ranged from 67.3 to 89.4 years. Most studies (79%) had small samples (<50 participants, range 1-173) and were conducted in long-term/residential care (62%). The majority (85%) recruited participants with moderate-severe dementia; mean MMSE scores ranged from 0 to 28.3/30. Four studies examined MCI. Light therapy delivered over 1-10 weeks was the most studied stand-alone intervention (n = 27), and the majority (81.5%) of these studies found improvements on objective or subjective sleep measures, though the evidence was inconclusive with significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Seven multi-modal intervention studies were identified, all incorporating light exposure, and six of these reported improved sleep. Other interventions included electrotherapy stimulation (n = 4), physical exercises/activities (n = 4), acupressure/acupuncture (n = 3) and mindfulness/cognitive behavioural therapy (n = 3). Those examining MCI utilised different mono-modal approaches. A meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials showed a statistically significant (mean difference = 3.44, 95% CI: 0.89-5.99, I2=0%; p = 0.008) improvement in sleep efficiency between interventions and controls, favouring the pooled interventions (bright light, multi-domain and other therapies). No other significant differences in sleep or non-sleep outcomes were found. While evidence is available for non-pharmacological sleep interventions, particularly multi-domain approaches, studies were diverse and had small samples. More research examining multi-modal interventions, community-dwellers and those with MCI is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate detection of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is important to stratify and address risk. Yet, few short cognitive screening instruments are validated for this. . In Australia, all clients referred to an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) receive comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) including the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE). We compared the accuracy of the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen to the SMMSE in 283 participants: 195 with dementia, 47 with MCI, and 41 with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in an Australian community-based ACAT. Both had similar accuracy in identifying dementia, AUC of 0.86 for the Qmci versus 0.93 for the SMMSE (p = 0.10), but the Qmci was more accurate than the SMMSE in differentiating MCI from SCD, AUC of 0.84 versus 0.71, respectively, p = 0.046. These suggest that the new, short (3-5 min) Qmci screenis appropriate for use in an ACAT or other units conducting CGA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Visit-to-visit blood pressure (BP) variability (VVV) is increasingly recognized as a marker of cardiovascular risk. Although implicated in cognitive decline, few studies are currently available assessing its effects on established dementia.Objective: To investigate if VVV is associated with one-year rate of decline in measures of cognition and function in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the Doxycycline And Rifampicin for Alzheimer's Disease study.Methods: Patients were included if ≥3 BP readings were available (n = 392). VVV was defined using different approaches including the coefficient of variation (CV) in BP readings between visits. Outcomes included rates of decline in the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Subscale (SADAS-cog), Standardized MMSE, Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen and the Lawton-Brody activities of daily living (ADL) scale.Results: Half of the patients (196/392) had a ≥4-point decline in the SADAS-cog over one-year. Using this cut-off, there were no statistically significant associations between any measures of VVV, for systolic or diastolic BP, with and without adjustment for potential confounders including treatment allocation, history of hypertension and use of anti-hypertensive and cognitive enhancing medications. Multiple regression models examining the association between systolic BP CV by quartile and decline over one-year likewise showed no clinically significant effects, apart from a U-shaped pattern of ADL decline of borderline clinical significance.∥Conclusions: This observational study does not support recent research showing that VVV predicts cognitive decline in AD. Further studies are needed to clarify its effects on ADL in AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study reports the findings of the first large-scale Phase III investigator-driven clinical trial to slow the rate of cognitive decline in Alzheimer disease with a dihydropyridine (DHP) calcium channel blocker, nilvadipine. Nilvadipine, licensed to treat hypertension, reduces amyloid production, increases regional cerebral blood flow, and has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and anti-tau activity in preclinical studies, properties that could have disease-modifying effects for Alzheimer disease. We aimed to determine if nilvadipine was effective in slowing cognitive decline in subjects with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.Methods and Findings: NILVAD was an 18-month, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial that randomised participants between 15 May 2013 and 13 April 2015. The study was conducted at 23 academic centres in nine European countries. Of 577 participants screened, 511 were eligible and were randomised (258 to placebo, 253 to nilvadipine). Participants took a trial treatment capsule once a day after breakfast for 78 weeks. Participants were aged >50 years, meeting National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke/Alzheimer's disease Criteria (NINCDS-ADRDA) for diagnosis of probable Alzheimer disease, with a Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) score of ≥12 and <27. Participants were randomly assigned to 8 mg sustained-release nilvadipine or matched placebo. The a priori defined primary outcome was progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale Cognitive Subscale-12 (ADAS-Cog 12) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 498), with the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale sum of boxes (CDR-sb) as a gated co-primary outcome, eligible to be promoted to primary end point conditional on a significant effect on the ADAS-Cog 12. The analysis set had a mean age of 73 years and was 62% female. Baseline demographic and Alzheimer disease-specific characteristics were similar between treatment groups, with reported mean of 1.7 years since diagnosis and mean SMMSE of 20.4. The prespecified primary analyses failed to show any treatment benefit for nilvadipine on the co-primary outcome (p = 0.465). Decline from baseline in ADAS-Cog 12 on placebo was 0.79 (95% CI, -0.07-1.64) at 13 weeks, 6.41 (5.33-7.49) at 52 weeks, and 9.63 (8.33-10.93) at 78 weeks and on nilvadipine was 0.88 (0.02-1.74) at 13 weeks, 5.75 (4.66-6.85) at 52 weeks, and 9.41 (8.09-10.73) at 78 weeks. Exploratory analyses of the planned secondary outcomes showed no substantial effects, including on the CDR-sb or the Disability Assessment for Dementia. Nilvadipine appeared to be safe and well tolerated. Mortality was similar between groups (3 on nilvadipine, 4 on placebo); higher counts of adverse events (AEs) on nilvadipine (1,129 versus 1,030), and serious adverse events (SAEs; 146 versus 101), were observed. There were 14 withdrawals because of AEs. Major limitations of this study were that subjects had established dementia and the likelihood that non-Alzheimer subjects were included because of the lack of biomarker confirmation of the presence of brain amyloid.Conclusions: The results do not suggest benefit of nilvadipine as a treatment in a population spanning mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02017340, EudraCT number 2012-002764-27. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in the medical treatment of cancer have increased the number of survivors, particularly among older adults, who now represent the majority of these. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are documents that cancer patients receive summarising their care, usually at the end of treatment but preferably from initial diagnosis. These may increase patient satisfaction and represent an opportunity to initiate preventative strategies and address future care needs. Advance care planning (ACP), incorporating advance healthcare decision-making, including formal written directives, increases satisfaction and end-of-life care. This paper systematically reviews evaluations of ACP within SCPs among older (≥65 years) cancer survivors. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by search strategies conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases. One paper examined cancer survivors' mainly positive views of ACP. Another discussed the use of a SCP supported by a 'distress inventory' that included an advance care directive (living will) as an issue, though no formal evaluation was reported. Although ACP is important for older adults, no study was found that evaluated its role within survivorship care planning. Despite the risk of recurrence and the potential for morbidity and mortality, especially among older cancer survivors, ACP is not yet a feature of SCPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) accurately differentiates mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from mild dementia and normal controls (NC). While the MoCA is validated in multiple clinical settings, few studies compare it with similar tests also designed to detect MCI. We sought to investigate how the shorter Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen compares with the MoCA.Methods: Consecutive referrals presenting with cognitive complaints to a teaching hospital geriatric clinic (Fremantle, Western Australia) underwent a comprehensive assessment and were classified as MCI (n = 72) or dementia (n = 109). NC (n = 41) were a sample of convenience. The Qmci and MoCA were scored by trained geriatricians, in random order, blind to the diagnosis.Results: Median Qmci scores for NC, MCI and dementia were 69 (+/-19), 52.5 (+/-12) and 36 (+/-14), respectively, compared with 27 (+/-5), 22 (+/-4) and 15 (+/-7) for the MoCA. The Qmci more accurately identified cognitive impairment (MCI or dementia), area under the curve (AUC) 0.97, than the MoCA (AUC 0.92), p = 0.04. The Qmci was non-significantly more accurate in distinguishing MCI from controls (AUC 0.91 vs 0.84, respectively = 0.16). Both instruments had similar accuracy for differentiating MCI from dementia (AUC of 0.91 vs 0.88, p = 0.35). At the optimal cut-offs, calculated from receiver operating characteristic curves, the Qmci (≤57) had a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 93% for cognitive impairment, compared with 87% sensitivity and 80% specificity for the MoCA (≤23).Conclusion: While both instruments are accurate in detecting MCI, the Qmci is shorter and arguably easier to complete, suggesting that it is a useful instrument in an Australian geriatric outpatient population. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although required to improve the usability of cognitive screening instruments (CSIs), the use of cut-off scores is controversial yet poorly researched.Objective: To explore cut-off scores for two short CSIs: the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) and Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, describing adjustments in scores for diagnosis (MCI or dementia), age (≤, >75 years), and education (<, ≥12 years), comparing two methods: the maximal accuracy approach, derived from receiver operating characteristic curves, and Youden's Index.Methods: Pooled analysis of assessments from patients attending memory clinics in Canada between 1999-2010 : 766 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 1,746 with dementia, and 875 normal controls.Results: The Qmci was more accurate than the SMMSE in differentiating controls from MCI or cognitive impairment (MCI and dementia). Employing the maximal accuracy approach, the optimal SMMSE cut-off for cognitive impairment was <28/30 (AUC 0.86, sensitivity 74%, specificity 88%) versus <63/100 for the Qmci (AUC 0.93, sensitivity 85%, specificity 85%). Using Youden's Index, the optimal SMMSE cut-off remained <28/30 but fell slightly to <62/100 for the Qmci (sensitivity 83%, specificity 87%). The optimal cut-off for MCI was <29/30 for the SMMSE and <67/100 for the Qmci, irrespective of technique. The maximal accuracy approach generally produced higher Qmci cut-offs than Youden's Index, both requiring adjustment for age and education. There were no clinically meaningful differences in SMMSE cut-off scores by age and education or method employed.Conclusion: Caution should be exercised selecting cut-offs as these differ by age, education, and method of derivation, with the extent of adjustment varying between CSIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the physiological impact of chronic stress is difficult to study in humans, naturalistic stressors are invaluable sources of information in this area. This review systematically evaluates the research literature examining biomarkers of chronic stress, including neurocognition, in informal dementia caregivers. We identified 151 papers for inclusion in the final review, including papers examining differences between caregivers and controls as well as interventions aimed at counteracting the biological burden of chronic caregiving stress. Results indicate that cortisol was increased in caregivers in a majority of studies examining this biomarker. There was mixed evidence for differences in epinephrine, norepinephrine and other cardiovascular markers. There was a high level of heterogeneity in immune system measures. Caregivers performed more poorly on attention and executive functioning tests. There was mixed evidence for memory performance. Interventions to reduce stress improved cognition but had mixed effects on cortisol. Risk of bias was generally low to moderate. Given the rising need for family caregivers worldwide, the implications of these findings can no longer be neglected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A high prevalence of cognitive impairment and frailty complicates the feasibility of advance care planning in the long-term-care population. Research aim: To identify challenges in implementing the 'Let Me Decide' advance care planning programme in long-term-care. Research design: This feasibility study had two phases: (1) staff education on advance care planning and (2) structured advance care planning by staff with residents and families. Participants and research context: long-term-care residents in two nursing homes and one community hospital. Ethical considerations: The local research ethics committee granted ethical approval. Findings: Following implementation, over 50% of all residents had completed some form of end-of-life care plan. Of the 70 residents who died in the post-implementation period, 14% had no care plan, 10% (with capacity) completed an advance care directive and lacking such capacity, 76% had an end-of-life care plan completed for them by the medical team, following discussions with the resident (if able) and family. The considerable logistical challenge of releasing staff for training triggered development of an e-learning programme to facilitate training. Discussion: The challenges encountered were largely concerned with preserving resident's autonomy, avoiding harm and suboptimal or crisis decision-making, and ensuring residents were treated fairly through optimisation of finite resources. Conclusions: Although it may be too late for many long-term-care residents to complete their own advance care directive, the 'Let Me Decide' programme includes a feasible and acceptable option for structured end-of-life care planning for residents with variable capacity to complete an advance care directive, involving discussion with the resident (to the extent they were able) and their family. While end-of-life care planning was time-consuming to deliver, nursing staff were willing to overcome this and take ownership of the programme, once the benefits in improved communication and enhanced peace of mind among all parties involved became apparent in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of the study The prevalence of frailty is expected to increase worldwide in parallel with demographic ageing. Despite this, little is known about the prevalence in different populations particularly community-based samples. This cross-sectional study evaluates the prevalence of frailty in a community-dwelling older adult population and describes a methodology to plan community-based interventions. Methodology A random sample of 1331 older adults, resident in the Lazio-Region of Italy, were screened by trained public health nurses (PHNs) by administering a validated questionnaire (the Functional Geriatric Evaluation questionnaire). Prevalence of frailty was calculated using the Final Synthetic Score derived from the questionnaire’s Final Score. Variables associated with frailty were selected through univariate and multivariate statistical analysis. Results Prevalence of frail (FS ≥ 10,≤50) and very frail (FS < 10) individuals was 13.9% and 7.6% respectively. Variables associated with frailty were age (older than 85 years), disability, living alone or the presence of a paid carer, lower education and neurological disorders like stroke, dementia, Parkinson disease and other neuropsychiatric diseases; Anaemia or cancer were also associated with a higher prevalence of frailty. Discussion The study provide a comprehensive picture of the prevalence of frailty and factors associated to this condition in community-dwelling older adults. On the basis of the study results, a plan of community-based services could address the needs of care of the elderly population. A trained team of PHNs may be the most appropriate personnel to carry out multidimensional frailty assessment in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on a study which explored the hypothesis that combining patient-reported memory loss duration with AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) scores would increase the validity of this measure for detecting mild cognitive impairment (MCI). This study involved of English-speaking seniors at least 55 years old drawn from electronic medical records. Patients with MCI were diagnosed according to the Petersen criteria. The ABCS assesses five distinct cognitive domains which are word registration, delayed recall, orientation, verbal fluency and clock drawing out of 135 points.

Predicting risk of adverse healthcare outcomes is important to enable targeted delivery of interventions. The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC), designed for use by public health nurses (PHNs), measures the 1-year risk of hospitalisation, institutionalisation and death in community-dwelling older adults according to a five-point global risk score: from low (score 1,2) to medium (3) to high (4,5). We examined the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the RISC between student PHNs (n=32) and expert raters using six cases (two low, medium and high-risk), scored before and after RISC training. Correlations increased for each adverse outcome, statistically significantly for institutionalisation (r=0.72 to 0.80,p=0.04) and hospitalisation (r=0.51 to 0.71,p<0.01) but not death. Training improved accuracy for low-risk but not all high-risk cases. Overall, the RISC showed good IRR, which increased after RISC training. That reliability fell for some high-risk cases suggests that the training programme requires adjustment to improve IRR further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nurses' knowledge regarding advance directives may affect their administration and completion in end-of-life care. Confidence among nurses is a barrier to the provision of quality end-of-life care. This study investigated nurses' knowledge of advance directives and perceived confidence in end-of-life care, in Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy and the USA using a cross-sectional descriptive design ( n = 1089). In all countries, older nurses and those who had more professional experience felt more confident managing patients' symptoms at end-of-life and more comfortable stopping preventive medications at end-of-life. Nurses in the USA reported that they have more knowledge and experience of advance directives compared with other countries. In addition, they reported the highest levels of confidence and comfort in dealing with end-of-life care. Although legislation for advance directives does not yet exist in Ireland, nurses reported high levels of confidence in end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although advance care planning (ACP) and the use of advanced care directives (ACD) and end-of-life care plans are associated with a reduction in inappropriate hospitalisation, there is little evidence supporting the economic benefits of such programmes. We assessed the economic impact (gross savings) of the Let Me Decide (LMD) ACP programme in Ireland, specifically the impact on hospitalisations, bed days and location of resident deaths, before and after systematic implementation of the LMD-ACP combined with a palliative care education programme. Methods: The LMD-ACP was introduced into three long-term care (LTC) facilities in Southern Ireland and outcomes were compared pre and post implementation. In addition, 90 staff were trained in a palliative care educational programme. Economic analysis including probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results: The uptake of an ACD or end-of-life care post-implementation rose from 25 to 76 %. Post implementation, there were statistically significant decreases in hospitalisation rates from baseline (hospitalisation incidents declined from 27.8 to 14.6 %, z = 3.96, p < 0.001; inpatient hospital days reduced from 0.54 to 0.36 %, z = 8.85, p < 0.001). The percentage of hospital deaths also decreased from 22.9 to 8.4 %, z = 3.22, p = 0.001. However, length of stay (LOS) increased marginally (7-9 days). Economic analysis suggested a cost-reduction related to reduced hospitalisations ranging between €10 and €17.8 million/annum and reduction in ambulance transfers, estimated at €0.4 million/annum if these results were extrapolated nationally. When unit costs and LOS estimates were varied in scenario analyses, the expected cost reduction owing to reduced hospitalisations, ranged from €17.7 to €42.4 million nationally. Conclusions: Implementation of the LMD-ACP (ACD/end-of-life care plans combined with palliative care education) programme resulted in reduced rates of hospitalisation. Despite an increase in LOS, likely reflecting more complex care needs of admitted residents, gross costs were reduced and scenario analysis projected large annual savings if these results were extrapolated to the wider LTC population in Ireland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The 'Let Me Decide' Advance Care Planning (LMD-ACP) programme offers a structured approach to End-of-Life (EoL) care planning in long-term care for residents with and without capacity to complete an advance care directive/plan. The programme was implemented in three homes in the South of Ireland, with a view to improving quality of care at end of life. This paper will present an evaluation of the systematic implementation of the LMD-ACP programme in the homes. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with 15 Clinical Nurse Managers and two Directors of Nursing where the programme had been implemented. A semi-structured topic guide was used to direct questions that addressed implementation process, challenges implementing advance care planning, advantages/disadvantages and recommendations for the future. Data was analysed using manifest content analysis. Results: Five key categories emerged, with 16 corresponding subcategories. These subcategories emerged as a result of 37 codes. Key benefits of the programme included enhancing communication, changing the care culture, promoting preference-based care and avoiding crisis decision making. Establishing capacity among residents and indecision were among the main challenges reported by staff. Discussion: A number of recommendations were proposed by participants and included multi-disciplinary team involvement, and a blended approach to education on the topic. According to participants relationships with residents deepened, there was a more open and honest environment with family, end of life care focused more on symptom management, comfort and addressing spiritual care needs as opposed to crisis decision making and family conflict. Conclusion: The introduction of the LMD-ACP programme enhanced the delivery of care in the long-term care sites and led to a more open and positive care environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few case-finding instruments are available to community healthcare professionals. This review aims to identify short, valid instruments that detect older community-dwellers risk of four adverse outcomes: hospitalisation, functional-decline, institutionalisation and death. Data sources included PubMed and the Cochrane library. Data on outcome measures, patient and instrument characteristics, and trial quality (using the Quality In Prognosis Studies [QUIPS] tool), were double-extracted for derivation-validation studies in community-dwelling older adults (>50 years). Forty-six publications, representing 23 unique instruments, were included. Only five were externally validated. Mean patient age range was 64.2–84.6 years. Most instruments n = 18, (78%) were derived in North America from secondary analysis of survey data. The majority n = 12, (52%), measured more than one outcome with hospitalisation and the Probability of Repeated Admission score the most studied outcome and instrument respectively. All instruments incorporated multiple predictors. Activities of daily living n = 16, (70%), was included most often. Accuracy varied according to instruments and outcomes; area under the curve of 0.60–0.73 for hospitalisation, 0.63–0.78 for functional decline, 0.70–0.74 for institutionalisation and 0.56–0.82 for death. The QUIPS tool showed that 5/23 instruments had low potential for bias across all domains. This review highlights the present need to develop short, reliable, valid instruments to case-find older adults at risk in the community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Risk Instrument for Screening in the Community (RISC) is a short, global risk assessment to identify community-dwelling older adults’ one-year risk of institutionalisation, hospitalisation, and death. We investigated the contribution that the three components of the RISC (concern, its severity, and the ability of the caregiver network to manage concern) make to the accuracy of the instrument, across its three domains (mental state, activities of daily living (ADL), and medical state), by comparing their accuracy to other assessment instruments in the prospective Community Assessment of Risk and Treatment Strategies study. RISC scores were available for 782 patients. Across all three domains each subtest more accurately predicted institutionalisation compared to hospitalisation or death. The caregiver network’s ability to manage ADL more accurately predicted institutionalisation (AUC 0.68) compared to hospitalisation (AUC 0.57, P=0.01) or death (AUC 0.59, P=0.046), comparing favourably with the Barthel Index (AUC 0.67). The severity of ADL (AUC 0.63), medical state (AUC 0.62), Clinical Frailty Scale (AUC 0.67), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (AUC 0.66) scores had similar accuracy in predicting mortality. Risk of hospitalisation was difficult to predict. Thus, each component, and particularly the caregiver network, had reasonable accuracy in predicting institutionalisation. No subtest or assessment instrument accurately predicted risk of hospitalisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rising prevalence of cognitive impairment worldwide, clinicians are facing important challenges managing dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease, the most prevalent dementia subtype. Given that current treatments mainly offer symptomatic improvement, without altering disease progression, the challenge now is to identify and integrate new therapeutic strategies. Hypertension is increasingly recognized as a modifiable risk factor for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), the precursor of dementia. The renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) is central to blood pressure regulation and medications targeting RAAS inhibition are associated with reduced rates of both cognitive and functional decline in those with MCI and dementia. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are widely prescribed anti-hypertensives acting on the RAAS, and there is growing evidence that they act centrally, possibly exerting their effects independent of their blood pressure lowering properties. The relationship is complex however, and given the risks associated with hypotension particularly in older adults, treatment with these agents may not benefit all. Additionally, current evidence is limited to preclinical and observational studies such that there is now a pressing need to confirm preliminary studies with properly conducted randomized control trials. Here, we review some of the salient and complex aspects of these observations to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Centrally acting angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (CACE-Is) are associated with reduced rates of cognitive decline in patients with dementia. CACE-Is may also improve exercise tolerance in functionally impaired older adults with normal cognition, suggesting that CACE-Is may positively influence activities of daily living (ADL) in dementia. OBJECTIVE: To compare rates of decline in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) receiving CACE-Is to those not currently treated with CACE-Is (NoCACE-I), included in the Doxycycline and Rifampicin for Alzheimer's Disease study (n = 406). METHODS: Patients were included if baseline and end-point (twelve months apart) scores were available for measures including the Standardized Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive Subscale; Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment screen; Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR-SB), and Lawton-Brody ADL Scale. RESULTS: There was a significant, 25% difference (median one-point) in the 12-month rate of decline in ADL scores in patients taking CACE-Is (n = 91), compared to the NoCACE-I group (n = 274), p = 0.024. This remained significant after adjusting for age, gender, education, and blood pressure, p = 0.034. When individual CACE-Is were compared to the NoCACE-I group, a significant reduction in the rate of decline in ADLs (median one versus four points), were only observed for perindopril, p = 0.01. The CDR-SB was also reduced (median one-point) for the perindopril compared to the NoCACE-I group, p = 0.04. CONCLUSION: This observational study suggests that CACE-Is, and potentially perindopril in particular, are associated with a reduced rate of functional decline in patients with AD, without an association with mood or behavior. This suggests that CACE-Is may slow disease progression in AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive section and its standardized version (SADAS-cog) are the current standard for assessing cognitive outcomes in clinical trials of dementia. This study compares a shorter cognitive instrument, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, with the SADAS-cog as outcome measures in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting: The SADAS-cog, Qmci, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, and the Lawton-Brady activities of daily living (ADL) scale were assessed at multiple time points, over 1 year in a multicenter randomized clinical trial of 406 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's dementia. Correlations were estimated using regression at each time point, all time points, and mean values across time. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM). Results: Regression for pooled time points showed strong and significant correlation between the SADAS-cog and Qmci (r = -0.75, P < 0.001). Correlations remained strong for mean values across time and at each time point. The SADAS-cog and Qmci also correlated with CDR and ADL scores. There was no difference in SRMs between the SADAS-cog and Qmci [t(357) = -0.32, P = 0.75]. Conclusion: The Qmci correlated strongly with the SADAS-cog and both were equally responsive to deterioration. We suggest that clinicians and investigators can substitute the shorter Qmci for the SADAS-cog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scaleecognitive section and its standardized version (SADAS-cog) are the current standard for assessing cognitive outcomes in clinical trials of dementia. This study compares a shorter cognitive instrument, the Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen, with the SADAS-cog as outcome measures in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting: The SADAS-cog, Qmci, Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale, and the Lawtone Brady activities of daily living (ADL) scale were assessed at multiple time points, over 1 year in a multicenter randomized clinical trial of 406 patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's dementia. Correlations were estimated using regression at each time point, all time points, and mean values across time. Responsiveness was assessed using the standardized response mean (SRM). Results: Regression for pooled time points showed strong and significant correlation between the SADAS-cog and Qmci (r = -0.75, P < 0.001). Correlations remained strong for mean values across time and at each time point. The SADAS-cog and Qmci also correlated with CDR and ADL scores. There was no difference in SRMs between the SADAS-cog and Qmci [t(357) = -0.32, P = 0.75]. Conclusion: The Qmci correlated strongly with the SADAS-cog and both were equally responsive to deterioration. We suggest that clinicians and investigators can substitute the shorter Qmci for the SADAS-cog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: the Qmci is a sensitive and specific test to differentiate between normal cognition (NC), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of the subtests of the Qmci to determine which best discriminated NC, MCI and dementia.Objective: the objective was to determine the contribution each subtest of the Qmci makes, to its sensitivity and specificity in differentiating MCI from NC and dementia, to refine and shorten the instrument.Methods: existing data from our previous study of 965 subjects, testing the Qmci, was analysed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the Qmci subtests.Results: all the subtests of the Qmci differentiated MCI from NC. Logical memory (LM) performed the best (area under the receiver operating curve of 0.80), registration the worst, (0.56). LM and verbal fluency had the largest median differences (expressed as percentage of total score) between MCI and NC, 20 and 25%, respectively. Other subtests did not have clinically useful differences. LM was best at differentiating MCI from NC, irrespective of age or educational status.Conclusion: the Qmci incorporates several important cognitive domains making it useful across the spectrum of cognitive impairment. LM is the best performing subtest for differentiating MCI from NC. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from normal cognition (NC) is difficult. The AB Cognitive Screen (ABCS) 135, sensitive in differentiating MCI from dementia, was modified to improve sensitivity and specificity, producing the quick mild cognitive impairment (Qmci) screen.Objective: this study compared the sensitivity and specificity of the Qmci with the Standardised MMSE and ABCS 135, to differentiate NC, MCI and dementia.Methods: weightings and subtests of the ABCS 135 were changed and a new section ‘logical memory’ added, creating the Qmci. From four memory clinics in Ontario, Canada, 335 subjects (154 with MCI, 181 with dementia) were recruited and underwent comprehensive assessment. Caregivers, attending with the subjects, without cognitive symptoms, were recruited as controls (n = 630).Results: the Qmci was more sensitive than the SMMSE and ABCS 135, in differentiating MCI from NC, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.86 compared with 0.67 and 0.83, respectively, and in differentiating MCI from mild dementia, AUC of 0.92 versus 0.91 and 0.91. The ability of the Qmci to identify MCI was better for those over 75 years.Conclusion: the Qmci is more sensitive than the SMMSE in differentiating MCI and NC, making it a useful test, for MCI in clinical practice, especially for older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objective: To compare results of a specific capacity assessment administered by the treating clinician, and a Standardized Mini-Mental Status Examination (SMMSE), with the results of expert assessments of patient capacity to consent to treatment.Design: Cross-sectional study with independent comparison to expert capacity assessments.Setting: Inpatient medical wards at an academic secondary and tertiary referral hospital.Participants: One hundred consecutive inpatients facing a decision about a major medical treatment or an invasive medical procedure. Participants either were refusing treatment, or were accepting treatment but were not clearly capable according to the treating clinician.Measurements and Main Results: The treating clinician (medical resident or student) conducted a specific capacity assessment on each participant, using a decisional aid called the Aid to Capacity Evaluation. A specific capacity assessment is a semistructured evaluation of the participant's ability to understand relevant information and appreciate reasonably foreseeable consequences with regard to the specific treatment decision. Participants also received a SMMSE administered by a research nurse. Participants then had two independent expert assessments of capacity. If the two expert assessments disagreed, then an independent adjudication panel resolved the disagreement after reviewing videotapes of both expert assessments. Using the two expert assessments and the adjudication panel as the reference standard, we calculated areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves and likelihood ratios. The areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were 0.90 for specific capacity assessment by treating clinician and 0.93 for SMMSE score (2p =.48). For the treating clinician's specific capacity assessment, likelihood ratios for detecting incapacity were as follows: definitely incapable, 20 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3. 6, 120); probably incapable, 6.1 (95% CI 2.6, 15); probably capable, 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.81); and definitely capable, 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.29). For the SMMSE, a score of 0 to 16 had a likelihood ratio of 15 (95% CI 5.3, 44), a score of 17 to 23 had a likelihood ratio of 0. 68 (95% CI 0.35, 1.2), and a score of 24 to 30 had a likelihood ratio of 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.26).Conclusions: Specific capacity assessments by the treating clinician and SMMSE scores agree closely with results of expert assessments of capacity. Clinicians can use these practical, flexible, and evaluated measures as the initial step in the assessment of patient capacity to consent to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from dementia is important, as treatment options differ. There are few short (<5 min) but accurate screening tools that discriminate between MCI, normal cognition (NC) and dementia, in the Dutch language. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is sensitive and specific in differentiating MCI from NC and mild dementia. Given this, we adapted the Qmci for use in Dutchlanguage countries and validated the Dutch version, the Qmci-D, against the Dutch translation of the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE-D). Method: The Qmci was translated into Dutch with a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In all, 90 participants were recruited from a hospital geriatric clinic (25 with dementia, 30 with MCI, 35 with NC). The Qmci-D and SMMSE-D were administered sequentially but randomly by the same trained rater, blind to the diagnosis. Results: The Qmci-D was more sensitive than the SMMSE-D in discriminating MCI from dementia, with a significant difference in the area under the curve (AUC), 0.73 compared to 0.60 (p = 0.024), respectively, and in discriminating dementia from NC, with an AUC of 0.95 compared to 0.89 (p = 0.006). Both screening instruments discriminated MCI from NC with an AUC of 0.86 (Qmci-D) and 0.84 (SMMSE-D). Conclusion: The Qmci-D shows similar, (good) accuracy as the SMMSE-D in separating NC from MCI; greater (albeit fair), accuracy differentiating MCI from dementia, and significantly greater accuracy in separating dementia from NC. Given its brevity and ease of administration, the Qmci-D seems a useful cognitive screen in a Dutch population. Further study with a suitably powered sample against more sensitive screens is now required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]