The need of neuropsychological assessment in daily care of patients without dementia

• Authors: Krzysztof Pękala , Anna Bogaczewicz , Radosław Magierski , Joanna Magierska , Tomasz Sobów

Title variants

PL

Potrzeba oceny neuropsychologicznej w codziennej opiece nad pacjentami bez zdiagnozowanej demencji

• Languages of publication: EN PL

Abstracts

EN

Aim of the study: The prevalence of cognitive impairment increases with age and features lesions observed in Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. The aim of the study was to determine whether individuals without diagnosed dementia are affected by any reduction of cognitive functioning and to what extent such reduction occurs. Material and methods: The study enrolled 156 individuals, including 110 aged <75 years and 46 aged ≥75 years. Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery was used in assessment of Motor Screening Task (Mean Latency and Mean Errors), Paired Associated Learning (Total Errors and Errors Shapes), Stocking of Cambridge (Mean Initial Thinking Time, Mean Subsequent Thinking Time, Problems Solved in Minimum Moves) and Graded Naming Test. Individuals who aborted tests were categorized as below the reference threshold. Results: Prevalence of results below the reference threshold were as follows: 8.97% in Motor Screening Task – Mean Latency, 57% in Paired Associated Learning – Total Errors, 57% in Paired Associated Learning – Errors Shapes, 30% in Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Initial Thinking Time, 28% in Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time, 57% in Stocking of Cambridge – Problems Solved in Minimum Moves and 32% in Graded Naming Test. The results of Motor Screening Task were above the threshold. Motor Screening Task – Mean Error was higher in the +75 group (p < 0.001), whereas the Motor Screening Task – Mean Latency did not differ between the groups. Also Paired Associated Learning outcomes were higher in the +75 group (p = 0.01). Graded Naming Test and Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time were lowered in the +75 group (p = 0.01), whereas other Stocking of Cambridge tests did not differ. The age ≥75 years was associated with 2.3 times higher risk of decreased Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Initial Thinking Time, 2.7 times higher risk of decreased Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time and 3.3 times higher risk of decreased Graded Naming Test. Conclusions: The link between cognitive functions and the age, despite the lack of diagnosis of dementia, confirms the need of neuropsychological assessment in patients without dementia.

PL

Cel: Rozpowszechnienie deficytów poznawczych w populacji wzrasta wraz z wiekiem. Wiąże się to ze zmianami obserwowanymi w chorobie Alzheimera, otępieniu naczyniopochodnym, chorobie Parkinsona i otępieniu z ciałami Lewy’ego. Celem badania było ustalenie, czy i w jakim stopniu osoby bez rozpoznanej demencji mają obniżone funkcjonowanie poznawcze. Materiał i metoda: Do badania włączono 156 osób, w tym 110 w wieku <75 lat i 46 w wieku ≥75 lat. Do oceny neuropsychologicznej wykorzystano testy metody Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): Motor Screening Task (Mean Latency i Mean Errors), Paired Associated Learning (Total Errors i Errors Shapes), Stocking of Cambridge (Mean Initial Thinking Time, Mean Subsequent Thinking Time, Problems Solved in Minimum Moves) oraz Graded Naming Test. Osoby, które przerwały testy, zostały sklasyfikowane poniżej punktu referencyjnego. Wyniki: Odsetki wyników poniżej punktu referencyjnego były następujące: 8,97% w Motor Screening Task – Mean Latency, 57% w Paired Associated Learning – Total Errors, 57% w Paired Associated Learning – Errors Shapes, 30% w Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Initial Thinking Time, 28% w Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time, 57% w Stocking of Cambridge – Problems Solved in Minimum Moves oraz 32% w Graded Naming Test. Wyniki otrzymane w Motor Screening Task były powyżej punktu referencyjnego. Wyniki Motor Screening Task – Mean Error były wyższe w grupie osób ≥75. roku życia (p < 0,001), natomiast wyniki Motor Screening Task – Mean Latency nie różniły się istotnie pomiędzy grupami. Oba wyniki testu Paired Associated Learning były wyższe w grupie osób ≥75. roku życia (p = 0,01). Wyniki Graded Naming Test i Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time były obniżone w grupie osób >75. roku życia (p = 0,01), natomiast pozostałe wyniki Stocking of Cambridge nie różniły się między grupami. Wiek ≥75 lat był związany z 2,3 razy wyższym ryzykiem obniżonego wyniku w Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Initial Thinking Time, 2,7 razy wyższym ryzykiem obniżonego wyniku w Stocking of Cambridge – Mean Subsequent Thinking Time oraz 3,3 razy wyższym ryzykiem obniżonego wyniku w Graded Naming Test. Wnioski: Związek między funkcjami poznawczymi a wiekiem, mimo braku rozpoznania otępienia, potwierdza potrzebę oceny neuropsychologicznej pacjentów bez stwierdzonej demencji.

Keywords

EN

Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery; cognitive functions; funkcje poznawcze; neuropsychological assessment; ocena neuropsychologiczna

Discipline

• MEDICINE: MEDICINE

• Journal: Aktualności Neurologiczne
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 79-84

Contributors

author

Krzysztof Pękala

• Department of Medical Psychology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

author

Anna Bogaczewicz

• Department of Medical Psychology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

author

Radosław Magierski

• Department of Old Age Psychiatry and Psychotic Disorders, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

author

Joanna Magierska

• Department of Old Age Psychiatry and Psychotic Disorders, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

author

Tomasz Sobów

• Department of Medical Psychology, Medical University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland

References

• Albert SM, Michaels K, Padilla M et al.: Functional significance of mild cognitive impairment in elderly patients without a dementia diagnosis. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 1999; 7: 213–220.
• Almkvist O, Bäckman L: Detection and staging of early clinical dementia. Acta Neurol Scand 1993; 88: 10–15.
• Ang SY, Lee K: Central executive involvement in children’s spatial memory. Memory 2008; 16: 918–933.
• Baddeley A: The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory? Trend Cogn Sci 2000; 4: 417–423.
• Baptista MA, Santos RL, Kimura N et al.: Quality of life in young onset dementia: an updated systematic review. Trends Psychiatry Psychother 2016; 38: 6–13.
• Bartrés-Faz D, Junqué C, López-Alomar A et al.: Neuropsychological and genetic differences between age-associated memory impairment and mild cognitive impairment entities. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 985–990.
• Bidzan L: Łagodne zaburzenia funkcji poznawczych. Geriatria 2015; 9: 22–30.
• Binder JC, Martin M, Zöllig J et al.: Multi-domain training enhances attentional control. Psychol Aging 2016; 31: 390–408.
• Blackwell AD, Sahakian BJ, Vesey R et al.: Detecting dementia: novel neuropsychological markers of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2004; 17: 42–48.
• Bossers WJ, van der Woude LH, Boersma F et al.: Comparison of effect of two exercise programs on activities of daily living in individuals with dementia: a 9-week randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016; 64: 1258–1266.
• Chertkow H, Massoud F, Nasreddine Z et al.: Diagnosis and treatment of dementia: 3. Mild cognitive impairment and cognitive impairment without dementia. CMAJ 2008; 178: 1273–1285.
• Ebly EM, Hogan DB, Parhad IM: Cognitive impairment in the nondemented elderly. Results from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 612–619.
• Flicker C, Ferris SH, Reisberg B: A two-year longitudinal study of cognitive function in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1993; 6: 84–96.
• Forsell Y, Fratiglioni L, Grut M et al.: Clinical staging of dementia in a population survey: comparison of DSM-III-R and the Washington University Clinical Dementia Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1992; 86: 49–54.
• Förstl H, Hentschel F, Sattel H et al.: Age-associated memory impairment and early Alzheimer’s disease. Only time will tell the difference. Arzneimittelforschung 1995; 45: 394–397.
• Graham JE, Rockwood K, Beattie BL et al.: Prevalence and severity of cognitive impairment with and without dementia in an elderly population. Lancet 1997; 349: 1793–1796.
• Gurland BJ: The borderlands of dementia: the influence of socio-cultural characteristics on rates of dementia occurring in the senium. In: Miller NE, Cohen GD (eds.): Clinical Aspects of Alzheimer’s Disease and Senile Dementia: Aging. Raven Press, New York 1981: 61–84.
• Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL et al.: A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1982; 140: 566–572.
• Inskip M, Mavros Y, Sachdev PS et al.: Exercise for individuals with Lewy body dementia: a systematic review. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0156520.
• Jacobs DM, Sano M, Dooneief G et al.: Neuropsychological detection and characterization of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Neurology 1995; 45: 957–962.
• Jean L, Simard M, Wiederkehr S et al.: Efficacy of a cognitive training programme for mild cognitive impairment: results of a randomised controlled study. Neuropsychol Rehabil 2010; 20: 377–405.
• Lopez OL, Jagust WJ, DeKosky ST et al.: Prevalence and classification of mild cognitive impairment in the Cardiovascular Health Study Cognition Study: part 1. Arch Neurol 2003; 60: 1385–1389.
• Masur DM, Sliwinski M, Lipton RB et al.: Neuropsychological prediction of dementia and the absence of dementia in healthy elderly persons. Neurology 1994; 44: 1427–1432.
• Mattsson N, Zetterberg H, Hansson O et al.: CSF biomarkers and incipient Alzheimer disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment. JAMA 2009; 302: 385–393.
• Morris JC, McKeel DW Jr, Storandt M et al.: Very mild Alzheimer’s disease: informant-based clinical, psychometric, and pathologic distinction from normal aging. Neurology 1991; 41: 469–478.
• Osterweil D, Mulford P, Syndulko K et al.: Cognitive function in old and very old residents of a residential facility: relationship to age, education, and dementia. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994; 42: 766–773.
• Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC et al.: Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol 1999; 56: 303–308.
• Putcha D, Tremont G: Predictors of independence in instrumental activities of daily living: amnestic versus nonamnestic MCI. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2016: 1–14.
• Ravaglia G, Forti P, Montesi F et al.: Mild cognitive impairment: epidemiology and dementia risk in an elderly Italian population. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008; 56: 51–58.
• Rubin EH, Storandt M, Miller JP et al.: Influence of age on clinical and psychometric assessment of subjects with very mild or mild dementia of the Alzheimer type. Arch Neurol 1993; 50: 380–383.
• Sun HQ, Zhang X, Huang WJ et al.: The news advances on Alzheimer’s disease’s therapeutics. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016; 20: 1903–1910.
• Tuokko H, Frerichs R, Graham J et al.: Five-year follow-up of cognitive impairment with no dementia. Arch Neurol 2003; 60: 577–582.
• Votruba KL, Persad C, Giordani B: Cognitive deficits in healthy elderly population with “normal” scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 2016; 29: 126–132.
• Xu Y, Yang J, Shang H: Meta-analysis of risk factors for Parkinson’s disease dementia. Transl Neurodegener 2016; 5: 11.

• Document Type: article