Community Cognitive Screening Using the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE).

This study investigated the functionality of the Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) for cognitive screening in community settings and examined its characteristics as a cognitive screening assessment tool. From 45 community events, 1,047 individuals over age 50 were screened with SAGE. Cognitive impairment was identified in 28%. Principal-component and correlation analysis indicate that SAGE is an internally-consistent test that is very well balanced, with language, cognition, visuospatial, executive, and memory domains. Community cognitive screening using SAGE was found to be feasible and efficient in diverse settings with both small and large groups.

Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination: longitudinal cohort testing for the early detection of dementia conversion.

BACKGROUND: Significant cognitive changes as individuals' age are not being identified in a timely manner, delaying diagnosis and treatments. Use of brief, multi-domain, self-administered, objective cognitive assessment tools may remove some barriers in assessing and identifying cognitive changes. We compared longitudinal Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) test scores to non-self-administered Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores in 5 different diagnostic subgroups. METHODS: A cohort study evaluating annual rates of change was performed on 665 consecutive patients from Ohio State University Memory Disorders Clinic. Patients with at least two visits 6 months apart evaluated with SAGE and MMSE and classified according to standard clinical criteria as subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia were included. The pattern of change in SAGE scores was compared to MMSE. One way and repeated measures ANOVA and linear regression models were used. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four individuals (40 SCD, 94 MCI non-converters to dementia, 70 MCI converters to dementia (49 to AD dementia and 21 to non-AD dementia), 220 AD dementia) met inclusion criteria. SAGE and MMSE scores declined respectively at annual rates of 1.91 points/year (p < 0.0001) and 1.68 points/year (p < 0.0001) for MCI converters to AD dementia, and 1.82 points/year (p < 0.0001) and 2.38 points/year (p < 0.0001) for AD dementia subjects. SAGE and MMSE scores remained stable for SCD and MCI non-converters. Statistically significant decline from baseline scores in SAGE occurred at least 6 months earlier than MMSE for MCI converters to AD dementia (14.4 vs. 20.4 months), MCI converters to non-AD dementia (14.4 vs. 32.9 months), and AD dementia individuals (8.3 vs. 14.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: SAGE detects MCI conversion to dementia at least 6 months sooner than MMSE. Being self-administered, SAGE also addresses a critical need of removing some barriers in performing cognitive assessments. Limitations of our single-site cohort study include potential referral and sampling biases. Repetitively administering SAGE and identifying stability or decline may provide clinicians with an objective cognitive biomarker impacting evaluation and management choices.

Self-administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE): a brief cognitive assessment Instrument for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a self-administered cognitive assessment instrument to facilitate the screening of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia and determine its association with gold standard clinical assessments including neuropsychologic evaluation. METHODS: Adults aged above 59 years with sufficient vision and English literacy were recruited from geriatric and memory disorder clinics, educational talks, independent living facilities, senior centers, and memory screens. After Self-administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) screening, subjects were randomly selected to complete a clinical evaluation, neurologic examination, neuropsychologic battery, functional assessment, and mini-mental state examination (MMSE). Subjects were identified as dementia, MCI, or normal based on standard clinical criteria and neuropsychologic testing. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four participants took the SAGE screen and 63 subjects completed the extensive evaluation (21 normal, 21 MCI, and 21 dementia subjects). Spearman rank correlation between SAGE and neuropsychologic battery was 0.84 (0.76 for MMSE). SAGE receiver operating characteristics on the basis of clinical diagnosis showed 95% specificity (90% for MMSE) and 79% sensitivity (71% for MMSE) in detecting those with cognitive impairment from normal subjects. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that SAGE is a reliable instrument for detecting cognitive impairment and compares favorably with the MMSE. The self-administered feature may promote cognitive testing by busy clinicians prompting earlier diagnosis and treatment.

Digitally translated Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (eSAGE): relationship with its validated paper version, neuropsychological evaluations, and clinical assessments.

BACKGROUND: The original paper Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) is a valid and reliable cognitive assessment tool used to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We evaluated identical test questions in a digital format (eSAGE) made for tablet use with the goals of calibrating it against SAGE and establishing its association with other neuropsychological tests and clinical assessments of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Subjects aged 50 and over who had taken SAGE were recruited from community and clinic settings. Subjects were randomly selected to participate in a clinical evaluation including neuropsychological evaluations. SAGE and eSAGE were administered using a crossover design. Subjects were identified as dementia, MCI, or normal based on standard clinical criteria. Associations were investigated using Spearman correlations, linear regression, and sensitivity and specificity measures. RESULTS: Of the 426 subjects screened, 66 completed the evaluation. eSAGE score correlation to a battery of neuropsychological tests was 0.73 (p < 0.0001) with no significant difference between the paper and digital format. Spearman correlation of SAGE versus eSAGE was 0.88 (p < 0.0001), and they are related by the formula: eSAGE score = -1.05 + 0.99 × SAGE score. Since the slope is very close to 1 (p = 0.86) there is strong evidence that the scaling is identical between eSAGE and SAGE, with no scale bias. Overall, eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 1.21 and the decrease is statistically significant (p < 0.0001). For those subjects familiar with smartphones or tablets (one measure of digital proficiency), eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 0.83 points (p = 0.029). With a score 16 and higher being classified as normal, eSAGE had 90% specificity and 71% sensitivity in detecting those with cognitive impairment from normal subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet-based eSAGE shows a strong association with the validated paper SAGE and a neuropsychological battery. It shows no scale bias compared to SAGE. Both have the advantage of self-administration, brevity, four interchangeable forms, and high sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment from normal subjects. Their potential widespread availability will be a major factor in overcoming the many obstacles in identifying early cognitive changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02544074 . Registered on 18 March 2015.

Paired Studies Comparing Clinical Profiles of Lewy Body Dementia with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Diseases.

Limited data compares clinical profiles of Lewy Body Dementia (LBD) with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Twenty-one mildly demented ambulatory LBD subjects were individually matched by MMSE score with 21 AD subjects and by UPDRS motor score with 21 PD subjects. Matched by age, gender, education, and race, pairs were compared using cognitive, functional, behavioral, and motor measures. LBD group performed worse than PD on axial motor, gait, and balance measures. AD had more amnesia and orientation impairments, but less executive and visuospatial deficits than LBD subjects. LBD group had more sleepiness, cognitive/behavioral fluctuations, hallucinations, and sleep apnea than AD or PD. Axial motor, gait, and balance disturbances correlated with executive, visuospatial, and global cognition deficits. LBD is differentiated from AD and PD by retrieval memory, visuospatial, and executive deficits; axial motor, gait and balance impairments; sleepiness, cognitive/behavioral fluctuations, hallucinations, and sleep apnea.

Cognitive and behavioral effects of quetiapine in Alzheimer disease patients.

In a prospective, open-label, 12-week pilot study in outpatients with probable Alzheimer disease (AD) with psychosis or aggressive behaviors, we used the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) to evaluate the cognitive and behavioral effects of quetiapine. After receiving doses ranging from 50 to 150 mg, patients given quetiapine showed a significant decrease of delusions, aggression, and overall behaviors based on NPI scores at 6 and 12 weeks. ADAS-cog scores did not show a significant change over 12 weeks. This study provides initial evidence that quetiapine does not significantly worsen cognition in AD outpatients.

A pilot open-label trial of citalopram for restless activity and aberrant motor behaviors in Alzheimer disease.

OBJECTIVE: In a prospective, open-label pilot study in probable-Alzheimer disease (AD) outpatients, the authors investigated the efficacy of citalopram to reduce restless activity and aberrant motor behaviors. METHODS: Nineteen subjects were evaluated with Neuropsychiatric Inventory subscale and total scores. RESULTS: There was a significant decline in aberrant motor behaviors and overall behavior problems at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: This study provides initial evidence that citalopram may be effective in reducing aberrant motor behaviors in AD. However, because of the potential biases of an open-label study, these findings need to be confirmed in a larger, controlled trial.