Can individualized-targeted computerized cognitive training improve everyday functioning in adults with HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder?

Half of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). Fortunately, cognitive training programs can improve function across cognitive domains, which may translate to everyday functioning. The Training on Purpose (TOPS) Study was designed to reverse HAND by targeting cognitive training to specific cognitive impairments that contributed to the diagnosis. A secondary aim of TOPS was to determine whether such cognitive training improved subjective and objective everyday functioning. In this two-group pre-post experimental design study, 109 adults with HAND were randomized to either: (1) a no-contact control group (no training) or (2) the Individualized-Targeted Cognitive Training group. Each participant received approximately 10 hours of cognitive training in two selected cognitive domains based on her/his individual baseline cognitive performance. Thus, 20 hours of individualized training on these two cognitive domains occurred over a course of 12 weeks in 1-2 hour sessions. Specific to the secondary aim of TOPS, measures of everyday functioning were administered before and after cognitive training to examine transfer effects. The analyses revealed that in general, speed of processing training produced benefits in everyday functioning as measured by the medication adherence visual analogue scale and the Timed Instrumental Activities of Daily Living test. Inconsistent findings were found for the other seven cognitive training protocols in either improving everyday functioning or reducing perceived everyday functioning; however, there may be other contributing factors that obscured such effects needing further research. This study demonstrated that some training protocols vary in efficacy in altering both objective and subjective everyday functioning ability.

Advanced cognitive training for breast cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the preliminary efficacy and satisfaction/acceptability of training in memory or speed of processing versus wait-list control for improving cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. 82 breast cancer survivors completed a three-group randomized, controlled trial. Primary outcomes were objective neuropsychological tests of memory and speed of processing. Secondary outcomes were perceived cognitive functioning, symptom distress (mood disturbance, anxiety, and fatigue), quality of life, and intervention satisfaction/acceptability. Data were collected at baseline, post-intervention, and 2-month follow-up. Using repeated-measures mixed-linear ANCOVA models, each intervention was compared to wait-list control while adjusting for age, education, and baseline measures. The effect sizes for differences in means and the reliable improvement percentage were reported. The results show that domain-specific effects were seen for both interventions: memory training improved memory performance at 2-month follow-up (p = 0.036, d = 0.59); speed of processing training improved processing speed post-intervention (p = 0.040, d = 0.55) and 2-month follow-up (p = 0.016; d = 0.67). Transfer effects to non-trained domains were seen for speed of processing training with improved memory post-intervention (p = 0.007, d = 0.75) and 2-month follow-up (p = 0.004, d = 0.82). Both interventions were associated with improvements in perceived cognitive functioning, symptom distress, and quality of life. Ratings of satisfaction/acceptability were high for both interventions. It was concluded that while both interventions appeared promising, speed of processing training resulted in immediate and durable improvements in objective measures of processing speed and verbal memory. Speed of processing training may have broader benefits in this clinical population.

Driving-Related Cognitive Performance in Older Adults with Pharmacologically Treated Cardiovascular Disease.

The objective of this study was to determine if older drivers with pharmacologically treated hypertension and/or heart disease demonstrate impaired performance on established driving related cognitive measures. Data regarding self-reported demographic variables (i.e., age, sex, race, income, mental and physical health diagnoses, and prescription drug use) and performance on driving-related measures of cognitive function (i.e., Trail Making Test B; and Useful Field of View (UFOV® subtest 2) were gathered from 865 licensed drivers. No group cognitive performance differences were found among the treated hypertensives and the healthy control group, thus underscoring the importance of effective hypertension management. However, older adults with pharmacologically treated heart disease demonstrated poorer performance than older adults without heart disease on Trails B and UFOV® subtest 2. Although it is generally agreed that assessment and early intervention with regard to heart disease risk factors (i.e., cholesterol, tobacco smoking, obesity, etc.) beneficially affect physical health, the current results also indicate that addressing such risk factors prior to the development of heart disease may benefit cognitive function, as well.

A cost-benefit analysis of risk-reduction strategies targeted at older drivers.

OBJECTIVE: The risk of motor-vehicle collisions increases as driving-related functional abilities decline. These declines can accompany normal or pathological aging and can be identified through driving-related functional screening exams upon license renewal. The objective of this cost-benefit analysis was to determine the utility of four functional screening procedures used to identify drivers at risk for motor-vehicle collisions, as well as an intervention designed to maintain or improve functional abilities. Additionally, this study sought to determine the expected cost per driver if an intervention was designed to target only those drivers who failed the functional ability-based driving screen, versus the expected cost per driver if the intervention was distributed en masse to all drivers 75 years and older. Improving functional abilities in older adults has potential far-reaching health and financial impacts which are broader than their impact of maintaining mobility. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed to evaluate the expected costs and benefits of (a) screening all drivers and intervening when indicated (several screening batteries of varying length were considered), (b) no screening, but intervening with all drivers of older age, or (c) neither screening nor intervening (i.e., re-licensing per usual). Test characteristics and risk probabilities were based on a cohort of drivers aged 75 and older from a previous study (Ball et al., 2006). Relevant sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Providing all drivers with the speed-of-processing intervention is the most cost-beneficial option (expected cost per driver = $493.30), even if the cost of the intervention doubles. Sensitivity analysis indicated the effectiveness of the intervention could drop from 86% to 25% and the preventative approach of intervening with all drivers remains the most cost-beneficial strategy. The least cost-beneficial option is almost always re-licensing per usual (expected cost per driver = $1,562.84). CONCLUSION: Screening drivers upon license renewal is not currently beneficial because the available technology cannot consistently identify drivers at risk for a collision. However, the speed-of-processing intervention has demonstrated efficacy in improving driving competence (Roenker et al., 2003) and is a non-invasive, moderate-cost intervention that has the potential to protect the safety and mobility, as well as the financial interests, of older drivers and the community at large.