Anosognosia in dementia: A review of current assessment instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Anosognosia is a common but underrated symptom in dementia and has significant impact on both patients and caregivers. A proper evaluation of anosognosia is therefore desirable. There are three common methods to determine anosognosia: (1) clinical rating, (2) patient-caregiver discrepancies, and (3) prediction of performance discrepancies. Each of them includes different instruments. This review gives an overview of the current instruments used for the assessment of anosognosia in patients with dementia and aims to determine the most suitable instrument for routine use in clinical practice. METHODS: A search of the literature in PubMed was performed. Furthermore, electronic databases (PsycINFo, ClinicalKey, and Cochrane Library) and reference lists were searched for additional articles. RESULTS: Forty-six articles were included in this study, comprising 10 clinical rating instruments, 25 patient-caregiver discrepancy instruments, and 14 prediction-performance discrepancy instruments. For every publication, the aims of the study, the included population, the assessment instrument used, the assessed domains, and the psychometric properties of the assessment instruments are described. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no consensus on the most suitable method to determine anosognosia in dementia. We recommend the Clinical Insight Rating scale and the Abridged Anosognosia Questionnaire-Dementia as the most appropriate for routine use in clinical practice.

The Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Neuropsychological Assessment in Memory Clinic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Neuropsychological testing has long been embedded in daily clinical practice at memory clinics but the added value of a complete neuropsychological assessment (NPA) to standard clinical evaluation is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the added diagnostic and prognostic value of NPA to clinical evaluation only in memory clinic patients. METHODS: In 221 memory clinic patients of a prospective cohort study, clinical experts diagnosed clinical syndrome (subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia) and etiology (Alzheimer's disease (AD) or no AD), and provided a prognosis of disease course (decline or no decline) before and after results of NPA were made available. The reference standard was a panel consensus based on all clinical information at baseline and up to 2 follow-up assessments. RESULTS: With NPA data available, clinicians changed their initial syndromal diagnosis in 22% of patients, and the etiological diagnosis as well as the prognosis in 15%. This led to an increase in correctly classified cases of 18% for syndromal diagnosis, 5% for etiological diagnosis, and 1% for prognosis. NPA data resulted in the largest improvement in patients initially classified as SCI (syndrome: 93.3% (n = 14) correctly reclassified, etiology: net reclassification improvement [NRI] = 0.61, prognosis: NRI = 0.13) or MCI (syndrome: 89.3% (n = 23) correctly reclassified, etiology: NRI = 0.17, prognosis: NRI = 0.14), while there was no improvement in patients with dementia (syndrome: 100% (n = 1) correctly reclassified, etiology: NRI = -0.05, prognosis: NRI = -0.06). Overall, inclusion of NPA in the diagnostic process increased confidence in all diagnoses with 6-7%. CONCLUSION: Administration of a complete NPA after standard clinical evaluation has added value for diagnosing cognitive syndrome and its underlying etiology in patients regarded as non-demented based on the first clinical impression.