Rapid cognitive assessment tools for screening of mild cognitive impairment in the preoperative setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a high-risk precursor to dementia, post-operative delirium, and prolonged hospitalization. There is a need for preoperative rapid cognitive screening tools. STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the predictive parameters of rapid MCI screening tools in different clinical settings for preoperative application. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses searching Medline, and other databases from inception to May 26, 2021. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed for data curation and quality assessment. Title and abstract screening were conducted independently via Rayyan. Data was curated through a random-effects model and statistical analysis used R-software. SETTING: Community, memory clinic, emergency, long-term care, and in-patient settings. There were no studies in the preoperative setting. PATIENTS: Twenty-three studies with 9973 patients (≥ 60 years old) undergoing rapid MCI screening. INTERVENTION: Rapid (≤ 5 min) MCI screening tools. MEASUREMENTS: Pooled predictive parameters (sensitivity, specificity) of screening tests. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen screening tools, compared to neuropsychological tests, were identified. The overall prevalence of MCI among the Rapid Cognitive Screen (RCS), Six-item Screener (SIS), Mini-Cog, and Clock Drawing Test (CDT) studies were 24.6%, 28.3%, 40.9%, and 20.7%, respectively. RCS has 82% sensitivity and 79% specificity in detecting MCI. SIS has 61% sensitivity and 89% specificity. Mini-Cog has 52% sensitivity and 80% specificity. CDT has 56% sensitivity and 59% specificity. Seven other index tools had high sensitivities of 97%-82% and specificities of 90%-73% but were studied only once. CONCLUSION: No rapid screening tools had been validated in the surgical population. In other populations, RCS may be a promising screening tool for MCI with stronger sensitivity and specificity than Mini-Cog, SIS, and CDT. CDT alone is ineffective for MCI detection. Further validation in the preoperative setting is required to determine the efficacy of these screening tools.

Informant-based tools for assessment and monitoring of cognition, behavior, and function in neurocognitive disorders: Systematic review and report from a CCCDTD5 Working Group.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the fifth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia, we assessed the literature on informant-based tools for assessment and monitoring of cognition, behavior, and function in neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and researchers. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standards guidelines. Publications that validated the informant-based tools or described their key properties were reviewed. Quality of the studies was assessed using the modified Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. RESULTS: Out of 386 publications identified through systematic search, 34 that described 19 informant-based tools were included in the final review. Most of these tools are backed by good-quality studies and are appropriate to use in clinical care or research. The tools vary in their psychometric properties, domains covered, comprehensiveness, completion time, and ability to detect longitudinal change. Based on these properties, we identify different tools that may be appropriate for primary care, specialized memory clinic, or research settings. We also identify barriers to use of these tools in routine clinical practice. CONCLUSION: There are several good-quality tools available to collect informant-report for assessment and monitoring of cognition, behavior, or function in patients with NCDs. Clinicians and researchers may choose a particular tool based on their specific needs such as domains of interest, desired psychometric properties, and feasibility. Further work is needed to make the tools more user-friendly and to adopt them into routine clinical care.

Exploratory Assessment of K-means Clustering to Classify 18F-Flutemetamol Brain PET as Positive or Negative.

RATIONALE: We evaluated K-means clustering to classify amyloid brain PETs as positive or negative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-six participants (31 men, 35 women; age range, 52-81 years) were recruited through a multicenter observational study: 19 cognitively normal, 25 mild cognitive impairment, and 22 dementia (11 Alzheimer disease, 3 subcortical vascular cognitive impairment, and 8 Parkinson-Lewy Body spectrum disorder). As part of the neurocognitive and imaging evaluation, each participant had an 18F-flutemetamol (Vizamyl, GE Healthcare) brain PET. All studies were processed using Cortex ID software (General Electric Company, Boston, MA) to calculate SUV ratios in 19 regions of interest and clinically interpreted by 2 dual-certified radiologists/nuclear medicine physicians, using MIM software (MIM Software Inc, Cleveland, OH), blinded to the quantitative analysis, with final interpretation based on consensus. K-means clustering was retrospectively used to classify the studies from the quantitative data. RESULTS: Based on clinical interpretation, 46 brain PETs were negative and 20 were positive for amyloid deposition. Of 19 cognitively normal participants, 1 (5%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Of 25 participants with mild cognitive impairment, 9 (36%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Of 22 participants with dementia, 10 (45%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET; 7 of 11 participants with Alzheimer disease (64%), 1 of 3 participants with vascular cognitive impairment (33%), and 2 of 8 participants with Parkinson-Lewy Body spectrum disorder (25%) had a positive 18F-flutemetamol brain PET. Using clinical interpretation as the criterion standard, K-means clustering (K = 2) gave sensitivity of 95%, specificity of 98%, and accuracy of 97%. CONCLUSIONS: K-means clustering may be a powerful algorithm for classifying amyloid brain PET.

CCCDTD5 recommendations on early and timely assessment of neurocognitive disorders using cognitive, behavioral, and functional scales.

INTRODUCTION: Earlier diagnosis of neurocognitive disorders and neurodegenerative disease is needed to implement preventative interventions, minimize harm, and reduce risk of exploitation in the context of undetected disease. Along the spectrum from subjective cognitive decline (SCD) to dementia, evidence continues to emerge with respect to detection, staging, and monitoring. Updates to previous guidelines are required for clinical practice. METHODS: A subcommittee of the 5th Canadian Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) reviewed emerging evidence to address the following: (1) Is there a role for screening at-risk patients without clinical concerns? In what context is assessment for dementia appropriate? (2) What tools can be used to evaluate patients in whom cognitive decline is suspected? (3) What important information can be gained from an informant, using which measures? (4) What instruments can be used to get more in-depth information to diagnose mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia? (5) What is the approach to those with cognitive concerns but without objective changes (ie, SCD)? (6) How do we track response to treatment and change over time? The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was used to rate quality of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. RESULTS: We recommend instruments to assess and monitor cognition, behavior, and function across the cognitive spectrum, including reports from patient and informant. We recommend against screening asymptomatic older adults but recommend investigation for self- or informant reports of changes in cognition, emergence of behavioral or psychiatric symptoms, or decline in function or self-care. Standardized assessments should be used for cognitive and behavioral change that have sufficient validity for use in clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The CCCDTD5 provides evidence-based recommendations for detection, assessment, and monitoring of neurocognitive disorders. Although these guidelines were developed for use in Canada, they may also be useful in other jurisdictions.

Structural Brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Rule Out Comorbid Pathology in the Assessment of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia: Findings from the Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI) Study and Clinical Trials Over the Past 10 Years.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Structural brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not mandatory in Alzheimer's disease (AD) research or clinical guidelines. We aimed to explore the use of structural brain MRI in AD/mild cognitive impairment (MCI) trials over the past 10 years and determine the frequency with which inclusion of standardized structural MRI acquisitions detects comorbid vascular and non-vascular pathologies. METHODS: We systematically searched ClinicalTrials.gov for AD clinical trials to determine their neuroimaging criteria and then used data from an AD/MCI cohort who underwent standardized MRI protocols, to determine type and incidence of clinically relevant comorbid pathologies. RESULTS: Of 210 AD clinical trials, 105 (50%) included structural brain imaging in their eligibility criteria. Only 58 (27.6%) required MRI. 16,479 of 53,755 (30.7%) AD participants were in trials requiring MRI. In the observational AD/MCI cohort, 141 patients met clinical criteria; 22 (15.6%) had relevant MRI findings, of which 15 (10.6%) were exclusionary for the study. DISCUSSION: In AD clinical trials over the last 10 years, over two-thirds of participants could have been enrolled without brain MRI and half without even a brain CT. In a study sample, relevant comorbid pathology was found in 15% of participants, despite careful screening. Standardized structural MRI should be incorporated into NIA-AA diagnostic guidelines (when available) and research frameworks routinely to reduce diagnostic heterogeneity.

Responsiveness to Change of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Mini-Mental State Examination, and SCOPA-Cog in Non-Demented Patients with Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical monitoring of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) for cognitive decline is an important element of care. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) has been proposed to be a sensitive tool for assessing cognitive impairment in PD. The aim of our study was to compare the responsiveness of the MoCA to decline in cognition to the responsiveness of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Scales for Outcomes of Parkinson's disease-cognition (SCOPA-Cog). METHODS: PD patients without dementia were enrolled at 6 North American movement disorders centers between 2008 and 2011. Participants received annual evaluations including the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog followed by formal neuropsychological testing. The gold standard for change in cognition was defined as the change on the neuropsychological test scores over the annual assessments. The Reliable Change Method was used to provide an estimate of the probability that a given difference score would be obtained by chance. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change was quantified using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen patients were included in the analysis. Participants were followed at mean intervals of 11 ± 2 months for a median of 2 (maximum 5) visits. According to the reliable change index, 56 intervals of cognitive testing showed a decline in global cognition. ROC analysis of change in MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog global scores compared to gold standard testing found an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.55 (95% CI 0.48-0.62), 0.56 (0.48-0.63), and 0.63 (0.55-0.70) respectively. There were no significant differences in the AUCs across the tests. The sensitivity of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog to change at various thresholds for decline in scores reached a maximum of 71% for a cut-off of 1 point change on the SCOPA-Cog. CONCLUSION: Using neuropsychological testing as a gold standard comparator, the performance of the MoCA, MMSE, and SCOPA-Cog for detecting decline in non-demented PD patients over a 1-year interval is poor. This has implications for clinical practice; stable scores may not be taken as reassurance of the absence of cognitive decline.

Correction to: The Toronto cognitive assessment (TorCA): normative data and validation to detect amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

Upon publication of this article [1], it was brought to our attention that one of the 303 participants in the normative study should have been deleted from the database.

The Toronto Cognitive Assessment (TorCA): normative data and validation to detect amnestic mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: A need exists for easily administered assessment tools to detect mild cognitive changes that are more comprehensive than screening tests but shorter than a neuropsychological battery and that can be administered by physicians, as well as any health care professional or trained assistant in any medical setting. The Toronto Cognitive Assessment (TorCA) was developed to achieve these goals. METHODS: We obtained normative data on the TorCA (n = 303), determined test reliability, developed an iPad version, and validated the TorCA against neuropsychological assessment for detecting amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) (n = 50/57, aMCI/normal cognition). For the normative study, healthy volunteers were recruited from the Rotman Research Institute registry. For the validation study, the sample was comprised of participants with aMCI or normal cognition based on neuropsychological assessment. Cognitively normal participants were recruited from both healthy volunteers in the normative study sample and the community. RESULTS: The TorCA provides a stable assessment of multiple cognitive domains. The total score correctly classified 79% of participants (sensitivity 80%; specificity 79%). In an exploratory logistic regression analysis, indices of Immediate Verbal Recall, Delayed Verbal and Visual Recall, Visuospatial Function, and Working Memory/Attention/Executive Control, a subset of the domains assessed by the TorCA, correctly classified 92% of participants (sensitivity 92%; specificity 91%). Paper and iPad version scores were equivalent. CONCLUSIONS: The TorCA can improve resource utilization by identifying patients with aMCI who may not require more resource-intensive neuropsychological assessment. Future studies will focus on cross-validating the TorCA for aMCI, and validation for disorders other than aMCI.

Bedside Approach to the Mental Status Assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article presents a clinically useful approach to obtaining the history and performing the mental status examination of patients with cognitive, language, or behavioral problems. RECENT FINDINGS: Laboratory and imaging biomarkers are being developed for accurate diagnosis of neurobehavioral disorders, yet few are currently available for clinical use. Moreover, not all centers have access to these potential tools. Practicing clinicians are therefore left primarily with their skills of history taking and examination. Although geared for research, diagnostic criteria have been refined over the past several years and can nevertheless aid the clinician with the diagnosis of disorders such as mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, the primary progressive aphasias, corticobasal syndrome, vascular cognitive impairment, and posterior cortical atrophy. Regularly revised criteria reflect ongoing knowledge gained from in-depth studies of these disorders. SUMMARY: The focused history and mental status examination remain essential tools for the evaluation and diagnosis of neurologic disorders affecting cognition, language, and behavior.

A comparison of the mini mental state exam to the Montreal cognitive assessment in identifying cognitive deficits in Parkinson's disease.

Dementia is an important and increasingly recognized problem in Parkinson's disease (PD). The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) often fails to detect early cognitive decline. The Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) is a brief tool developed to detect mild cognitive impairment that assesses a broader range of domains frequently affected in PD. The scores on the MMSE and the MoCA were compared in 88 patients with PD. A pronounced ceiling effect was observed with the MMSE but not with the MoCA. The range and standard deviation of scores was larger with the MoCA(7-30, 4.26) than with the MMSE(16-30, 2.55). The percentage of subjects scoring below a cutoff of 26/30 (used by others to detect mild cognitive impairment) was higher on the MoCA (32%) than on the MMSE (11%) (P < 0.000002). Compared to the MMSE, the MoCA may be a more sensitive tool to identify early cognitive impairment in PD.