RESUMO
Introduction: Agitation is a common symptom in patients with Alzheimer's dementia. But agitation can be a heterogeneous symptom, encompassing a diverse array of behaviors exhibited by patients. The Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) is a 29-item scale that is used to systematically assess the frequency and severity of agitation in older adults as rated by a primary caregiver. The CMAI was originally designed for use by professional care givers in institutional care settings. Alzheimer's dementia, however, is associated with a significant burden on family members, who provide the majority of care, and other informal care partners. Methods: Our qualitative study aimed to assess the accuracy and applicability of the CMAI according to the needs and perceptions of non-professional care partners. Specifically, we wanted to determine if the behaviors included in the instrument reflect: (a) the care partner's experience with agitation in Alzheimer's dementia patients, (b) how the behaviors and their frequency are related to the perception of agitation severity, and (c) what changes in agitation behaviors are meaningful to care partners. We interviewed 30 care partners for patients with Alzheimer's dementia in the United States. Results: The care partners confirmed all behaviors listed in the CMAI as relevant. The behaviors reflect a spectrum of severity, with aggressive behaviors considered more severe than non-aggressive behaviors and physical behaviors generally considered more severe than verbal behaviors. Any reduction or increase in the frequency of a behavior was meaningful to care partners. Generally, a change from physical to verbal behaviors and aggressive to non-aggressive was considered a meaningful improvement while a change from verbal to physical and non-aggressive to aggressive was considered a meaningful worsening. Discussion: The CMAI appropriately captures relevant behaviors of agitation in Alzheimer's dementia and provides insight into the relative improvement or worsening of agitation symptoms.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Non-professional care partners play an important and often evolving role in the care of persons living with Alzheimer's disease (PLWAD). We investigated two elements of the care partner experience, namely time and strain incurred by care partners providing care to PLWAD across the severity spectrum. METHODS: Data gathered from the Alzheimer's Disease Patient and Caregiver Engagement (AD PACE) What Matters Most (WMM) study series were analyzed to determine how much time care partners spent providing care to PLWAD based on where the care recipients lived. Additionally, quantitative assessments of weekly hours providing care and the strain experienced by care partners were conducted using the UsAgainstAlzheimer's A-LIST Insights Series survey, which included the Modified Caregiver Strain Index (MCSI). Finally, a targeted literature review was conducted to contextualize findings and characterize the existing literature landscape. RESULTS: Care partners in the AD PACE WMM studies (n = 139) spent significantly more hours providing care for recipients who lived with someone (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 57.3 ± 44.3 h/week) than for recipients who lived alone (26.0 ± 12.0 h/week) (P = 0.0096) or lived in assisted living/nursing home (23.6 ± 14.4 h/week) (P = 0.0002). In the A-LIST Insights Series survey, care partners provided an overall mean (± SD) 58.1 ± 53.0 h of direct care each week, with caregiving hours increasing with increasing severity of AD/AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD). Additionally, care partners for recipients with mild (n = 14), moderate (n = 111), and severe AD/ADRD (n = 91) had overall mean MCSI scores of 9.0 ± 3.8 (range 2-14), 13.3 ± 4.8 (range 4-23), and 17.5 ± 5.3 (range 4-26), respectively, with higher scores suggesting greater care partner strain. CONCLUSIONS: Persons living with AD require increasing levels of care along the spectrum of disease, and even individuals with early disease need care from partners. Early interventions that slow progression of AD and programs that improve family function may have beneficial impact on the experiences of care partners for recipients with mild, moderate, or severe AD.
RESUMO
More than 16 million Americans provide unpaid care for someone with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD). During the COVID-19 pandemic, unpaid caregivers experienced increased chronic severe stress from widespread closures and social distancing. We conducted eight surveys from March 2020 to March 2021 among a cohort of over 10,000 individuals. Cross-sectional analysis was conducted to investigate frequency and ratios of groups reporting increased stress across surveys. A longitudinal analysis was also performed with the 1,030 participants who took more than one survey. We found a growing crisis among dementia caregivers: By Survey 8, current caregivers reported 2.9 times higher stress levels than the comparator group. By that time, 64% of current caregivers reported having multiple stress symptoms typically found in people experiencing severe stress. Both analyses reported increased levels of stressors over time that were more associated with certain caregiver groups. Our findings underscore the urgent need for public policy initiatives and supportive community infrastructure to support ADRD caregivers.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: In this phase of the ongoing What Matters Most study series, designed to evaluate concepts that are meaningful to people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD), we quantified the importance of symptoms, impacts, and outcomes of AD to people at risk for or with AD and care partners of people with AD. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to individuals at risk for or with AD (Group 1: unimpaired cognition with evidence of AD pathology; Group 2: AD risk factors and subjective cognitive complaints/mild cognitive impairment; Group 3: mild AD) and to care partners of individuals with moderate AD (Group 4) or severe AD (Group 5). Respondents rated the importance of 42 symptoms, impacts, and outcomes on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Among the 274 respondents (70.4% female; 63.1% white), over half of patient respondents rated all 42 items as "very important" or "extremely important," while care partners rated fewer items as "very important" or "extremely important." Among the three patient groups, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating for any item was 3.4 (4.6), indicating that all items were at least moderately to very important. Among care partners of people with moderate or severe AD, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating was 2.1 (4.4), indicating that most items were rated as at least moderately important. Overall, taking medications correctly, not feeling down or depressed, and staying safe had the highest importance ratings among both patients and care partners, regardless of AD phase. CONCLUSION: Concepts of importance to individuals affected by AD go beyond the common understanding of "cognition" or "function" alone, reflecting a desire to maintain independence, overall physical and mental health, emotional well-being, and safety. Preservation of these attributes may be key to understanding whether interventions deliver clinically meaningful outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The What Matters Most (WMM) study was initiated to evaluate symptoms, AD-related impacts, treatment-related needs, preferences, and priorities among individuals with or at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their care partners. The objective of this qualitative study phase was to identify a comprehensive set of concepts of interest that are meaningful to individuals across the AD continuum. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 clinically referred individuals and care partners across 5 AD stages (n = 12 each): group 1 (non-clinically impaired individuals with AD pathology), group 2 (individuals with mild cognitive impairment and AD pathology), group 3 (individuals with mild AD), group 4 (individuals with moderate AD and their care partners), and group 5 (care partners of individuals with severe AD). Interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Dominant trends were identified in each interview and compared across subsequent interviews to generate themes or patterns in descriptions of AD symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes. RESULTS: All participants endorsed current issues related to memory; nearly all participants (n = 55; 92%) across the five groups endorsed symptoms related to communication and language. Groups 1-3 reported an impact on mood/emotions (n = 23; 64%) and a decrease in social activities or outgoingness (n = 17; 47%). Current and future concerns reported by the overall sample included memory (n = 48; 80%), dependence (n = 40; 67%), and "other" concerns (n = 33; 55.0%) (e.g., uncertainty about the future, burdening others). The most desired AD treatment outcomes were improvement or restoration of memory (n = 40; 67%) and stopping AD progression (n = 35; 58.3%). Group-level differences were observed in the symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes among patients and care partners across the AD continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive functioning issues-particularly in memory and communication-are present even in preclinical and early-stage AD, including among those without a formal AD diagnosis. While the impacts of AD vary across the disease-severity spectrum, improved memory and disease modification were treatment outcomes considered most important to participants across all 5 AD stages. Neuropsychological assessments traditionally used in AD clinical trials may not evaluate the often-subtle concepts that are important to patients and care partners. Results from this study will inform the second phase of the WMM project-a quantitative study to elicit the relative importance of these concepts of interest to people at risk for and living with AD and their care partners.