Informant-based dementia screening in a population-based sample of African Americans.
ABSTRACT An informant-based screening tool for dementia may be useful in population-based studies of minority populations.
Investigate the feasibility of screening for very mild dementia in a community sample of African Americans using an informant-based screening tool (AD8).
One hundred forty-seven persons from the African American Health (AAH) project were screened for dementia; 61 of 93 who were invited had follow-up clinical assessments for dementia diagnosis.
The AD8, Mini-Mental State Examination, Short Blessed Test, Brief Instrument for Dementia Detection, and a neuropsychologic battery were administered at visit 1. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) was administered at visit 2 by clinicians blinded to visit 1 results; the presence of dementia was determined by a CDR greater than 0.
Four hundred sixty-five individuals from the AAH cohort were sent a letter describing the study and, among this group, 252 individuals were contacted by phone to request participation in this study. Six percent (14/252) of the participants contacted by phone were unable to identify an informant (required for the AD8). One hundred fifty individuals agreed by phone to participate of which 2% (n=3) did not have an informant available at the time of participation. The AD8 alone was effective at discriminating between CDR 0 and CDR 0.5 (area under the curve=0.847; P<0.001; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.96).
A brief informant-based instrument, the AD8, has high sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing CDR 0 from CDR 0.5 in the community. Informant availability may not be a barrier for using the AD8 in an African American community sample; however, further study in larger samples with a higher response rate, different community settings (eg, community clinics), and among older age groups (eg, age 75+) is warranted to confirm this.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives. The utility of informant AD8 for case finding of cognitive impairment at primary healthcare settings is unknown and therefore its feasibility and acceptability for targeted screening at a primary healthcare clinic should be investigated. Methods. The informants of older adult patients attending a primary healthcare clinic in Singapore were administered the AD8. Positive screening findings were provided to patients' primary care physicians for referrals to specialist memory clinics. The acceptability of AD8 was evaluated by collecting feedbacks from the informants and primary care physicians. Results. 205 patients and their informants were recruited. However, 6 (2.9%) informants were uncontactable, while the majority of the remaining 199 patients with completed AD8 (96.5%, n = 192) found it acceptable where 59 (29.6%) patients were deemed cognitively impaired (AD8 ≥ 2). Clinicians (100%, n = 5) found the AD8 helpful in facilitating referrals to memory clinics. However, most referral recommendations (81.4%, n = 48) were declined by patients and/or informant due to limited insight of implications of cognitive impairment. Conclusions. The AD8 can be easily administered and is well tolerated. It detected cognitive impairment in one-third of older adult patients and therefore may be useful for case finding of cognitive impairment in the primary healthcare.12/2014; 2014:302834. DOI:10.1155/2014/302834
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective. To investigate the utility of AD8 for cognitive impairment in a Chinese physical examination population. Methods. Military cadres who took routine physical examination in Chinese PLA General Hospital from Jan 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2013, were subjected to AD8 scale. Individual information such as age, gender, and education was also collected. All data were analyzed by SPSS 19.0. Results. 1544 subjects were enrolled in this study with mean age 75.4 ± 10.6 years. The subjects who scored 0 to 8 of AD8 scale were 1015, 269, 120, 60, 30, 14, 19, 8, and 9, respectively. Corresponding proportions were 65.7%, 17.4%, 7.8%, 3.9%, 2.0%, 0.9%, 1.2%, 0.5%, and 0.6%, respectively. The endorsement prevalence of 8 questions was 5.6%, 9.2%, 6.6%, 9.2%, 4.8%, 4.5%, 8.9%, and 24.1%, respectively. The endorsement prevalence of question 8 was significantly higher than others (P < 0.05). 260 subjects were scored equal to or greater than 2. The abnormal rate was 16.9%. All the participants were stratified into 9 groups by age; the prevalence of dementia was highly correlated with age (P < 0.01). Conclusion. AD8 scale is a convenient and effective tool for cognitive screening in routine physical examination population.11/2014; 2014:804871. DOI:10.1155/2014/804871
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many new therapies for dementia target a specific pathologic process and must be applied early. Selection of specific therapy is based on the clinical etiologic diagnosis. We sought to determine the stability of the clinical etiologic diagnosis over time and to identify factors associated with instability. We identified 4141 patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who made at least 2 visits approximately a year apart to a dementia research center, receiving a clinical etiologic diagnosis on each visit. We assessed concordance of etiologic diagnoses across visits, κ-statistics, and transition probabilities among diagnoses. The primary clinical etiologic diagnosis remained stable for 91% of patients but with a net shift toward dementia with Lewy bodies and Alzheimer's disease. Lower diagnostic stability was significantly associated with older age, nonwhite race, milder disease at presentation, more underlying conditions contributing to cognitive decline, lack of a consistent spouse/partner informant, and being evaluated by different clinicians on different visits. Multistate Markov modeling generally confirmed these associations. Clinical etiologic diagnoses were generally stable. However, several readily ascertained characteristics were associated with higher instability. These associations may be useful to clinicians for anticipating when an etiologic diagnosis may be more prone to future change.American Journal of Alzheimer s Disease and Other Dementias 12/2013; 28(8):750-8. DOI:10.1177/1533317513504611 · 1.43 Impact Factor