A Quick Test of cognitive speed is sensitive in detecting early treatment response in Alzheimer's disease.

Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, S-205 02 Malmö, Sweden. .
Alzheimer's Research and Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.5). 10/2010; 2(5):29. DOI: 10.1186/alzrt53
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is a great need for quick tests that identify treatment response in Alzheimer's disease (AD) to determine who benefits from the treatment. In this study, A Quick Test of cognitive speed (AQT) was compared with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) in the evaluation of treatment outcome in AD.
75 patients with mild to moderate AD at a memory clinic were assessed with AQT and the MMSE at a pretreatment visit, at baseline and after 8 weeks of treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEI) initiated at baseline. Changes in the mean test scores before and after treatment were compared, as well as the number of treatment responders detected by each test, according to a reliable change index (RCI).
After 8 weeks of treatment, the AQT improvement, expressed as a percentage, was significantly greater than that of the MMSE (P = 0.026). According to the RCI, the cut-offs to define a responder were ≥16 seconds improvement on AQT and ≥3 points on the MMSE after 8 weeks. With these cut-offs, both tests falsely classified ≤5% as responders during the pretreatment period. After 8 weeks of treatment, AQT detected significantly more responders than the MMSE (34% compared with 17%; P = 0.024). After 6 months of treatment, the 8-week AQT responders still showed a significantly better treatment response than the AQT nonresponders (22.3 seconds in mean difference; P < 0.001).
AQT detects twice as many treatment responders as the MMSE. It seems that AQT can, already after 8 weeks, identify the AD patients who will continue to benefit from ChEI treatment.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Knowledge of longitudinal progression in mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) is required for the evaluation of disease-modifying therapies. Our aim was to observe the effects of long-term cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) therapy in mild AD patients in a routine clinical setting. This was a prospective, open-label, non-randomized, multicenter study of ChEI treatment (donepezil, rivastigmine or galantamine) conducted during clinical practice. The 734 mild AD patients (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score 20 to 26) were assessed at baseline and then semi-annually over three years. Outcome measures included the MMSE, Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale (ADAS-cog), Clinician's Interview-Based Impression of Change (CIBIC) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scale. After three years of ChEI therapy, 31% (MMSE) and 33% (ADAS-cog) of the patients showed improved/unchanged cognitive ability, 33% showed improved/unchanged global performance and 14% showed improved/unchanged IADL capacity. Higher mean dose of ChEI and lower educational level were both predictors of more positive longitudinal cognitive and functional outcomes. Older participants and those with a better IADL score at baseline exhibited a slower rate of cognitive decline, whereas younger participants and those with higher cognitive status showed more preserved IADL ability over time. Gender and apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype showed inconsistent results. Prediction models using the abovementioned scales are presented. In naturalistic mild AD patients, a marked deterioration in IADL compared with cognitive and global long-term outcomes was observed, indicating the importance of functional assessments during the early stages of the disease. The participants' time on ChEI treatment before inclusion in studies of new therapies might affect their rate of decline and thus the comparisons of changes in scores between various studies. An increased understanding of expected disease progression in different domains and potential predictors of disease progression is essential for assessment of future therapies in AD.
    Alzheimer's Research and Therapy 10/2013; 5(5):44. · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: This retrospective study used A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT) to compare processing speed and efficiency measures by adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or non-ADHD psychiatric disorders and healthy controls.Method: Color, form, and color-form combination naming tests were administered to 104 adults, ages 17-55 years, referred for psychiatric evaluation of possible ADHD. Thirty healthy adults were controls. Psychiatric intake procedures identified 64 adults with ADHD (ICD-10 and DSM-IV criteria) and 40 with mild psychiatric disorders without ADHD. The study was conducted from 2008 through 2010.Results: At intake, color, form, and color-form combination naming times (seconds) were longer and overhead [color-form combination - (color + form)] was larger for patients with ADHD than for non-ADHD patients and controls. In the ADHD group, color and form measures were in the normal range. Color-form combination was in the slower-than-normal speed (60-70 seconds) and overhead, a processing-efficiency measure, in the atypical range (> 10 seconds). In the non-ADHD patient and control groups, all AQT measures were in the normal range. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis of log-normal values for color, form, and color-form combination and time for overhead indicated significant (Bonferroni P < .01) mean differences between the ADHD and other groups, but not between the non-ADHD and control groups. When using fail criteria for either color-form combination or overhead, the sensitivity for the ADHD group was 89%.Conclusions: Results support AQT as a possible complement to psychiatric intake procedures to differentiate adults with ADHD from those with mild psychiatric disorders, and they suggest that a controlled prospective study might be productive.
    The primary care companion to CNS disorders. 03/2012; 14(2).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ABSTRACT Background: A Quick Test of Cognitive Speed (AQT) is a brief test that can identify cognitive impairment. AQT has been validated in Arabic, English, Greek, Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish, and Swedish. The aim of this study was to develop Italian criterion-referenced norms for AQT. Methods: AQT consists of three test plates where the patient shall rapidly name (1) the color of 40 blue, red, yellow, or black squares (AQT color), (2) the form of 40 black figures (circles, squares, triangles, or rectangles; AQT form), (3) the color and form of 40 figures (consisting of previous colors and forms; AQT color-form). The AQT test was administered to 121 Italian cognitively healthy primary care patients (age range: 45-90 years). Their mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score was 28.8 ± 0.9 points (range 26-30 points). AQT naming times in seconds were used for developing preliminary criterion cut-off times for different age groups. Results: Age was found to have a significant moderate positive correlation with AQT naming times color (r = 0.65, p < 0.001), form (r = 0.53, p < 0.001), color-form (r = 0.63, p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with MMSE score (r = -0.44, p < 0.001) and AQT naming times differed significantly between younger (45-55 years old), older (56-70 years old), and the oldest (71-90 years old) participants. Years of education correlated positively but weakly with MMSE score (r = 0.27, p = 0.003) and negatively but weakly with AQT color (r = -0.16, p = ns), form (r = -0.24, p = 0.007), and color-form (r = -0.19, p = 0.005). We established preliminary cut-off times for the AQT test based on +1 and +2 standard deviations according to the approach in other languages and settings. Conclusions: This is the first Italian normative AQT study. Future studies of AQT - a test useful for dementia screening in primary care - will eventually refine cut-off times for normality balancing sensitivity and specificity in cognitive diagnostics.
    International Psychogeriatrics 05/2014; · 1.89 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014