Study of Mini-Mental State Exam evolution in community-dwelling subjects aged over 60 years without dementia

Predictors of cognitive impairment assessed by Mini Mental State Examination in community-dwelling older adults: relevance of the step test

BACKGROUND

Several predictors of cognitive impairment assessed by Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) have previously been identified. However, which predictors are the most relevant and what is their effect on MMSE categories remains unclear.

METHODS

Cross-sectional and longitudinal study using data from 1116 older adults (72.6 ± 5.6 years, 579 female), 350 of whom were followed for 7 years. At baseline, the following variables were collected: personal data, marital status, occupation, anthropometric measures, risk factors, previous cardiovascular events, self-rated health and physical activity during the last week. Furthermore, routine laboratory tests, abdominal echography and a step test (with measurement of the time needed to ascend and descend two steps 20 times) were performed. The associations of these variables with cross-sectional cognitive deficit (MMSE < 24) and longitudinal cognitive decline (decrease of MMSE score over 7 years of follow-up) were investigated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Cross-sectional cognitive deficit was independently associated with school education ≤ 5 years, prolonged step test duration, having been blue collar or housewife (P ≤ 0.0001 for all) and, with lower significance, with advanced age, previous stroke and poor recent physical activity (P < 0.05). Longitudinal cognitive decline was mainly associated with step test duration (P = 0.0001) and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.0002). The MMSE categories mostly associated with step test duration were orientation, attention, calculation and language, while memory appeared to be poorly or not affected.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of older adults, step test duration was the most relevant predictor of cognitive impairment.

Positive Psychological Assessment and Early-Stage Dementia

OBJECTIVES

There are no known positive psychological (PP) measures adapted/validated for use with people in the early stages of dementia. Objectives were to: (1) develop/pilot an accessible protocol for administering PP measures in this population; (2) examine their psychometric properties; and (3) provide preliminary observations about how people with early-stage dementia perceive various aspects of PP as it pertains to living with dementia.

METHODS

Five PP measures were adapted/administered to 36 people with early-stage dementia. Constructs of interests were gratitude, life satisfaction, meaning in life, optimism, and resilience. Psychometric data were calculated and response patterns analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants easily completed the adapted measures using the accessible protocol. Preliminary evidence of reliability and validity were yielded. Response patterns suggested a range of PP perceptions and experiences among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a step towards validating the psychometric properties of several PP measures adapted for use with people in the early stages of dementia and provides insight into how PP works in this population.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

PP assessment may assist clinicians and researchers to better understand PP functioning in this population potentially contributing to effective strengths based psychosocial interventions. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research are provided.

Social relationships and cognitive decline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies

BACKGROUND

Although poor social relationships are assumed to contribute to cognitive decline, meta-analytic approaches have not been applied. Individual study results are mixed and difficult to interpret due to heterogeneity in measures of social relationships. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relation between poor social relationships and cognitive decline.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for longitudinal cohort studies examining various aspects of social relationships and cognitive decline in the general population. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Sources of heterogeneity were explored and likelihood of publication bias was assessed. We stratified analyses according to three aspects of social relationships: structural, functional and a combination of these.

RESULTS

We identified 43 articles. Poor social relationships predicted cognitive decline; for structural (19 studies): pooled OR: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05-1.11); functional (8 studies): pooled OR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.00-1.32); and combined measures (7 studies): pooled OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01-1.24). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses showed that the heterogeneity could be explained by the type of social relationship measurement and methodological quality of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite heterogeneity in study design and measures, our meta-analyses show that multiple aspects of social relationships are associated with cognitive decline. As evidence for publication bias was found, the association might be overestimated and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Future studies are needed to better define the mechanisms underlying these associations. Potential causality of this prognostic association should be examined in future randomized controlled studies.

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND

The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared the 11-item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all-cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all-cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta-analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver-operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full-text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta-analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta-analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study.The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14-30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17-26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta-analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient-relevant outcomes.

Olfactory deficits predict cognitive decline and Alzheimer dementia in an urban community

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictive utility of baseline odor identification deficits for future cognitive decline and the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) dementia.

METHODS

In a multiethnic community cohort in North Manhattan, NY, 1,037 participants without dementia were evaluated with the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). In 757 participants, follow-up occurred at 2 years and 4 years.

RESULTS

In logistic regression analyses, lower baseline UPSIT scores were associated with cognitive decline (relative risk 1.067 per point interval; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.040, 1.095; p < 0.0001), and remained significant (relative risk 1.065 per point interval; 95% CI 1.034, 1.095; p < 0.0001) after including covariates. UPSIT, but not Selective Reminding Test-total immediate recall, predicted cognitive decline in participants without baseline cognitive impairment. During follow-up, 101 participants transitioned to AD dementia. In discrete time survival analyses, lower baseline UPSIT scores were associated with transition to AD dementia (hazard ratio 1.099 per point interval; 95% CI 1.067, 1.131; p < 0.0001), and remained highly significant (hazard ratio 1.072 per point interval; 95% CI 1.036, 1.109; p < 0.0001) after including demographic, cognitive, and functional covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Impairment in odor identification was superior to deficits in verbal episodic memory in predicting cognitive decline in cognitively intact participants. The findings support the cross-cultural use of a relatively inexpensive odor identification test as an early biomarker of cognitive decline and AD dementia. Such testing may have the potential to select/stratify patients in treatment trials of cognitively impaired patients or prevention trials in cognitively intact individuals.