An itemized approach to assessing behavioral and psychological symptoms in dementia

Characterization of Depressive Symptoms in Dementia and Examination of Possible Risk Factors

Background

Depression in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common, distressing, difficult to treat, and inadequately understood. It occurs more frequently in AD than in older adults without dementia. The reasons why some patients develop depression during AD and others do not remain obscure.

Objective

We aimed to characterize depression in AD and to identify risk factors.

Methods

We used data from three large dementia focused cohorts: ADNI (n = 665 with AD, 669 normal cognition), NACC (n = 698 with AD, 711 normal cognition), and BDR (n = 757 with AD). Depression ratings were available using the GDS and NPI and in addition for BDR the Cornell. A cut-off of≥8 was used for the GDS and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia,≥6 for the NPI depression sub-scale, and≥2 for the NPI-Q depression sub-scale. We used logistic regression to examine potential risk factors and random effects meta-analysis and an interaction term to look for interactions between each risk factor and the presence of cognitive impairment.

Results

In individual studies there was no evidence of a difference in risk factors for depressive symptoms in AD. In the meta-analysis the only risk factor which increased the risk of depressive symptoms in AD was previous depression, but information on this was only available from one study (OR 7.78 95% CI 4.03-15.03).

Conclusion

Risk factors for depression in AD appear to differ to those for depression per se supporting suggestions of a different pathological process, although a past history of depression was the strongest individual risk factor.

Persistent depressive symptoms are associated with frontal regional atrophy in patients with Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND

Depression in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) is common, difficult to treat and inadequately understood. Previous studies have identified possible differences in regional brain atrophy in individuals with AD and depression, but the results have been inconsistent and some studies had less robust definitions of depression. We aimed to examine regional brain atrophy in two large dementia focused cohorts.

METHODS

We used data from Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative (ADNI) and the National Alzheimer's Co-ordinating Center (NACC), for those with data from at least one MRI scan. Depression ratings were available using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). Intermittent depressive symptoms were defined as one episode above threshold (≥8 on GDS, ≥6 on NPI depression subscale and ≥2 on the Neuropsychiatric Inventory version Q depression sub-scale) and persistent as ≥2 episodes. Derived regional volumetric data was available from ADNI and the NACC.

RESULTS

Data was available from 698 individuals with AD in NACC and from 666 individuals in ADNI. We found no evidence of between group differences in regional brain volume at baseline, or of differential atrophy in NACC. In ADNI we found evidence of increased brain atrophy in several frontal brain areas.

LIMITATIONS

Because this study was limited to those with MRI data, the numbers in some analyses were low. MRI parcellation differed between studies making direct comparison difficult. For some individuals only the NPI was used to rate depression.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found mixed evidence of increased regional atrophy in depression in AD, mainly in frontal brain regions. We found no evidence to support a vascular basis for depression in AD.

Psychometric Properties of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory: A Review

Neuropsychiatric symptoms cause a significant burden to individuals with neurocognitive disorders and their families. Insights into the clinical associations, neurobiology, and treatment of these symptoms depend on informant questionnaires, such as the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). As with any scale, the utility of the NPI relies on its psychometric properties, but the NPI faces unique challenges related to its skip-question and scoring formats. In this narrative review, we examined the psychometric properties of the NPI in a framework including properties pertinent to construct validation, and health-related outcome measurement in general. We found that aspects such as test-retest and inter-rater reliability are major strengths of the NPI in addition to its flexible and relatively quick administration. These properties are desired in clinical trials. However, the reported properties appear to cover only some of the generally examined psychometric properties, representing perhaps necessary but insufficient reliability and validity evidence for the NPI. The psychometric data seem to have significant gaps, in part because small sample sizes in the relevant studies have precluded more comprehensive analyses. Regarding construct validity, only one study has examined structural validity with the NPI subquestions. Measurement error was not assessed in the reviewed studies. For future validation, we recommend using data from all subquestions, collecting larger samples, paying specific attention to construct validity and formulating hypotheses a priori. Because the NPI is an outcome measure of interest in clinical trials, examining measurement error could be of practical importance.

Apathy Measures in Older Adults and People with Dementia: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties Using the COSMIN Methodology

BACKGROUND

Apathy is highly prevalent in dementia and is also seen in mild cognitive impairment and the general population. Apathy contributes to failure to undertake daily activities and can lead to health problems or crises. It is therefore important to assess apathy. However, there is currently no gold standard measure of apathy. A comprehensive systematic review of the measurement properties of apathy scales is required.

METHODS

A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42018094390). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for studies that aimed to develop or assess the validity or reliability of an apathy scale in participants over 65 years, living in the community. A systematic review was conducted in line with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments procedure for reviewing patient-reported outcome measures. The studies' risk of bias was assessed, and all relevant measurement properties were assessed for quality. Results were pooled and rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation procedure.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven publications regarding 18 measures and 39 variations met the eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of individual studies ranged from inadequate to very good and measurement properties ranged from insufficient to sufficient. Similarly, the overall evidence for measurement properties ranged from very low to high quality. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Lille Apathy Rating Scale (LARS) had sufficient content validity, reliability, construct validity, and where applicable, structural validity and internal consistency.

CONCLUSION

Numerous scales are available to assess apathy, with varying psychometric properties. The AES and LARS are recommended for measuring apathy in older adults and people living with dementia. The apathy dimension of the commonly used Neuropsychiatric Inventory should be limited to screening for apathy.

The merits and problems of Neuropsychiatric Inventory as an assessment tool in people with dementia and other neurological disorders

Objective

The Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) is one of the most commonly used assessment scales for assessing symptoms in people with dementia and other neurological disorders. This paper analyzes its conceptual framework, measurement mode, psychometric properties, and merits and problems.

Method

All articles discussing the psychometric properties and factor structure of the NPI were searched for in Medline via Ovid. The abstracts of these papers were read to determine their relevance to the purpose of this paper. If deemed appropriate, a full paper was then obtained and read.

Results

The NPI has reasonably good content validity and internal consistency, and good test–retest and interrater reliability. There is limited information about its sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and, in particular, responsiveness. Merits of the NPI include being comprehensive, avoiding symptom overlap, ease of use, and flexibility. It has problems in scoring (no multiples of 5, 7, and 11) and, therefore, analysis using parametric tests may not be appropriate. The use of individual subscales also warrants further investigation.

Conclusion

In terms of its content and concurrent validity, intra- and interrater reliability, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency, the NPI can be considered as valid and reliable, and can be used across different ethnic groups. The tool is most likely unable to deliver as good a performance in terms of discriminating between different disorders. More studies are required to further evaluate its psychometric properties, particularly in the areas of factor structure and responsiveness. The clinical utility of the NPI also needs to be further explored.

Targeting and managing behavioral symptoms in individuals with dementia: a randomized trial of a nonpharmacological intervention

OBJECTIVES

To test the effects of an intervention that helps families manage distressing behaviors in family members with dementia.

DESIGN

Two-group randomized trial.

SETTING

In home.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred seventy-two caregivers and people with dementia.

INTERVENTION

Up to 11 home and telephone contacts over 16 weeks by health professionals who identified potential triggers of patient behaviors, including communication and environmental factors and patient undiagnosed medical conditions (by obtaining blood and urine samples) and trained caregivers in strategies to modify triggers and reduce their upset. Between 16 and 24 weeks, three telephone contacts reinforced strategy use.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were frequency of targeted problem behavior and caregiver upset with and confidence managing it at 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes were caregiver well-being and management skills at 16 and 24 weeks and caregiver perceived benefits. Prevalence of medical conditions for intervention patients were also examined.

RESULTS

At 16 weeks, 67.5% of intervention caregivers reported improvement in targeted problem behavior, compared with 45.8% of caregivers in a no-treatment control group (P=.002), and reduced upset with (P=.03) and enhanced confidence managing (P=.01) the behavior. Additionally, intervention caregivers reported less upset with all problem behaviors (P=.001), less negative communication (P=.02), less burden (P=.05), and better well-being (P=.001) than controls. Fewer intervention caregivers had depressive symptoms (53.0%) than control group caregivers (67.8%, P=.02). Similar caregiver outcomes occurred at 24 weeks. Intervention caregivers perceived more study benefits (P<.05), including ability to keep family members home, than controls. Blood and urine samples of intervention patients with dementia showed that 40 (34.1%) had undiagnosed illnesses requiring physician follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Targeting behaviors upsetting to caregivers and modifying potential triggers improves symptomatology in people with dementia and caregiver well-being and skills.