Driving Difficulties Among Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Neurodegenerative Disorders

Parkinson's Disease and Driving Fitness: A Systematic Review of the Existing Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Motor/nonmotor symptomatology and antiparkinsonian drugs deteriorate the driving ability of Parkinson's disease (PD) patients.

OBJECTIVES

Treating neurologists are frequently asked to evaluate driving fitness of their patients and provide evidence-based consultation. Although several guidelines have been published, the exact procedure along with the neurologist's role in this procedure remains obscure.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed the existing guidelines, regarding driving fitness evaluation of PD patients. We searched MEDLINE and Google Scholar and identified 109 articles. After specified inclusion criteria were applied, 15 articles were included (nine national guidelines, five recommendation papers, and one consensus statement).

RESULTS

The treating physician is proposed as the initial evaluator in 8 of 15 articles (neurologist in 2 articles) and may refer patients for a second-line evaluation. The evaluation should include motor, cognitive, and visual assessment (proposed in 15, 13, and 8 articles, respectively). Specific motor tests are proposed in eight articles (cutoff values in four), whereas specific neuropsychological and visual tests are proposed in seven articles each (cutoff values in four and three articles, respectively). Conditional licenses are proposed in 11 of 15 articles, to facilitate driving for PD patients. We summarized our findings on a graphic of the procedure for driving fitness evaluation of PD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurological aspects of driving fitness evaluation of PD patients are recognized in most of the guidelines. Motor, neuropsychological, visual, and sleep assessment and medication review are key components. Clear-cut instructions regarding motor, neuropsychological, and visual tests and relative cutoff values are lacking. Conditional licenses and periodical reevaluation of driving fitness are important safety measures.

Driving Assessment for Persons with Dementia: How and when?

Dementia is a progressive neurodegenerative disease leading to deterioration in cognitive and physical skills. Driving is an important instrumental activity of daily living, essential for independence. However, this is a complex skill. A moving vehicle can be a dangerous tool in the hand of someone who cannot maneuver it properly. As a result, the assessment of driving capacity should be part of the management of dementia. Moreover, dementia comprises of different etiologies and stages consisting of different presentations. As a result, this study aims to identify driving behaviors common in dementia and compare different assessment methods. A literature search was conducted using the PRISMA checklist as a framework. A total of forty-four observational studies and four meta-analyses were identified. Study characteristics varied greatly with regards to methodology, population, assessments, and outcome measures used. Drivers with dementia performed generally worse than cognitively normal drivers. Poor speed maintenance, lane maintenance, difficulty managing intersections and poor response to traffic stimuli were the most common behaviors in drivers with dementia. Naturalistic driving, standardized road assessments, neuropsychological tests, participant self-rating and caregiver rating were the most common driving assessment methods used. Naturalistic driving and on-road assessments had the highest predictive accuracy. Results on other forms of assessments varied greatly. Both driving behaviors and assessments were influenced by different stages and etiologies of dementia at varying degrees. Methodology and results in available research are varied and inconsistent. As a result, better quality research is required in this field.

Clinical Tests Predicting On-Road Performance in Older Drivers with Cognitive Impairment

Background. The Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B) and Useful Field of View® (UFOV) can predict on-road outcomes in drivers with cognitive impairment (CI); however, studies have not included drivers referred for comprehensive driving evaluations (CDEs), who typically have more severe CI. Purpose. We determined the predictive ability of Trails B and UFOV on pass/fail on-road outcomes in drivers with CI (Montreal Cognitive Assessment <26) referred for CDEs. Method. Retrospective data collection from two driving assessments centers (N  =  100, mean age  =  76.2  ±  8.8 years). Findings. The Trails B (area under the curve [AUC]  =  .70) and UFOV subtests 2 (AUC  =  .73) and 3 (AUC  =  .76) predicted pass/fail outcomes. A cut-point ≥467 ms on UFOV subtest 3 better-predicted pass/fail outcomes with 78.9% sensitivity and 73.5% specificity. In comparison, a cut-point ≥3.58 min on Trails B had lower sensitivity (73.7%) and specificity (61.8%). Implications. The UFOV subtest 3 may be more useful than the Trails B for predicting pass/fail outcomes in drivers with more severe CI referred for CDEs.

Driving Errors Predicting Pass/Fail On-Road Assessment Outcomes Among Cognitively Impaired Older Drivers

Older drivers with cognitive impairment (CI)/dementia make significantly more driving errors than healthy controls; however, whether driving errors are predictive of pass/fail outcomes in older drivers with CI/dementia are unclear. This study determined the driving errors that predicted failing an on-road assessment in drivers with CI. We retrospectively collected comprehensive driving evaluation data of 80 participants (76.1 ± 9.3 years) from an Ontario driving assessment center. Adjustment to stimuli (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.88), lane maintenance (AUC = 0.84), and speed regulation errors (AUC = 0.85) strongly predicted pass/fail outcomes. Worse performance on the Trails B (time) and Useful Field of View® (Subtest 2, Subtest 3, and risk index) were significantly correlated with adjustment to stimuli (p < .05), lane maintenance (p < .05), and speed regulation errors (p < .05). Adjustment to stimuli, lane maintenance, and speed regulation errors may be critical indicators of failing an on-road assessment in older drivers with CI. Prioritizing these errors may help identify at-risk drivers.

Factors Influencing Driving following DBS Surgery in Parkinson's Disease: A Single UK Centre Experience and Review of the Literature

Parkinson's disease (PD) is a complex neurodegenerative disorder, leading to impairment of various neurological faculties, including motor, planning, cognitivity, and executive functions. Motor- and non-motor symptoms of the disease may intensify a patient's restrictions to performing usual tasks of daily living, including driving. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) associated with optimized clinical treatment has been shown to improve quality of life, motor, and non-motor symptoms in PD. In most countries, there are no specific guidelines concerning minimum safety requirements and the timing of return to driving following DBS, leaving to the medical staff of individual DBS centres the responsibility to draw recommendations individually regarding patients' ability to drive after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate factors that might influence the ability to drive following DBS in the management of PD. A total of 125 patients were included. Clinical, epidemiological, neuropsychological, and surgical factors were evaluated. The mean follow-up time was 129.9 months. DBS improved motor and non-motor symptoms of PD. However, in general, patients were 2.8-fold less likely to drive in the postoperative period than prior to surgery. Among the PD characteristics, patients with the akinetic subtype presented a higher risk to lose their driving licence postoperatively. Furthermore, the presence of an abnormal postoperative neuropsychological evaluation was also associated with driving restriction following surgery. Our data indicate that restriction to drive following surgery seems to be multifactorial rather than a direct consequence of DBS itself. Our study sheds light on the urgent need for a standardised multidisciplinary postoperative evaluation to assess patients' ability to drive following DBS.

Visual disorders and driving ability in persons with dementia: A mini review

Background

Impaired driving ability in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is associated with a decline in cognitive processes and a deterioration of their basic sensory visual functions. Although a variety of ocular abnormalities have been described in patients with AD, little is known about the impact of those visual disorders on their driving performance.

Aim

Aim of this mini-review is to provide an update on the driving ability of patients with dementia and summarize the primary visual disorders affecting their driving behavior.

Methods

Databases were screened for studies investigating dementia, associated visual abnormalities and driving ability.

Results

There is consistent evidence that dementia affects driving ability. Patients with dementia present with a variety of visual disorders, such as visual acuity reduction, visual field defects, impaired contrast sensitivity, decline in color vision and age-related pathological changes, that may have a negative impact on their driving ability. However, there is a paucity in studies describing the impact of oculovisual decline on the driving ability of AD subjects. A bidirectional association between cognitive and visual impairment (VI) has been described.

Conclusion

Given the bidirectional association between VI and dementia, vision screening and cognitive assessment of the older driver should aim to identify at-risk individuals and employ timely strategies for treatment of both cognitive and ocular problems. Future studies should characterize the basic visual sensory status of AD patients participating in driving studies, and investigate the impact of vision abnormalities on their driving performance.

Aktuelle Evidenzlage zur Beurteilung der Fahrtauglichkeit von Menschen mit kognitiven Einschränkungen: Ein systematisches Review

Einleitung Aufgrund der hohen Prävalenz demenzieller Erkrankungen handelt es sich bei der Überprüfung der Fahrtauglichkeit von Menschen mit kognitiven Beeinträchtigungen um ein Thema von großer gesellschaftlicher Relevanz.

Methodik Es wurde eine umfassende systematische Literaturrecherche zu der Forschungsfrage: „Welche evidenz-basierten Methoden eignen sich zur Beurteilung der Fahrtauglichkeit von Menschen mit Demenz (MmD) oder milden kognitiven Einschränkungen (MCI)?“ für den Zeitraum 2015–2020 durchgeführt. Die Recherche erfolgte in den Datenbanken Medline, PsycINFO, LIVIVO, PubPsych, Scopus, Cinahl und CENTRAL.

Ergebnisse 30 Studien wurden in die qualitative Analyse eingeschlossen. Die Fahrtauglichkeit kann mit praxisbasierten Testverfahren wie Praxisfahrtest (On-road), Fahrsimulator und Fahrverhaltensbeurteilung im natürlichen Umfeld (Naturalistic Driving) beurteilt werden. Theoriebasierte Methoden sind: neuropsychologische Tests, fahrspezifische Testungen und Fragebögen zur Selbsteinschätzung. Die Studienlage zeigt, dass einzelne neuropsychologische Tests nicht zur Bestimmung der Fahrtauglichkeit ausreichen. Eine höhere Aussagekraft haben praxisbasierte Testverfahren, fahrspezifische Testungen sowie Kombinationen aus evidenz-basierten Methoden.

Schlussfolgerungen Die Überprüfung der Fahrtauglichkeit von Menschen mit kognitiven Beeinträchtigungen sollte angesichts des progredienten Verlaufs demenzieller Erkrankungen engmaschig durch eine Kombination aus theorie- und praxisbasierter Methoden erfolgen.

Driving and Alzheimer's dementia or mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review of the existing guidelines emphasizing on the neurologist's role

BACKGROUND

Driving is a complex task requiring the integrity and the cooperation of cognition, motor, and somatosensory skills, all of which are impacted by neurological diseases.

OBJECTIVE

Identification of neurologist's role when assessing fitness to drive of cognitively impaired individuals.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the guidelines/recommendations (G/Rs) regarding the evaluation of driving fitness of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or dementia. Emphasis was put on the neurological and neuropsychological aspects of the evaluation.

RESULTS

Eighteen G/Rs were included in the review (9 national guidelines, 5 recommendation papers, 3 consensus statements, and 1 position paper). All G/Rs referred to drivers with dementia and 9/18 referred to drivers with MCI. A common approach among G/Rs is the initial trichotomization of patients in safe to drive, unsafe to drive, and undetermined cases, which are referred to a second-line evaluator. First-line evaluators are general practitioners in 10/18 G/Rs; second-line evaluators are neurologists in 7/18 G/Rs. Specific neuropsychological tests are proposed in 11/18 G/Rs and relative cut-off values in 7/18. The most commonly used tests are the MMSE, TMT, and CDT. A thorough neurological examination is proposed in only 1/18 G/R.

CONCLUSION

Although extensive multi-disciplinary research has provided useful information for driving behavior of cognitively impaired individuals, we are still far from a widely accepted approach of driving ability evaluation in this increasing population. A comprehensive assessment from a multi-disciplinary team in which the neurologist plays a critical role seems to be required, although this has not yet been implemented in any G/Rs.

Predicting On-Road Driving Skills, Fitness to Drive, and Prospective Accident Risk in Older Drivers and Drivers with Mild Cognitive Impairment: The Importance of Non-Cognitive Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

On-road driving behavior can be impaired in older drivers and particularly in drivers with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether cognitive and non-cognitive risk factors for driving safety may allow an accurate and economic prediction of on-road driving skills, fitness to drive, and prospective accident risk in healthy older drivers and drivers with MCI, we examined a representative combined sample of older drivers with and without MCI (N = 74) in an observational on-road study. In particular, we examined whether non-cognitive risk factors improve predictive accuracy provided by cognitive factors alone.

METHODS

Multiple and logistic hierarchical regression analyses were utilized to predict different driving outcomes. In all regression models, we included cognitive predictors alone in a first step and added non-cognitive predictors in a second step.

RESULTS

Results revealed that the combination of cognitive and non-cognitive risk factors significantly predicted driving skills (R2adjusted = 0.30) and fitness to drive (81.2% accuracy) as well as the number (R2adjusted = 0.21) and occurrence (88.3% accuracy) of prospective minor at-fault accidents within the next 12 months. In all analyses, the inclusion of non-cognitive risk factors led to a significant increase of explained variance in the different outcome variables.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that a combination of the most robust cognitive and non-cognitive risk factors may allow an economic and accurate prediction of on-road driving performance and prospective accident risk in healthy older drivers and drivers with MCI. Therefore, non-cognitive risk factors appear to play an important role.

Driving Performance and Its Correlation with Neuropsychological Tests in Senior Drivers with Cognitive Impairment in Japan

BACKGROUND

With the rapid aging of the population, the issue of driving by dementia patients has been causing increasing concern worldwide.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the driving difficulties faced by senior drivers with cognitive impairment and identify the specific neuropsychological tests that can reflect specific domains of driving maneuvers.

METHODS

Senior drivers with cognitive impairment were investigated. Neuropsychological tests and a questionnaire on demographic and driving characteristics were administered. Driving simulator tests were used to quantify participants' driving errors in various domains of driving.

RESULTS

Of the 47 participants, 23 current drivers, though they had better cognitive functions than 24 retired drivers, were found to have impaired driving performance in the domains of Reaction, Starting and stopping, Signaling, and Overall (wayfinding and accidents). The parameters of Reaction were significantly related to the diagnosis, and the scores of MMSE, TMT-A, and TMT-B. As regards details of the driving errors, "Sudden braking" was associated with the scores of MMSE (ρ= -0.707, p < 0.01), BDT (ρ= -0.560, p < 0.05), and ADAS (ρ= 0.758, p < 0.01), "Forgetting to use turn signals" with the TMT-B score (ρ= 0.608, p < 0.05), "Centerline crossings" with the scores of MMSE (ρ= -0.582, p < 0.05) and ADAS (ρ= 0.538, p < 0.05), and "Going the wrong way" was correlated with the score of CDT (ρ= -0.624, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Different neuropsychological factors serve as predictors of different specific driving maneuvers segmented from driving performance.

Age-Related Diseases and Driving Safety

Due to demographic changes, the number of older drivers is steadily increasing. Mobility is highly relevant for leading an independent life in the elderly. It largely depends on car driving, which is a complex task requiring a multitude of cognitive and motor skills vulnerable to age- related functional deterioration. The almost inevitable effects of senescence may be potentiated by age-related diseases, such as stroke or diabetes mellitus. Respective pharmacological treatment may cause side effects, additionally affecting driving safety. The present article reviews the impact of age-related diseases and drug treatment of these conditions on driving fitness in elderly drivers. In essence, we focus on diseases of the visual and auditory systems, diseases of the central nervous system (i.e., stroke, depression, dementia and mild cognitive disorder, and Parkinson's disease), sleep disorders, as well as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, musculoskeletal disorders, and frailty. We will outline the role of functional tests and the assessment of driving behavior (by a driving simulator or in real traffic), as well as the clinical interview including questions about frequency of (near) accidents, etc. in the evaluation of driving fitness of the elderly. We also address the impact of polypharmacy on driving fitness and end up with recommendations for physicians caring for older patients.

On-Road Behavior in Older Drivers With Mild Cognitive Impairment

OBJECTIVES

Dementia increases the risk of unsafe driving, but this is less apparent in preclinical stages such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). There is, however, limited detailed data on the patterns of driving errors associated with MCI. Here, we examined whether drivers with MCI exhibited different on-road error profiles compared with cognitively normal (CN) older drivers.

DESIGN

Observational.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A total of 296 licensed older drivers [mean age 75.5 (SD = 6.2) years, 120 (40.5%) women] recruited from the community.

METHOD

Participants completed a health and driving history survey, a neuropsychological test battery, and an on-road driving assessment including driver-instructed and self-navigation components. Driving assessors were blind to participant cognitive status. Participants were categorized as safe or unsafe based on a validated on-road safety scale, and as having MCI based on International Working Group diagnostic criteria. Proportion of errors incurred as a function of error type and traffic context were compared across safe and unsafe MCI and CN drivers.

RESULTS

Compared with safe CN drivers (n = 225), safe MCI drivers (n = 45) showed a similar pattern of errors in different traffic contexts. Compared with safe CN drivers, unsafe CN drivers (n = 17) were more likely to make errors in observation, speed control, lane position, and approach, and at stop/give-way signs, lane changes, and curved driving. Unsafe MCI drivers (n = 9) had additional difficulties at intersections, roundabouts, parking, straight driving, and under self-navigation conditions. A higher proportion of unsafe MCI drivers had multidomain subtype [n = 6 (67%)] than safe MCI drivers [n = 11 (25%)], odds ratio 6.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.4-29.6).

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Among safe drivers, MCI and CN drivers exhibit similar on-road error profiles, suggesting driver restrictions based on MCI status alone are unwarranted. However, formal evaluation is recommended in such cases, as there is evidence drivers with multiple domains of cognitive impairment may require additional interventions to support safe driving.

Driving Fitness in Different Forms of Dementia: An Update

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Most forms of dementia are associated with progressive cognitive and noncognitive impairments that can severely affect fitness to drive. Whether safe driving is still possible in the single case, however, is often difficult to decide and may be dependent on both severity and type of the respective dementia syndrome. Particularly in early disease stages, Alzheimer disease dementia (ADD) and different types of non-Alzheimer dementias, such as vascular dementia (VaD), frontotemporal dementia (FTD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and Parkinson disease dementia (PDD), might differentially affect fitness to drive.

DESIGN

To examine the effects of severity and type of dementia on driving fitness, we conducted a systematic review with qualitative narrative synthesis, involving different driving outcomes in different forms and stages of dementia.

SETTING

Literature research included MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases with a focus on the most relevant and recent publications on the topic.

PARTICIPANTS

The population of interest included older drivers in different stages of ADD and different forms of non-Alzheimer dementias (VaD, FTD, DLB, and PDD).

MEASUREMENTS

Narrative description of driving outcomes in the population of interest.

RESULTS

Overall, previous studies suggest that driving fitness is severely impaired in moderate and severe dementia, irrespective of the type of dementia. In milder disease stages, fitness to drive appears to be more severely impaired in non-Alzheimer dementias than in ADD, since the non-Alzheimer syndromes are not only associated with driving-relevant cognitive but noncognitive risk factors, such as behavioral or motor symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, practical recommendations are presented, including a risk evaluation for driving safety, depending on severity and type of different dementia syndromes. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2186-2192, 2019.