Do patients diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease benefit from a psycho-educational programme for family caregivers? A randomised controlled study

OBJECTIVE

The Aide dans la Maladie d'Alzheimer (AIDMA) study was conducted to determine whether a psycho-educational programme (PEP) for primary caregivers in addition to standard anti-dementia drugs for patients improves caregivers' psychological condition and patients' activities of daily life.

METHOD

Multicentre randomised controlled intervention trial. One hundred and sixty-seven dyads 'patient-caregiver' were recruited from 15 French memory clinics and randomised in two parallel groups. The intervention group was offered the PEP in 12 group sessions for 3 months. The control group had usual care. Patients in both groups with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) were diagnosed and treated with pharmacotherapy. Patients' primary efficacy variable was functional status assessed with the Disability Assessment Scale for Dementia (DAD) scale. Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were secondary criteria. Caregivers' first outcome measure was depressive symptoms assessed with the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scale. Zarit scale, Sense of Competence Questionnaire (SCQ) and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) were secondary criteria. Assessment was done at baseline, 3 months (M3, end of intervention) and 6 months (M6).

RESULTS

Patients' stabilisation was observed in both groups. In caregivers, significant improvement in disease understanding at M3 (p = 0.007) and M6 (p = 0.0001) and in ability to cope with care-recipients' disease at M6 (0.02) was evidenced.

CONCLUSION

The PEP had no additional impact on patients but carers developed more effective disease understanding and ability of coping. Results support the idea that the PEP although improving caregivers' condition is not sufficient to improve patients' activities in daily life which requires additional individually tailored interventions provided by professionals.

Relevance of 10-min delayed recall in dementia screening

Within the context of early diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is a growing interest in neuropsychological screening tests. Amongst these tests, we focused on the largely used Memory Impairment Screen (MIS). The objective of the present work was to show that adding a 10-min delayed recall to the MIS, improves the test psychometric characteristics in order to detect dementia in the earliest stages. A prospective study was carried out on a cohort of 270 consecutive elderly ambulatory subjects attending the Broca Hospital Memory Clinic: normal controls (n = 67), mild cognitive impairment subjects (n = 98) and mildly demented patients [n = 105, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) = 23 +/- 4]. This study consisted in testing the advantage of the 10-min delayed recall entitled MIS-D compared with the MIS. At a cut-off score of 6, the MIS-D revealed satisfying psychometric characteristics with a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 91%, whilst the MIS alone indicated a sensitivity of 60% and a specificity of 88% in detecting dementia. In demented patients with MMSE score > or =26, MIS-D properties still remained satisfying (sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 92%). MIS-D is a more relevant screening test than MIS alone at very early stages of dementia.

Accidental MCI in healthy subjects: a prospective longitudinal study

A study was realized on 130 healthy and autonomous volunteers (60-80 years old) who met specific medical and functional inclusion criteria. A comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests was performed at baseline (M0), 6 and 12 months (M6, M12). At M0 the results indicated that 65% were cognitively normal on each of all the neuropsychological tests, whereas 35% presented a cognitive deficit on one or more tests. At M12, 52% of the subjects who had a cognitive deficit at M0 remained impaired, whereas 48% normalized their scores: they performed as well as the subjects classified normal at M0. The results also indicated that the subjects who remained impaired at M12, had at M0 low scores on three tests or more, whereas the ones who normalized their scores had one or two failed tests. This study focuses on the risk of false positive cases and shows that low scores can be accidental. The authors propose decision rules allowing to reduce the risk of false positive cases. The observation of accidental impairment invites to be cautious and makes this 1-year follow-up study particularly relevant, since a 1-year follow-up is generally needed to diagnose very mild dementia.