2 results
Patients in Australian Memory Clinics: baseline characteristics and predictors of decline at six months
- Henry Brodaty, Michael Woodward, Karyn Boundy, David Ames, Robert Balshaw
-
- Journal:
- International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 23 / Issue 7 / September 2011
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 April 2011, pp. 1086-1096
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background: The Prospective Research In MEmory clinics (PRIME) is a three-year non-prescriptive, observational study identifying and measuring relationships among predictor and outcome variables.
Methods: Patients from nine memory clinics, diagnosed with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI), living in the community with <40 hours/week nursing care were divided into diagnostic groups defined at baseline as Alzheimer's disease (AD) early or late onset, frontotemporal dementia (FTD), vascular dementia (VaD), mixed (AD and VaD) and other dementia. To achieve outcome measures, baseline and change over six months in all measures by diagnostic group, and predictors of change at six months were examined.
Results: Of the 970 patients enrolled, 967 were eligible for analysis. The most common disorder was AD (late onset) accounting for 46.5% of this population. Patients had an overall slight worsening on all assessment scales over the six-month period. Patients with FTD had a more marked change (decline) in cognition, function and behavior over six months compared to other diagnostic groups. However, in the regression analysis the difference was not significant between groups. Predictors of decline in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores were not robust at six months, and longer follow-up is required. Patients with FTD were more likely to be prescribed psychotropics.
Conclusion: The PRIME study is continuing and will provide important data on predictors of decline along with differences between diagnosis groups on the rate of change.
Does executive impairment define a frontal variant of Alzheimer's disease?
- Michael Woodward, Henry Brodaty, Karyn Boundy, David Ames, Greg Blanch, Robert Balshaw
-
- Journal:
- International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 22 / Issue 8 / December 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 19 August 2010, pp. 1280-1290
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Background: People with Alzheimer's disease (AD) who present with prominent frontal features such as a dysexecutive syndrome may be difficult to differentiate clinically from subjects with frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). This study was performed to improve the differential diagnosis between AD and FTLD and to better characterize the AD subgroup with greater executive dysfunction.
Methods: Using a well-defined prospectively studied cohort of cognitively impaired subjects, which included those with AD and with FTLD, we nominated a frontal variant of AD (FvAD) group as those AD subjects with the lowest quartile of scores on the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB), indicating greatest executive dysfunction, and compared them with the rest of the AD cases (whom we called the AD group) and those with FTLD across several baseline variables including cognitive, functional and behavioral scales. We also compared the changes from baseline for these three groups at 6 and 12 months. Additionally, we controlled for dementia severity by matching AD and FTLD cases on a functional scale, the SMAF, and repeated the same comparisons with these severity-matched groups.
Results: The 114 FvAD subjects had a mean age of 78.1 years and Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) scores of 16.6, and the (remaining) AD group had a mean age of 78.4 years and MMSE of 22.4. There were 30 FTLD subjects with a mean age at baseline of 70.9 years and a mean baseline MMSE of 23.4. The FvAD group was significantly more severely impaired than the other two groups on all baseline assessments except the behavioral scale, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), where there was insignificantly less impairment than in the FTLD group. In the analysis of subjects matched at baseline for functional impairment, the FvAD and FTLD groups were not significantly different on most assessment scales although on the FAB, clock-drawing and MMSE the FvAD subjects were still significantly more impaired. These two severity-matched groups were also similar in other baseline characteristics except for older age and less psychotropic use in the FvAD group. The severity-matched FvAD group was significantly different from the AD group in almost all assessment scales. All three unmatched and matched groups declined similarly over 12 months.
Conclusions: When groups were not matched for baseline severity, the use of the FAB defined a group of AD subjects with greater executive dysfunction that were distinguished from both the remainder of the AD and FTLD subjects in almost all domains except behavioral disturbance and probably were just more severely affected AD subjects. The FAB is thus more useful as a marker of dementia severity than as a scale to detect a frontal variant of AD or to distinguish AD from FTLD. Controlling for severity, however, did allow the definition of a subgroup of AD subjects that more closely resembled FTLD subjects than the remainder of the AD subjects. It is proposed that subjects with dementia presenting with greater executive impairment but without prominent behavioral symptoms are likely to have AD rather than FTLD, especially if they are quite functionally impaired. With time FTLD subjects develop increasing executive dysfunction and increasingly resemble the more severely affected AD subjects.