CLIP 86-100

Objectives: The informant-AD8 (i-AD8) was found to be reliable in detecting cognitive impairment and dementia in tertiary and primary health care settings. We evaluated the discriminability of the i-AD8, as compared to other brief cognitive measures, and its combination with the 5-minute Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Cog in detecting very mild dementia in an Asian older cohort. Design: The Epidemiology of Dementia in Singapore (EDIS) study recruited participants from a population-based eye disease study who were of Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnicities. Setting and participants: Participants aged ≥60 years were clinically assessed and diagnosed using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale. Of the 761 participants recruited, 526 (69.1%) had no dementia (CDR = 0), 193 (25.4%) had very mild dementia (CDR = 0.5), and 42 (5.5%) had dementia (CDR ≥ 1). Measures: Participants were administered the Mini-Mental State Examination, MoCA, Mini-Cog, and a local neuropsychological battery. Their informants were interviewed using the i-AD8. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted to establish the optimal cut-off points, and all discriminatory indices were calculated. Results: The i-AD8 was good and equivalent to other cognitive tools in detecting dementia [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.89, sensitivity = 0.76, and specificity = 0.94] but only fair in detecting very mild dementia (AUC = 0.69, sensitivity = 0.62, and specificity = 0.73). Combination of the i-AD8 with 5-minute MoCA or Mini-Cog in compensatory or in conjunction showed minimal improvement to the clinical utility for dementia or very mild dementia. All scales yielded a high rate of false positives (positive predictive value < 0.70). Conclusions and implications: The i-AD8 has good discriminatory power in detecting dementia (CDR ≥ 1) and is brief enough to be applied as an effective screening tool in the community. However, the i-AD8 and other cognitive tools lacked classification accuracy in detecting very mild dementia (CDR = 0.5).

Background: Dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are underrecognized in community settings. This may be due in part to the lack of brief dementia screening tools available to clinicians. We compared 2 brief, informant-based screening tests: the AD8 and the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE) in a community-based neurology practice in the midwestern United States. Methods: We examined 186 consecutive patients (44 controls, 13 with MCI, and 129 with dementia). Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to examine the ability of AD8 and IQCODE to discriminate between controls and MCI or dementia. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios were reported. Results: AD8 differentiated healthy controls from MCI (P<0.001) or dementia (P<0.001), and MCI from dementia (P=0.008). The IQCODE differentiated controls and MCI from dementia (both P<0.001), and between controls and MCI (P=0.002). Both AD8 (AUC=0.953; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99) and IQCODE (AUC=0.930, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97) provided discrimination between controls and patients with dementia; however, the AD8 had superior sensitivity detecting dementia (99.2%) and MCI (100%) compared with the IQCODE (79.1% for dementia, 46.1% for MCI) with nonoverlapping confidence intervals. Using published cut-offs (AD8≥2, IQCODE≥3.4), only 1 case of dementia was missed with the AD8, whereas the IQCODE failed to detect dementia in 27 individuals. The AD8 detected MCI in all 13 individuals, whereas the IQCODE misclassified 7 individuals. Conclusions: Both the AD8 and IQCODE were able to detect dementia in a community setting. The AD8, however, was more successful than IQCODE in detecting MCI. If simple and efficient screening for early cognitive impairment is the goal, particularly in the early stages (e.g., for prevention trials or public screening), the combination of an informant interview (the AD8) and a brief performance measure could be considered as they meet the basic requirements of the Personalized Prevention Plan for Medicare beneficiaries.

Background: delirium and dementia co-exist commonly in hospital. Older people with delirium have high rates of undiagnosed dementia, but delirium affects the use of cognitive testing in dementia diagnosis. Novel methods to detect dementia in delirium are needed. The purpose of the study was to investigate the diagnostic test accuracy of informant tools to detect dementia in hospitalised older people with delirium. Methods: the presence of dementia on admission was assessed using the short form of the Informant Questionnaire of Cognitive Decline in the Elderly (IQCODE-SF) and Alzheimer's Disease 8 (AD8) in people over 70 years old with delirium. Reference standard diagnosis was made using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria at 3 months. The main outcome measures were the diagnostic test accuracy of the IQCODE-SF and the AD8 in diagnosing DSM-IV dementia. Results: dementia prevalence at 3 months was 61%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was 0.93 (P < 0.0005) for admission IQCODE-SF and 0.91 (P < 0.0005) for admission AD8. An IQCODE-SF test result of >3.82 on admission had a sensitivity of 0.91 (0.79-0.97) and specificity of 0.93 (0.76-0.99) for detecting dementia. An AD8 of >6 had a sensitivity of 0.83 (0.69-0.92) and specificity of 0.90 (0.72-0.97) for detecting dementia. Conclusion: the IQCODE-SF and AD8 are sensitive and specific tools to detect prior dementia in older people with delirium. The routine use of either tool in practice could have important clinical impact, by improving the recognition and hence management of those with dementia.