Predicting conversion to Alzheimer disease using standardized clinical information.

OBJECTIVE To identify aspects of a standardized clinical assessment that can predict which individuals within the category of "questionable" Alzheimer disease (AD) have a high likelihood of converting to AD over time. DESIGN Detailed semistructured interviews were performed at baseline and annually for 3 years. SETTING University-based gerontology research program. PATIENTS The patient population consisted of 165 individuals 65 years and older: 42 of the participants had a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of normal cognition (CDR rating, 0.0) and 123 had a rating of questionable AD (CDR rating, 0.5). After 3 years of follow-up, 23 of the 123 subjects with questionable AD were diagnosed with probable AD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The interview was used to generate a summary measure based on the sum of 6 CDR categories, known as the Total Box Score. The responses to 32 selected questions from the interview also were examined. RESULTS Likelihood of progression to AD during the follow-up period was strongly related to the Total Box Score. For example, more than 50% of individuals with a Total Box Score of 2.0 or higher at baseline developed AD during the follow-up interval, whereas about 10% of individuals with a Total Box Score of 1.0 or lower developed AD during this same period. Selected questions from the standardized clinical interview also were highly predictive of subsequent conversion to AD among the study population. Eight selected questions from the clinical interview at baseline, combined with the CDR Total Box Score, identified 88.6% of such individuals accurately (questionable group, 82/91; converter group, 19/23). CONCLUSIONS A standardized clinical assessment can be used to identify the subgroup of individuals within the category of questionable AD who have a high likelihood of converting to AD over time. Subjects who met the criteria for questionable AD had a variety of trajectories during a 3-year follow-up, suggesting that diverse factors may influence the functional changes observed in this population.

[1]  J. Duchek,et al.  Reliability of the Washington University Clinical Dementia Rating. , 1988, Archives of neurology.

[2]  John Q. Trojanowski,et al.  Consensus Recommendations for the Postmortem Diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease , 1997, Neurobiology of Aging.

[3]  B. Reisberg,et al.  The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. , 1982, The American journal of psychiatry.

[4]  J. Morris,et al.  Very mild senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. I. Clinical assessment. , 1989, Archives of neurology.

[5]  C. P. Hughes,et al.  A New Clinical Scale for the Staging of Dementia , 1982, British Journal of Psychiatry.

[6]  R. Reitan.  Validity of the Trail Making Test as an Indicator of Organic Brain Damage , 1958 .

[7]  P. S. St George-Hyslop,et al.  Prediction of probable Alzheimer's disease in memory-impaired patients , 1996, Neurology.

[8]  E G Tangalos,et al.  Memory function in very early Alzheimer's disease , 1994, Neurology.

[9]  B. Milner,et al.  Deficits on subject-ordered tasks after frontal- and temporal-lobe lesions in man , 1982, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  E. Tangalos,et al.  Mild Cognitive Impairment Clinical Characterization and Outcome , 1999 .

[11]  S. Folstein,et al.  "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. , 1975, Journal of psychiatric research.

[12]  D. Delis,et al.  The California verbal learning test , 2016 .

[13]  B L Holman,et al.  Preclinical prediction of Alzheimer's disease using SPECT , 1998, Neurology.

[14]  Yaakov Stern,et al.  Questionable Dementia: Clinical Course and Predictors of Outcome , 1997, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.