© Borgis - Postępy Nauk Medycznych 10/2013, s. 673-677
*Anna Barczak1, Tomasz Gabryelewicz2, Bogusław Wasiak1, Maciej P. Golan2, Małgorzata Chodakowska-Żebrowska1, Anna Pfeffer1, 2, Maria Styczyńska2, Monika Mandecka1, 2, Maria Barcikowska2
Skala Klinicznej Oceny Stopnia Otępienia (CDR) a ryzyko otępienia u osób z łagodnymi zaburzeniami poznawczymi
Clinical Dementia Rating Scale (CDR) and dementia risk in the Mild Cognitive Impairment patients**
1Neurodegenerative Department, Neurology Clinic, MSW Central Clinical Hospital, Warszawa
Head of Department: prof. Maria Barcikowska, MD, PhD
2Department of Neurodegenerative Disorders, Mossakowski Medical Research Centre,
Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa
Head of Department: prof. Maria Barcikowska, MD, PhD
Wstęp. Łagodne zaburzenia poznawcze (ŁZP) to zespół objawów definiowany jako pogorszenie funkcjonowania poznawczego w stopniu większym niż przewidywany dla wieku i poziomu wykształcenia, ale niezakłócający w sposób znaczący aktywności dnia codziennego. Głównymi kryteriami rozpoznawania ŁZP są deficyty pamięci. Jedną z metod ich diagnozy jest Kliniczna Ocena Stopnia Otępienia (ang. Clinical Dementia Rating – CDR), której wynik dla ŁZP wynosi 0,5.
Cel pracy. Celem pracy była ocena przydatności wyników poszczególnych podskali CDR w ocenie ryzyka wystąpienia otępienia u osób z ŁZP.
Materiał i metody. W badaniu wstępnym uzyskano wyniki poszczególnych podskali CDR (Pamięć, Orientacja, Osądzanie i rozwiązywanie problemów, Czynności związane z życiem w społeczności, Dom i hobby oraz Czynności osobiste) od 103 osób z ŁZP (śr. wieku 69,32; 80 kobiet, 23 mężczyzn). Po trzyletnim okresie obserwacji osoby zostały podzielone na dwie osobne grupy: bez otępienia – ND (n = 80; śr. wieku 68,71; 56 kobiet i 24 mężczyzn) i z otępieniem – D (n = 23; śr. wieku 71,82; 14 kobiet i 9 mężczyzn), a ich wyniki poddano odrębnej analizie.
Wyniki. Różnice pomiędzy wynikami podskali Pamięci, Orientacji oraz Osądzania i rozwiązywania problemów nie osiągnęły istotności statystycznej. Najbardziej różnicujące okazały się wyniki podskali: Czynności związane z życiem w społeczności oraz Dom i hobby, na korzyść osób bez otępienia (p = 0,05).
Wnioski. Pacjenci z ŁZP, u których w przyszłości wystąpi otępienie, uzyskują odmienne wyniki podskal pozapoznawczych CDR niż osoby bez otępienia. Analiza poszczególnych podskal CDR może być przydatna dla późniejszej opieki nad pacjentami.
Introduction. Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) is a syndrome defined as cognitive decline greater than expected for an individual’s age and education level but that does not interfere notably with activities of daily life. The main criterion of MCI is memory impairment, and the most common method of diagnosis is Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), scored in MCI as 0.5.
Aim. We tried to estimate the utility of particular CDR’s boxes scores in dementia risk estimation.
Material and methods. Boxes of CDR (Memory, Orientation, Judgment & Problem Solving, Community Affairs, Home & Hobbies, Personal Care) baseline scores of 103 MCI persons (mean age 69.32; 80 females and 23 males) were analyzed in 2 groups: non demented – ND (n = 80; mean age 68.71; 56 females and 24 males), and demented – D (n = 23; mean age 71.82; 14 females and 9 males) after 3-year follow up.
Results. Any significant difference weren’t observed in Memory, Orientation and Judgment. The most differentiating were Community Affairs and Home & Hobbies, which were on favor in the non-demented group (p = 0.05).
Conclusions. MCI subjects who later develop dementia differ from stable ones in functional domains of CDR at baseline evaluation. Analysis of particular CDR’s boxes scores might be helpful in further patients’ management.
Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), is often a prodromal state of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), however it seems to be a heterogeneous group with a variety of clinical outcomes. Most subjects will convert to dementia, but some MCIs may never progress to any significant extent or may even improve. The MCI prevalence varies from 15 to 30% of the population aged 60 and over according to different studies. Individuals with MCI are at an increased risk of developing dementia ranging from 1 to 25% per year. There is considerable heterogeneity in the rates of conversion in these studies, with annual conversion rates ranging from 2 to 31%. The overall 10.24% conversion rate is five-fold higher than the expected incidence of dementia in people at this age (1).
One of the popular instruments in the field of ageing research is the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (2). CDR seems to be the major tool in establishing the diagnosis of MCI in Europe, where almost half of the memory clinics use CDR to assess patients with cognitive decline (3). For the most part, MCI subjects will be classified as CDR 0.5. However, the CDR is a severity rating and not a diagnostic classification. Therefore, subjects with a CDR of 0.5 may have the clinical diagnosis of MCI or AD (1).
The aim of this study was to point out the utility of CDR’s boxes scores in predicting dementia risk in the MCI group. There are few papers analyzing particular boxes scores, most research focus on dementia staging provided by CDR overall score (3).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The Clinical Dementia Rating was developed at Washington University School of Medicine, first published in 1982 and revised in 1993 (4). The CDR is a clinical staging instrument for dementia. It characterizes six domains of cognitive and functional performance: Memory, Orientation, Judgment & Problem Solving, Community Affairs, Home & Hobbies, and Personal Care. The necessary information to make each rating is obtained through a semi-structured interview of the patient and a reliable informant or collateral source (e.g., a family member). The CDR Table provides descriptive anchors that guide the clinician in making appropriate ratings based on interview data and clinical judgment. In addition to ratings on a 5-point scale for each domain (except Personal Care, which is rated on a 4-point scale) an overall CDR score is derived by standard algorithm. This score is useful for globally staging the level of impairment: 0 – No impairment, 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 indicate Very Mild, Mild, Moderate and Severe Dementia, respectively (2).
The CDR is used in both research and clinical settings to characterize the level of cognitive and functional performance in patients at risk for or suspected of being demented. Common applications include patient evaluation in memory assessment clinics, research studies of normal elderly and those with dementia, and clinical trials of therapeutic agents that might influence dementia progression (4).
The usefulness of the CDR may result from several factors: (1) it is clinically based (i.e., independent of psychometric test scores); (2) the six categories used for rating dementia severity are directly linked to validated clinical diagnostic criteria for AD; (3) it has high inter-rater reliability for physicians and nonphysicians; and (4) an expanded and more quantitative version of the scale can be achieved by summing the ratings in each of the six categories to provide the Sum of Boxes.
The CDR has been standardized for multicenter use. Criterion validity for both the global CDR and scores on individual domains has been demonstrated, and the CDR also has been validated neuropathologically, particularly for the presence or absence of dementia. Standardized training protocols are available. Although not well suited as a brief screening tool for population surveys of dementia because the protocol depends on sufficient time to conduct interviews, the CDR has become widely accepted in the clinical setting as a reliable and valid global assessment measure for dementia (4).
Our sample included 103 MCI individuals participating in a longitudinal study at the Department of Neurodegenerative Disorders of the Polish Academy of Sciences (DND/PAS) in Warsaw. The subjects were selected consecutively from attenders who had come to the DND/PAS for an evaluation of cognitive difficulties. All subjects lived independently in the community at the time of their baseline evaluation. Informed consent was obtained from each participant or their relatives. The local Ethics Committee for Medical Research approved the study (5).
The diagnosis of MCI was made if the subject met the following criteria: the presence of memory complaints, normal activities of daily living, objective memory impairment or an impairment in another area of cognitive function, normal global cognitive function, overall CDR score of 0.5, and not demented (1). Stages of the severity of cognitive disturbances were determined by the CDR conducted according to the published rules (2). The MCI participants were rated at entry as CDR 0.5 (6).
The outcome for each patient at 3 years was determined according to rules mentioned above, as well as observations and interviews with subject and subject’s caregiver. Only particular CDR’s boxes scores are analyzed.
All participants went neuropsychological evaluation, however all results except Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (7) scores were purposely disregarded in this paper, as well as demographic factors as educational level and occupation.
After three years of follow-up, 80 subjects remained non-demented and 23 converted to dementia. Nineteen of those converted patients had possible Alzheimer’s Disease (5 with an Amnestic-MCI [A-MCI], 14 with Multi Domain-MCI [MD-MCI], 2 with MD-MCI were classified as Vascular Dementia, one MD-MCI as mixed dementia and one MD-MCI as Frontotemporal dementia). The overall rate of conversion to dementia was 21.9% at three years (an annual rate of 7.3%, calculated by dividing the observed conversion rate by the follow-up time). The mean time of follow-up was 3.05 years (SD: 0.675, median: 3.2 years). Those findings were published in the earlier report of observed group (6).
MCI patients were divided in 2 groups. Non demented (ND) group consisted with 80 persons, and demented group (D) consisted with 23 patients. Differences between groups were measured using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The threshold value of statistical significance was p < 0.05. The statistical analysis was carried out using the Analytical Software SPSS for Windows.
Following CDR’s boxes scores were analyzed Memory (M), Orientation (O), Judgment & Problem Solving (J), Community Affairs (C), Home & Hobbies (H).
Overall CDR score and Personal Care box weren’t taking into consideration, because all patients scored the same, Total CDR scored 0.5, and Personal Care box scored 0 (10).
Analysis revealed that at baseline both groups showed no differences in cognitive domains: Memory (M), Orientation (O), Judgment & Problem Solving (J). However there was a significant difference in functional, non-cognitive categories: Community Affairs (C) (p = 0.042) and Home & Hobbies (H) (p = 0.036) (tab. 1).
Table 1. CDR’s boxes scores – comparison – between the groups.
|CDR’s domains||Demented (D) n = 23|
|Non-demented (ND) n = 80|
|Overall CDR||0.5 (0.00)||0.5 (0.00)||0.00||1.00|
|Memory||0.48 (0.10)||0.46 (0.15)||-0.455||0.649|
|Orientation||0.11 (0.21)||0.11 (0.56)||-1.302||0.193|
|Judgement & Problem Solving||0.46 (0.21)||0.39 (0.27)||-1.164||0.244|
|Community Affairs||0.35 (0.23)||0.18 (0.24)||-2.100||0.036*|
|Home & Hobbies||0.26 (0.25)||0.15 (0.23)||-2.035||0.042*|
|Personal Care||0 (0.00)||0 (0.00)||0.00||1.00|
*p < 0.05
Demented group scored higher in Community Affairs and Home & Hobbies Boxes than non demented one. Their level of cognitive abilities was similar, not differentiating in terms of remembering, being oriented or able to abstractive thinking. However, the ability to conduct everyday activities in this group was decreased.
MMSE baseline scores were also calculated, and Demented group’s mean result was 26.65 (SD: 2.08) compared to the mean score of stable group, which was equal to 27.35 (SD: 1.67). Both groups were similar in terms of baseline MMSE evaluation (p = 0.262).
Powyżej zamieściliśmy fragment artykułu, do którego możesz uzyskać pełny dostęp.
Płatny dostęp do wszystkich zasobów Czytelni Medycznej
1. Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M et al.: Practice parameter: Early detection of dementia: Mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review): Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2001; 56: 1133-1142.
2. Morris JC: The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): Current version and scoring rules. Neurology 1993; 43: 2412-2414.
3. Fillenbaum GG, Peterson B, Morris JC: Estimating the validity of the clinical Dementia Rating Scale: the CERAD experience. Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease. Aging 1996; 8: 379-385.
4. Morris JC: Clinical Dementia Rating: A Reliable and Valid Diagnostic and Staging Measure for Dementia of the Alzheimer Type. Int Psychogeriatr 1997; 9: 173-176.
5. Gabryelewicz T, Styczynska M, Pfeffer A et al.: Prevalence of major and minor depression in elderly persons with mild cognitive impairment-MADRS factor analysis. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2004; 19: 1168-1172.
6. Gabryelewicz T, Styczynska M, Luczywek E et al.: The rate of conversion of mild cognitive impairment to dementia: predictive role of depression. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007; 22; 563-567.
7. Folstein M, Folstein S, McHugh P: „Mini-Mental State”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189-198.
8. Hämäläinen A, Tervo S, Grau-Olivares M et al.: Voxel-based morphometry to detect brain atrophy in progressive mild cognitive impairment. Neuroimage 2007; 37: 1122-1131.
9. Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M et al.: Mild cognitive impairment-beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 2004; 256: 240-246.
10. Dickerson BC, Sperling RA, Hyman BT et al.: Clinical prediction of Alzheimer disease dementia across the spectrum of mild cognitive impairment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 1443-1450.
11. Lim WS, Chong MS, Sahadevan S: Utility of the Clinical Dementia Rating in Asian Populations. Clin Med Res 2007: 5: 61-70.
12. Lynch CA, Walsh C, Blanco A et al.: The Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Box Score in Mild Dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2006; 21: 40-43.
13. Tractenberg RE, Weiner MF, Cummings JL et al.: Independence of Changes in Behavior From Cognition and Function in Community-Dwelling Persons With Alzheimer’s Disease: A Factor Analytic Approach. Neuropsychiatry. Clin Neurosci 2005; 17: 51-60.
14. Marcos A, Gil P, Barabash A et al.: Neuropsychological Markers of Progression From Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer’s Disease. Am J Alzheimer Dis Other Demen 2006; 21: 189-196.
15. Farias ST, Mungas D, Reed BR et al.: MCI is associated with deficits in everyday functioning. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2006; 20: 217-223.
16. Cahn-Weiner DA, Farias ST, Julian L et al.: Cognitive and neuroimaging predictors of instrumental activities of daily living. JINS 2007; 13: 747-757.
17. Tam CWC, Lam LCW, Chiu HFK et al.: Characteristic Profiles of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living in Chinese Older Persons with Mild Cognitive Impairment. Am J Alzheimer Dis Other Demen 2007; 22: 211-217.
18. Mitchell AJ, Shiri-Feshki M: Rate of progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia-meta-analysis of 41 robust inception cohort studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2009; 119: 252-265.