New York, NY (PRWEB) May 13, 2013
Older people may slip through the net when it comes to early treatment of dementia because the current approach to diagnosis of Mild Cognitive Impairment – an intermediate clinical state between normal aging and dementia – may be inadequate, new research shows.
A study by four US universities revealed that a traditional global method for identifying people with Mild Cognitive Impairment is too imprecise. The approach may misdiagnose normally aging adults as having Mild Cognitive impairment, and not identify subtle early warning signs of brain impairment, with the result that opportunities for early intervention and treatment of individuals at the highest risk of dementia, including Alzheimer’s, are missed.
The 10-strong research group from the VA San Diego Healthcare System; University of California, San Diego School of Medicine; and San Diego State University; assisted by Drexel University, Philadelphia; and Boston University, report their findings in the most recent edition of the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (JINS), published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Neuropsychological Society.
Suspecting that the current method used to assess cognitive (brain) function in older people was not sensitive enough to the wide variety of warning signs which can occur, the research group devised their own method. They then tried it out on a group of 197 healthy older people living normally in their community. They also used the traditional method on the study group and then compared the two. The conventional diagnostic tool uses typically only one measure of brain function while the new method developed by the team uses a variety and also examines patterns of dysfunction.
The results showed that the newly developed diagnostic method picked up a variety of signs missed by the conventional method and was less likely to misdiagnose normally aging older adults than the conventional method. This means that the research team has been able to make an important breakthrough by identifying two new categories of signs of possible early-onset types of dementia. These would have been overlooked by the traditional diagnostic tool. Additionally, it means that the newer method was more cautious and made less false positive errors – in other words, diagnosed less people who are normally aging as having brain impairment.
The researchers say they can now offer four categories of warning signs to assist diagnosis:
The traditional method was able to offer only the first two of the categories above.
The study’s lead author, Lindsay Clark from San Diego State University and the University of California’s Clinical Psychology doctoral program, said the new approach provided a more reliable method of identifying subtle signs, leading to much earlier treatment of a range of dementias and age-related brain dysfunction:
"The fact that the traditional criteria produced results that classified individuals as having early signs of problems whom our new diagnostic method found to have normal cognitive function is concerning. As these criteria are in widespread use among researchers, they may inaccurately diagnose normal older adults with mild cognitive impairment while preventing accurate identification of many subtle symptoms that, if treated early, could delay the development of various forms of dementia in older people, offering them an improved quality of life for longer.”
With Alzheimer’s, one of the most widespread and most feared, brain diseases, early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, adds senior author Mark Bondi from the VA San Diego Healthcare System and University of California San Diego’s Department of Psychiatry:
"One of the most important goals of the coming decade will be to identify the earliest, most reliable and most easily obtainable markers of Alzheimer’s disease, because early identification now represents the most promising window for early intervention and treatment."
The new diagnosis method, called “comprehensive criteria for Mild Cognitive Impairment” was originally described in a publication by Amy Jak, Mark Bondi, Lisa Delano-Wood, and colleagues (2009) and is currently available for use by health professionals.
Notes to Editors
For further information or to arrange interviews Lindsay Clark, M.S. at 858-552-8585 x6717 or ltermini(at)ucsd(dot)edu or Mark Bondi, Ph.D. at 858-552-8585 x2809 or mbondi(at)ucsd(dot)edu.
JINS Article: Are Empirically-Derived Subtypes of Mild Cognitive Impairment Consistent with Conventional Subtypes? Full article available here: http://journals.cambridge.org/JINSCLARK
Lindsay R. Clark - San Diego State University/University of California San Diego Joint Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology
Lisa Delano-Wood, Amy J. Jak and Mark W. Bondi - Department of Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California and Department of Psychiatry, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
David J. Libon - Department of Neurology, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Carrie R. McDonald and Katherine J. Bangen - Department of Psychiatry, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
Daniel A. Nation - Department of Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California
Rhoda Au - Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts
David P. Salmon - Department of Neurosciences, UC San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, California
JINS is the official journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, an organization of over 3,700 international members from a variety of disciplines. JINS publishes empirically-based articles covering all areas of neuropsychology and the interface of neuropsychology with other fields, such as cognitive neuroscience. The editorial board is comprised of internationally known experts with a broad range of interests.
International Neuropsychological Society: http://www.the-ins.org/
About Cambridge Journals
Cambridge University Press publishes over 300 peer-reviewed academic journals across a wide spread of subject areas, in print and online. Many of these journals are the leading academic publications in their fields and together they form one of the most valuable and comprehensive bodies of research available today.
About Cambridge University Press
Cambridge University Press is the publishing business of the University of Cambridge. Dedicated to excellence, its purpose is to further the University's objective of advancing knowledge, education, learning, and research.
Its extensive peer-reviewed publishing lists comprise 45,000 titles covering academic research, professional development, over 300 research journals, school-level education, English language teaching and bible publishing.
Playing a leading role in today’s international market place, Cambridge University Press has more than 50 offices around the globe, and distributes its products to nearly every country in the world.