Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:50:00.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving the diagnosis and prediction of progression in mild cognitive impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2018

Naaheed Mukadam
Naaheed Mukadam*
Affiliation:
UCL Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a clinical condition conceptualized as a stage between normal cognition and dementia. To diagnose it requires subjective cognitive impairment, evidence of cognitive impairment on cognitive testing but no abnormality in a person's functioning and no evidence of dementia (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). There has been growing interest in the condition over the past two decades or so because people with MCI are much more likely than people with no cognitive impairment to progress to dementia (Roberts et al., 2013). However, a significant percentage of people with MCI will not progress to dementia and some will revert to having normal cognition. Rates of progression and reversion to normal cognition vary widely in different studies (Manly et al., 2008). People with MCI experience worry about their symptoms and this is partly alleviated by receiving a diagnosis of MCI and being reassured they do not have dementia (Gomersall et al., 2017). The benefits of diagnosis also include gaining a greater understanding of their symptoms and accessing clinical support but a significant amount of uncertainty remains with regards to the risk of progression and recipients of the diagnosis remain frustrated at the lack of treatments for MCI (Gomersall et al., 2017). There has been much interest in improving the prediction of progression to dementia from MCI but to date, the best predictors of progression remain structured clinical and functional assessments, with some additional benefit from measures of cortical volume/thickness from brain imaging (Korolev et al., 2016). As yet, however, there are no interventions that can prevent (Kane et al., 2017) or treat (Cooper et al., 2013) MCI so it seems set to remain an important clinical entity for the foreseeable future.

Type
Commentary
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 30 , Issue 10: Issue Theme: Mild Cognitive Impairment , October 2018 , pp. 1419 - 1421
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Pub.Google Scholar
Beer, J. C., Snitz, B. E., Chang, C.-C. H. and Loewenstein, D. A. (2018). Does a cognitive stress test predict progression from mild cognitive impairment to dementia equally well in clinical versus population-based settings? International Psychogeriatrics, 30, 1435–1445.Google Scholar
Cooper, C., Li, R., Lyketsos, C. and Livingston, G. (2013). Treatment for mild cognitive impairment: systematic review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 203, 255–264.Google Scholar
Gomersall, T., Smith, S. K., Blewett, C. and Astell, A. (2017). ‘It's definitely not Alzheimer's’: perceived benefits and drawbacks of a mild cognitive impairment diagnosis. British Journal of Health Psychology, 22, 786–804.Google Scholar
Hedman, A., Kottorp, A., Almkvist, O. and Nygard, L. (2018). Challenge levels of everyday technologies as perceived over five years by older adults with mild cognitive impairment. International Psychogeriatrics, 30, 1447–1454.Google Scholar
Kane, R. L. et al. (2017). Interventions to prevent age-related cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, and clinical Alzheimer's-type dementia. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.Google Scholar
Korolev, I. O., Symonds, L. L., Bozoki, A. C. and Initiative, A. S. D. N. (2016). Predicting progression from mild cognitive impairment to Alzheimer's dementia using clinical, MRI, and plasma biomarkers via probabilistic pattern classification. PloS One, 11, e0138866.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, D. A., Acevedo, A., Luis, C., Crum, T., Barker, W. W. and Duara, R. (2004). Semantic interference deficits and the detection of mild Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment without dementia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 10, 91–100.Google Scholar
Malinowsky, C., Almkvist, O., Kottorp, A. and Nygård, L. (2010). Ability to manage everyday technology: a comparison of persons with dementia or mild cognitive impairment and older adults without cognitive impairment. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 5, 462–469.Google Scholar
Manly, J. J., Tang, M. X., Schupf, N., Stern, Y., Vonsattel, J. P. G. and Mayeux, R. (2008). Frequency and course of mild cognitive impairment in a multiethnic community. Annals of Neurology: Official Journal of the American Neurological Association and the Child Neurology Society, 63, 494–506.Google Scholar
Park, J.-H., Jung, M., Kim, J., Park, H.Y., Kim, J.-R. and Park, J.-H. (2018). Validity of a novel computerized screening test system for mild cognitive impairment. International Psychoageriatrics, 30, 1455–1463.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. O. et al. (2013). Higher risk of progression to dementia in mild cognitive impairment cases who revert to normal. Neurology, 82, 317–325.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, L., Nygård, L. and Kottorp, A. (2009). Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 29, 52–62.Google Scholar