Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Sensitivity to change and prediction of global change for the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire

Authors: Michael Malek-Ahmadi, Kewei Chen, Kathryn Davis, Christine M Belden, Jessica Powell, Sandra A Jacobson, Marwan N Sabbagh

Published in: Alzheimer's Research & Therapy | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Longitudinal assessment of cognitive decline in amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) often involves the use of both informant-based and objective cognitive assessments. As efforts have focused on identifying individuals in pre-clinical stages, instruments that are sensitive to subtle cognitive changes are needed. The Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ) has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in identifying aMCI and AD; however its ability to measure longitudinal change has not been assessed. The aims of this study are to assess the sensitivity to change of the AQ and to determine whether the AQ predicts change in global cognition and function in cognitively normal (CN), aMCI, and AD subjects.

Methods

Data from 202 individuals participating in a brain and body donation program were utilized for this study (101 CN, 62 aMCI, 39 AD). AD and aMCI individuals were matched on age, education, and gender to CN individuals. Sensitivity to change of the AQ was assessed in addition to the AQ’s ability to predict change in global cognition and function. The Mini Mental State Exam (MMSE) and Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) were used as gold standard comparisons of cognition and function. Sample size calculations for a 25% treatment effect were also carried out for all three groups.

Results

The AQ demonstrated small sensitivity to change in the aMCI and CN groups (d = 0.33, d = 0.23, respectively) and moderate sensitivity to change in the AD group (d = 0.43). The AQ was associated with increases in the Clinical Dementia Rating Global Score (OR = 1.20 (1.09, 1.32), P <0.001). Sample size calculations found that the AQ would require substantially fewer subjects than the MMSE given a 25% treatment effect.

Conclusions

Although the AQ demonstrated small sensitivity to change in aMCI and CN individuals in terms of effect size, the AQ may be superior to objective cognitive tests in terms of required sample size for a clinical trial. As clinicians and researchers continue to identify and treat individuals in earlier stages of AD, there is a need for instruments that are sensitive to cognitive changes in these earlier stages.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Blacker D, Lee H, Muzikansky A, Martin EC, Tanzi R, McArdle JJ, et al. Neuropsychological measures in normal individuals that predict subsequent cognitive decline. Arch Neurol. 2007;64:862–71.PubMedCrossRef Blacker D, Lee H, Muzikansky A, Martin EC, Tanzi R, McArdle JJ, et al. Neuropsychological measures in normal individuals that predict subsequent cognitive decline. Arch Neurol. 2007;64:862–71.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Johnson DK, Storandt M, Morris JC, Galvin JE. Longitudinal study of the transition from healthy aging to Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1254–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Johnson DK, Storandt M, Morris JC, Galvin JE. Longitudinal study of the transition from healthy aging to Alzheimer disease. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:1254–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Riley KP, Jicha GA, Davis D, Abner EL, Cooper GE, Stiles N, et al. Prediction of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: longitudinal rates of change in cognition. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;25:707–17.PubMedCentralPubMed Riley KP, Jicha GA, Davis D, Abner EL, Cooper GE, Stiles N, et al. Prediction of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease: longitudinal rates of change in cognition. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;25:707–17.PubMedCentralPubMed
4.
go back to reference Gavett RA, Dunn JE, Stoddard A, Harty B, Weintraub S. The Cognitive Change in Women Study (CCW): informant ratings of cognitive change but not self ratings are associated with neuropsychological performance over three years. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25:305–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Gavett RA, Dunn JE, Stoddard A, Harty B, Weintraub S. The Cognitive Change in Women Study (CCW): informant ratings of cognitive change but not self ratings are associated with neuropsychological performance over three years. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011;25:305–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sabbagh MN, Malek-Ahmadi M, Kataria R, Belden CM, Connor DJ, Pearson C, et al. The Alzheimer’s Questionnaire: a proof of concept study for a new informant-based dementia assessment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;22:1015–21.PubMedCentralPubMed Sabbagh MN, Malek-Ahmadi M, Kataria R, Belden CM, Connor DJ, Pearson C, et al. The Alzheimer’s Questionnaire: a proof of concept study for a new informant-based dementia assessment. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;22:1015–21.PubMedCentralPubMed
6.
go back to reference Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Laizure B, Jacobson SA, Yaari R, Singh U, et al. Validation and diagnostic accuracy of the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ). Age Ageing. 2012;41:396–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Laizure B, Jacobson SA, Yaari R, Singh U, et al. Validation and diagnostic accuracy of the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ). Age Ageing. 2012;41:396–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Belden CM, Jacobson SA, Sabbagh MN. Informant-reported cognitive symptoms that predict amnestic mild cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Belden CM, Jacobson SA, Sabbagh MN. Informant-reported cognitive symptoms that predict amnestic mild cognitive impairment. BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:3.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Belden C, Sabbagh MN. Comparative analysis of the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ) with the CDR Sum of Boxes, MoCA, and MMSE. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Dis. 2014;28:296–8.CrossRef Malek-Ahmadi M, Davis K, Belden C, Sabbagh MN. Comparative analysis of the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire (AQ) with the CDR Sum of Boxes, MoCA, and MMSE. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Dis. 2014;28:296–8.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ”Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.PubMedCrossRef Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. ”Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–98.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah CH, Chance JM, Filos S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol. 1982;37:323–9.PubMedCrossRef Pfeffer RI, Kurosaki TT, Harrah CH, Chance JM, Filos S. Measurement of functional activities in older adults in the community. J Gerontol. 1982;37:323–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Clark CM, Sheppard L, Fillenbaum GG, Galasko D, Morris JC, Koss E, et al. Variability in the annual Mini-Mental State Examination score in patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:857–62.PubMedCrossRef Clark CM, Sheppard L, Fillenbaum GG, Galasko D, Morris JC, Koss E, et al. Variability in the annual Mini-Mental State Examination score in patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:857–62.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Costa AS, Reich A, Fimm B, Ketteler ST, Schulz JB, Reetz K. Evidence of the sensitivity of the MoCA alternate forms in monitoring cognitive change in early Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2014;37:95–103.PubMedCrossRef Costa AS, Reich A, Fimm B, Ketteler ST, Schulz JB, Reetz K. Evidence of the sensitivity of the MoCA alternate forms in monitoring cognitive change in early Alzheimer’s disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2014;37:95–103.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Mackin RS, Insel P, Aisen PS, Geda YE, Weiner MW, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Longitudinal stability of subsyndromal symptoms of depression in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: relationship to conversion to dementia after three years. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012;27:355–63.PubMedCentralPubMed Mackin RS, Insel P, Aisen PS, Geda YE, Weiner MW, Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Longitudinal stability of subsyndromal symptoms of depression in individuals with mild cognitive impairment: relationship to conversion to dementia after three years. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2012;27:355–63.PubMedCentralPubMed
14.
go back to reference Landau SM, Harvey D, Madison CM, Koeppe RA, Reiman EM, Foster NL, et al. Associations between cognitive, functional, and FDG-PET measures of decline in AD and MCI. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32:1207–18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Landau SM, Harvey D, Madison CM, Koeppe RA, Reiman EM, Foster NL, et al. Associations between cognitive, functional, and FDG-PET measures of decline in AD and MCI. Neurobiol Aging. 2011;32:1207–18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rizk-Jackson A, Insel P, Petersen R, Aisen P, Jack C, Weiner M. Early indications of future cognitive decline: stable versus declining controls. PLoS One. 2013;8:e74062.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Rizk-Jackson A, Insel P, Petersen R, Aisen P, Jack C, Weiner M. Early indications of future cognitive decline: stable versus declining controls. PLoS One. 2013;8:e74062.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Reisberg B. Functional assessment staging (FAST). Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24:653–9.PubMed Reisberg B. Functional assessment staging (FAST). Psychopharmacol Bull. 1988;24:653–9.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, Crook T. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry. 1982;139:1136–9.PubMedCrossRef Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, Crook T. The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry. 1982;139:1136–9.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43:2412–4.PubMedCrossRef Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43:2412–4.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Beach TG, Sue LI, Walker DG, Roher AE, Lue L, Vedders L, et al. The Sun Health Research Institute Brain Donation Program: description and experience, 1987-2007. Cell Tissue Bank. 2008;9:229–45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Beach TG, Sue LI, Walker DG, Roher AE, Lue L, Vedders L, et al. The Sun Health Research Institute Brain Donation Program: description and experience, 1987-2007. Cell Tissue Bank. 2008;9:229–45.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939–44.PubMedCrossRef McKhann G, Drachman D, Folstein M, Katzman R, Price D, Stadlan EM. Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurology. 1984;34:939–44.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:303–8.PubMedCrossRef Petersen RC, Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik RJ, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999;56:303–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15.PubMedCentralPubMed Middel B, van Sonderen E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e15.PubMedCentralPubMed
23.
go back to reference Middel B, van Sonderen E. Responsiveness and validity of 3 outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2010;41:e463–4.PubMedCrossRef Middel B, van Sonderen E. Responsiveness and validity of 3 outcome measures of motor function after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 2010;41:e463–4.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
25.
go back to reference Ard MC, Edland SD. Power calculations for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimer Dis. 2011;26:369–77. Ard MC, Edland SD. Power calculations for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimer Dis. 2011;26:369–77.
26.
go back to reference Grill JD, Di L, Lu PH, Lee C, Ringman J, Apostolova LG, et al. Estimating sample sizes for pre-dementia Alzheimer’s trials based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Neurobiol Aging. 2013;34:62–72.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Grill JD, Di L, Lu PH, Lee C, Ringman J, Apostolova LG, et al. Estimating sample sizes for pre-dementia Alzheimer’s trials based on the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Neurobiol Aging. 2013;34:62–72.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.PubMedCrossRef Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–9.PubMedCrossRef Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Chelune GJ, Naugle RI, Luders H, Sedlak J, Awad IA. Individual change after epilepsy surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology. 1993;7:41–52.CrossRef Chelune GJ, Naugle RI, Luders H, Sedlak J, Awad IA. Individual change after epilepsy surgery: practice effects and base-rate information. Neuropsychology. 1993;7:41–52.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Duff K. Evidence-based indicators of neuropsychological change in the individual patient: relevant concepts and methods. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27:248–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Duff K. Evidence-based indicators of neuropsychological change in the individual patient: relevant concepts and methods. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;27:248–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
go back to reference Hendrix SB. Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: Enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2012;4:24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Hendrix SB. Measuring clinical progression in MCI and pre-MCI populations: Enrichment and optimizing clinical outcomes over time. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2012;4:24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
34.
35.
go back to reference Bartels C, Wegrzyn M, Wiedl A, Ackermann V, Ehrenreich H. Practice effects in healthy adults: a longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. BMC Neurosci. 2010;11:118.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Bartels C, Wegrzyn M, Wiedl A, Ackermann V, Ehrenreich H. Practice effects in healthy adults: a longitudinal study on frequent repetitive cognitive testing. BMC Neurosci. 2010;11:118.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
38.
go back to reference Becker RE, Greig NH, Giacobini E. Why do so many drugs for Alzheimer’s disease fail in development? Time for new methods and new practices? J Alzheimers Dis. 2008;15:303–25.PubMedCentralPubMed Becker RE, Greig NH, Giacobini E. Why do so many drugs for Alzheimer’s disease fail in development? Time for new methods and new practices? J Alzheimers Dis. 2008;15:303–25.PubMedCentralPubMed
39.
go back to reference Kobak KA. Inaccuracy in clinical trials: effects and methods to control inaccuracy. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7:637–41.PubMedCrossRef Kobak KA. Inaccuracy in clinical trials: effects and methods to control inaccuracy. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2010;7:637–41.PubMedCrossRef
41.
42.
go back to reference Tractenberg RE, Pietrzak RH. Intra-individual variability in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive aging: definitions, context, and effect sizes. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16973.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Tractenberg RE, Pietrzak RH. Intra-individual variability in Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive aging: definitions, context, and effect sizes. PLoS One. 2011;6:e16973.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Sensitivity to change and prediction of global change for the Alzheimer’s Questionnaire
Authors
Michael Malek-Ahmadi
Kewei Chen
Kathryn Davis
Christine M Belden
Jessica Powell
Sandra A Jacobson
Marwan N Sabbagh
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Alzheimer's Research & Therapy / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1758-9193
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-014-0092-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Alzheimer's Research & Therapy 1/2015 Go to the issue