Premium
P3–037: Prediction of conversion to dementia in non–demented elderly in community: A prospective longitudinal study in Japan
Author(s) -
Kodama Chiine,
Yamashita Fumio,
Kinoshita Toru,
Ikejima Chiaki,
Tanimukai Satoshi,
Asada Takashi
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
alzheimer's and dementia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.713
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1552-5279
pISSN - 1552-5260
DOI - 10.1016/j.jalz.2006.05.1304
Subject(s) - dementia , logistic regression , neuropsychology , psychology , cognition , gerontology , test (biology) , neuropsychological test , activities of daily living , longitudinal study , clinical psychology , psychiatry , medicine , pathology , paleontology , disease , biology
succession ( 500 msec), PRP and concomitant reaction times (RT) increase, as resources are allocated to the prior stimulus. Objectives: To determine: a) sensitivity of attentional PRP relative to other neuropsychological domains, and b) whether changes in PRP capture early treatment efficacy. Methods: Fourteen patients with AD undergoing de novo openlabel donepezil treatment (mean age 78.9 yrs, 6.8 standard deviation; years education 13.21 3.45; MMSE 22.5 3.48; CDR 0.82 0.24) were evaluated at baseline (T1), after 8.1 2.4 weeks (T2), and 6 months (T3). Change score on ADAS-cognitive (T3-T1) determined group membership of responders (n 9, no change or improved score, mean change 1.98 0.65), and non-responders (n 5, mean change -5.25 5.0, t(12) 3.89, p .002). Groups were equated on age, education, disease severity. Measures: A simple detection task was presented at intertrial intervals (ITI) of 500, 800, 1100, 1500msec measured in median RT. Standard neuropsychological tests in domains of attention, language, memory, and visuo-spatial function were converted to z-scores. Results: Neither disease severity nor domain scores showed group differences at T1 or T2, p .1. The simple detection task showed no Group, Time, or Group Time effects (p .1). However, ITI was significant (F(3,36) 15.534, p .000), showing expected PRP effect at the shortest ITI. Interactions of Group ITI (Huynh & Feldt F(1.54,36) 3.5, p .062) and Group Time ITI (H&F F(3.0,36) 3.371, p .029) show that non-responders respond significantly more slowly at 500msec compared to all other ITIs, and further slow response speed after short-term treatment. In contrast, responders maintained their speed from T1 to T2. Conclusions: Attentional PRP was a more sensitive measure of treatment efficacy than standard measures. Despite the groups’ comparable overall speed, non-responders required longer ‘reset’ times than responders implicating poorer attentional resources. After short-term treatment non-responders’ RTs continued to slow, suggesting that they, unlike responders, were failing to respond to cholinergic availability.