To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (BEHAVE-AD) was specifically designed to assess behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) that would be remediable to both psychologic and pharmacologic intervention. Furthermore, the BEHAVE-AD was designed to assess categories of symptoms that would respond in a cohesive (syndrome) manner in dementia patients, independently of effects of interventions on cognition and functioning. Current data indicate that the BEHAVE-AD does indeed assess a cohesive, cognition- and function independent syndrome in AD and in related dementias that is responsive to psychologic and appropriate pharmacologic intervention. Evidence is also increasing for differential responsiveness of this BPSD syndrome to select pharmacologic agents compared with nonspecific psychologic (placebo) intervention. This article reviews the evidence for this BPSD syndrome in dementia patients, as assessed with the BEHAVE-AD.
Research on the nature of clinical symptomatology in AD indicates that two fundamentally different types of symptoms are identifiable. Symptoms within each of these two domains have common characteristics. The first symptomatic domain has been termed the “cognitive domain” and the second the “noncognitive behavioral domain.” Symptoms and losses in the cognitive domain occur invariably and progressively with the advance of AD over time. Symptoms in the behavioral domain do not invariably occur in AD and do not progress monotonically with the advance in AD over time. However, characteristic behavioral domain symptoms can be described over the course of AD.
The two symptomatic domains are likely to differ not only in nature and progression in AD, but also in underlying pathophysiology and in terms of possible treatment modalities. They also pose fundamentally different issues of assessment in AD. These distinct factors necessitate the separate assessment of the two Symptomatic domains in AD treatment trials. Judgments of efficacy and utility in remediating either symptomatic domain in AD should take into consideration the effects of treatment on both cognitive domain and behavioral domain symptoms separately and interactively. Appropriate assessment procedures are discussed.
To address the issue of mild, moderate, and severe Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is necessary to initially establish some agreement on terminology. In recent decades, these terms have frequently been defined using screening instrument scores with measures such as the Mini-Menal State Examination (MMSE). There are many problems with this approach, perhaps the most salient of which is that it has contributed to the total and tragic neglect of patients with severe AD. An alternative approach to the classification of AD severity is staging. This approach has advanced to the point where moderately severe and severe AD can be described in detail. Procedures for describing this previously neglected latter portion of AD have recently been extensively validated. Staging is also uniquely useful at the other end of the severity spectrum, in differentiating early aging brain/behavior changes, incipient AD, and mild AD. Temporally, with staging procedures, it is possible to track the course of AD approximately three times more accurately than with the MMSE. The net result of the advances in AD delineation is that issues such as prophylaxis, modification of course, treatment of behavioral distrubances, loss of ambulation, progressive rigidity, and the development of contractures in AD patients can now be addressed in a scientifically meaningful way that will hopefully bestow much benefit in AD patients and those who care for them.
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is asociated with an increased mortality in comparison with aged control populations. The relationship between the clinical and the temporal course of AD has not been well studied over significant intervals. Community residing patients with probable AD (N = 103, 42 men, mean age = 70.2 ± 8.0 years) were studied at baseline on demographic and clinical variables, including measures of global deterioration (Global Deterioration Scale; GDS), mental status and cognition (e.g., Mini-Mental State Examination; MMSE), and functional impairment (Functional Assessment Staging; FAST). Baseline characteristics included a GDS range of Stage 4, 5, or 6 (38.8%, 39.8%, and 21.4% respectively) and a mean MMSE score of 15.4 ± 5.6. The mean follow-up interval was 4.6 ± 1.4 year. Follow-ups were done blind to baseline measures and when necessary were conducted in residential and nursing home settings. Of locatable subjects (n = 95, 92%), 30 (31.6%) were deceased. Survivors (n = 65) had a mean GDS stage of 6.2 ± 0.9 and a mean MMSE score of 5.1 ± 6.9; 51% had MMSE scores of 0. Increased age and male gender, but not baseline clinical dementia variables, increased the risk of death (ps < .01). Change in clinical variables correlated significantly with time elapsed (r = .32, p < .05, for MMSE change, to r = .48, p < .001, for GDS change). Significant variance in temporal change (i.e., time elapsed) was accounted for by change in two of the five clinical measures studied (i.e., GDS and FAST; multiple r = .53). The results support previous estimates of mean duration of the GDS and FAST stages. For subjects with probable AD followed over approximately 5 years, clinical variables changed significantly over time in survivors. However, the majority of temporal variance in the course of AD remains unexplained.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.