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.
This paper is one of the four interrelated action agenda papers resulting from the National Summit on Public Health Legal Preparedness (Summit) convened in June 2007 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and multi-disciplinary partners. Each of the action agenda papers deals with one of the four core elements of public health legal preparedness: laws and legal authorities; competency in using those laws; coordination of law-based public health actions; and information. Options presented in this paper are for consideration by policy makers and practitioners — in all jurisdictions and all relevant sectors and disciplines — with responsibilities for all-hazards emergency preparedness.
Advancing and protecting the public's health depends upon the coordination of actions by many, diverse partners. For effective public health preparedness, there must be effective coordination of legal tools and law-based strategies across local, state, tribal, and federal jurisdictions, and also across sectors such as public health, health care, emergency management, education, law enforcement, community design, and academia.
Descriptions of dementia can be traced to antiquity. Prichard (1837) described four dementia stages and Kral (1962) described a “benign senescent forgetfulness” condition. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-III (1980) identified an early dementia stage.
In 1982, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) and the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) were published, which identified dementia antecedents. The CDR 0.5 “questionable dementia” stage encompasses both mild dementia and earlier antecedents. GDS stage 3 described a predementia condition termed “mild cognitive decline” or, alternatively, beginning in 1988, “mild cognitive impairment” (MCI). This GDS stage 3 MCI condition is differentiated from both a preceding GDS stage 2, “subjective cognitive impairment” (SCI) stage and a subsequent GDS 4 stage of mild dementia.
GDS stage 3 MCI has been well characterized. For example, specific clinical concomitants, mental status and psychological assessment score ranges, behavioral and emotional changes, neuroimaging concomitants, neurological reflex changes, electrophysiological changes, motor and coordination changes, and changes in activities, accompanying GDS stage 3 MCI have been described.
Petersen and associates proposed a definition of MCI in 2001 which has been widely used (hereafter referred to as “Petersen's MCI”). Important differences between GDS stage 3 MCI and Petersen's MCI are that, because of denial, GDS stage 3 MCI does not require memory complaints. Also, GDS stage 3 MCI recognizes the occurrence of executive level functional deficits, which Petersen's MCI did not. Nevertheless, longitudinal and other studies indicate essential compatibility between GDS stage 3 MCI and Petersen's MCI duration and outcomes.
A general cognitive performance battery is needed as a primary outcome in vascular dementia clinical trials. Because there is considerable overlap between vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the pattern of cognitive impairment, a reasonable approach to developing an optimal vascular dementia battery is to begin with a widely used AD measure and improve its sensitivity to the cognitive domains that are more prominent in vascular dementia. Thus the VaDAS-cog has evolved, which comprises the ADAS-cog with additional frontal lobe subtests covering attention, working memory, executive function, and verbal fluency. Validation of this new cognitive instrument will be supported by its successful use in vascular dementia clinical trials.
To determine the association between cognitive dysfunction and motor behavior in older adults, 41 cognitively normal elderly (NL), 25 nondemented patients exhibiting mild cognitive impairment (MI) and at risk for future decline to dementia, and 25 patients with mild (early) Alzheimer's disease (AD) were examined using a wide array of motor/psychomotor and cognitive assessments. The three groups were recruited from an aging and dementia research center and were composed of well-characterized physically healthy volunteers, with similar ages and gender distributions. The outcome measures included 16 motor/psychomotor tests categorized a priori into gross, fine, and complex, as well as eight cognitive tests of memory and language. Relative to the NL group, MI individuals performed poorly on cognitive, fine, and complex motor measures but not on gross motor tests; AD patients performed worse on cognitive and all motor domains. Differences in complex motor function persisted after adjustment for performance on cognitive and on less complex motor tests. Classification analyses showed similar accuracies in discriminating NL from MI and NL from AD cases for both complex motor (79% and 92% accuracy, respectively) and cognitive tests (80% and 93% accuracy, respectively). Less complex motor tests produced poorer accuracies. Among nondemented subjects, education correlated with several cognitive scores but no motor scores. These results indicate that motor impairment is an important aspect of cognitive decline in older adults. Motor/psychomotor assessments were found to be comparably sensitive to traditional tests of cognitive function in identifying persons affected by the earliest stages of AD pathology and may improve identification of at-risk nondemented elderly, especially among diversely educated individuals.
Cerebrovascular small vessel disease is now believed to be the major source of vascular burden of the brain. Cerebrovascular small vessel disease and Alzheimer's disease appear to represent pathophysiologic and clinical continua, rather than dichotomous entities. It appears that common etiopathologic mechanisms underlie the clinical presentation of both of these conditions. Therefore, the staging procedures that have been developed for the clinical continuum of age-associated memory impairment, mild cognitive impairment, and the progressive dementia of Alzheimer's disease appear to be applicable for the same continua in cerebrovascular small vessel disease. Although temporal and prognostic aspects have been studied for the Alzheimer's-related portions of this clinical staging continuum, they remain to be elucidated for cerebrovascular small vessel disease.
Seventy-eight nondemented elderly depressed patients underwent an extensive battery of cognitive tess both before and after seven weeks of treatment with nortriptyline, phenelzine, or placebo. Clinical and cognitive evaluations of the patients were under double-blind conditions. Response to treatment did not appear to significantly affect cognitive capacity; neither did treatment with an active substance as compared to placebo. In addition, the baseline level of cognitive functioning did not appear related to whether a patient responded to treatment. The authors conclude that under optimal conditions neither antidepressant produces measurable changes in the cognitive capacity of nondemented elderly patients.
In examining the current status and future potential of behavioral treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD), it is important to begin by defining the scope and goals of such treatments. The category of behavioral treatments includes not only nonpharmacologic techniques to modify or enhance patient behavior, but also psychosocial interventions applied to family members and paid care providers. Caregiver interventions are important because they can reduce the negative impact of AD on those directly and indirectly affected by the disease. Based on current knowledge about the pathophysiology of AD, it is not considered likely that behavioral treatments can have a direct impact on the disease itself by affecting its clinical onset, rate of progression, or prognosis. Although it is conceivable that certain long-term behavioral interventions might delay onset of symptoms (e.g., mental “exercise” to enhance dendritic growth and increase “cognitive reserve,” or long-term stress reduction methods to minimize possible degenerative central nervous system effects of chronic stress), such approaches remain speculative, and their effectiveness would be difficult and expensive to demonstrate. Thus, the current goal of behavioral treatments is to reduce the negative effects of AD on the patient, on the patient's primary caregiver and immediate family, on the healthcare system, and on society as a whole. Such a goal is far from trivial because (a) successful treatment of primary pathophysiology is not on the immediate horizon, and (b) the impact of AD on the family and society represents a major cost of this tragic disease.
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.
Dr. Khachaturian highlighted the importance of noncognitive symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (AD) for the care providers versus our current lack of knowledge about these symptoms' origin, their relationship with cognitive loss, and our ability to control them. Our relatively greater understanding of the pathophysiology of cognitive loss is not yet matched with respect to non-cognitive symptoms, explaining the hit-and-miss treatment approaches currently in use. It is thus essential to study the underlying biological basis of noncognitive changes in AD. Nonpharmacological approaches to the management of noncognitive symptoms in later stages of AD such as teaching of coping strategies must be encouraged, because they may have a major impact on the
patient and the care providers. There is a relative paucity of instruments and clear outcome variables for noncognitive symptoms, including quality of life, which will have to be defined as related to the patient or to caregivers. Such symptoms should be studied in a holistic way in order to treat the underlying pathophysiological process rather than just suppressing unacceptable behaviors such as agitation. Although noncognitive symptoms in later stages of AD are important, from a national research strategy perspective, priority should be given to delaying onset of symptoms by some 10 years. Humane and ethical considerations must always predominate in research on treatment for later stages of AD.
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.