RESUMO
Introduction: Current estimates indicate that up to 50-75% of dementia cases are undiagnosed at an early stage when treatments are most effective. Conducting robust accurate cognitive assessments can be time-consuming for providers and difficult to incorporate into a time-limited Primary Care Provider (PCP) visit. We wanted to compare PCP visits with and without using the self-administered SAGE to determine differences in identification rates of new cognitive disorders. Methods: Three hundred patients aged 65-89 without diagnosed cognitive disorders completing a non-acute office visit were enrolled (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04063371). Two PCP offices conducted routine visits for 100 consecutive eligible patients each. One office used the SAGE in an additional 100 subjects and asked available informants about cognitive changes over the previous year. Chart reviews were conducted 60 days later. One-way analysis of variance and Fisher exact tests were used to compare the groups and outcomes. Results: When SAGE was utilized, the PCP documented the detection of new cognitive conditions/concerns six times (9% versus 1.5%) as often (p = 0.003). The detection rate was nearly 4-fold for those with cognitively impaired SAGE scores (p = 0.034). Patients having impaired SAGE score and informant concerns were 15-fold as likely to have new cognitive conditions/concerns documented (p = 0.0007). Among providers using SAGE, 86% would recommend SAGE to colleagues. Discussion: SAGE was easily incorporated into PCP visits and significantly increased identification of new cognitive conditions/concerns leading to new diagnoses, treatment, or management changes. The detection rate increased 15-fold for those with impaired SAGE scores combined with informant reports.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The original paper Self-Administered Gerocognitive Examination (SAGE) is a valid and reliable cognitive assessment tool used to identify individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia. We evaluated identical test questions in a digital format (eSAGE) made for tablet use with the goals of calibrating it against SAGE and establishing its association with other neuropsychological tests and clinical assessments of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Subjects aged 50 and over who had taken SAGE were recruited from community and clinic settings. Subjects were randomly selected to participate in a clinical evaluation including neuropsychological evaluations. SAGE and eSAGE were administered using a crossover design. Subjects were identified as dementia, MCI, or normal based on standard clinical criteria. Associations were investigated using Spearman correlations, linear regression, and sensitivity and specificity measures. RESULTS: Of the 426 subjects screened, 66 completed the evaluation. eSAGE score correlation to a battery of neuropsychological tests was 0.73 (p < 0.0001) with no significant difference between the paper and digital format. Spearman correlation of SAGE versus eSAGE was 0.88 (p < 0.0001), and they are related by the formula: eSAGE score = -1.05 + 0.99 × SAGE score. Since the slope is very close to 1 (p = 0.86) there is strong evidence that the scaling is identical between eSAGE and SAGE, with no scale bias. Overall, eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 1.21 and the decrease is statistically significant (p < 0.0001). For those subjects familiar with smartphones or tablets (one measure of digital proficiency), eSAGE scores are lower by an average of 0.83 points (p = 0.029). With a score 16 and higher being classified as normal, eSAGE had 90% specificity and 71% sensitivity in detecting those with cognitive impairment from normal subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Tablet-based eSAGE shows a strong association with the validated paper SAGE and a neuropsychological battery. It shows no scale bias compared to SAGE. Both have the advantage of self-administration, brevity, four interchangeable forms, and high sensitivity and specificity in detecting cognitive impairment from normal subjects. Their potential widespread availability will be a major factor in overcoming the many obstacles in identifying early cognitive changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02544074 . Registered on 18 March 2015.
