Montreal Cognitive Assessment vs the Mini-Mental State Examination as a Screening Tool for Patients With Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia.

IF 8.5 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurology Pub Date : 2025-03-11 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000213401
Liset de Boer, Jackie M Poos, Esther Van Den Berg, Julie F H De Houwer, Tine Swartenbroekx, Elise G P Dopper, Pam Boesjes, Najlae Tahboun, Arabella Bouzigues, Phoebe H Foster, Eve Ferry-Bolder, Kerala Adams-Carr, Lucy L Russell, Rhian S Convery, Jonathan D Rohrer, Harro Seelaar, Lize C Jiskoot
{"title":"Montreal Cognitive Assessment vs the Mini-Mental State Examination as a Screening Tool for Patients With Genetic Frontotemporal Dementia.","authors":"Liset de Boer, Jackie M Poos, Esther Van Den Berg, Julie F H De Houwer, Tine Swartenbroekx, Elise G P Dopper, Pam Boesjes, Najlae Tahboun, Arabella Bouzigues, Phoebe H Foster, Eve Ferry-Bolder, Kerala Adams-Carr, Lucy L Russell, Rhian S Convery, Jonathan D Rohrer, Harro Seelaar, Lize C Jiskoot","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000213401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>With upcoming clinical trials targeting preclinical stages of genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD), early detection through cognitive screening is crucial. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) have potential as screening instruments for early-stage genetic FTD. However, no comparative evaluation has been performed. We aimed to compare MMSE and MoCA performance among presymptomatic, prodromal, and symptomatic pathogenic variant carriers to analyze which screening test has superior discriminative abilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used cross-sectional and longitudinal data from 2 longitudinal genetic FTD cohort studies in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, collected between 2021 and 2024. Participants were either presymptomatic, prodromal, or symptomatic pathogenic variant carriers or healthy controls (first-degree family members without pathogenic variants for FTD). Grouping was based on the global CDR-plus-NACC-FTLD score. Participants were assessed with both MoCA and MMSE. Statistical analyses compared total and subscores between groups and evaluated predictive and classification accuracy of both tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 243 participants (mean age 49.9 ± 13.1 years, mean education 14.5 ± 3.0 years, 56% female), 157 of whom were pathogenic variant carriers (<i>MAPT</i>, <i>GRN</i>, <i>C9orf72</i>, <i>TARDBP</i>, and <i>TBK1</i>) and 86 controls, were included. Carriers were classified as presymptomatic (n = 119), prodromal (n = 18), or symptomatic (n = 20). Both MoCA [<i>F</i>(3,239) = 16.565, <i>p</i> < 0.001] and MMSE [<i>F</i>(3,239) = 13.529, <i>p</i> < 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. MoCA distinguished between presymptomatic carriers and controls (median MoCA 28, 95% CI 27.0-29.0), but MMSE did not. MoCA demonstrated superior discriminative ability compared with MMSE (MoCA area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94; MMSE AUC = 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Its higher sensitivity and better discriminative power make MoCA a more valuable tool for cognitive screening in upcoming clinical trials targeting preclinical FTD. Future studies should aim for larger sample sizes from additional study centers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":"104 5","pages":"e213401"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000213401","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: With upcoming clinical trials targeting preclinical stages of genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD), early detection through cognitive screening is crucial. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) have potential as screening instruments for early-stage genetic FTD. However, no comparative evaluation has been performed. We aimed to compare MMSE and MoCA performance among presymptomatic, prodromal, and symptomatic pathogenic variant carriers to analyze which screening test has superior discriminative abilities.

Methods: We used cross-sectional and longitudinal data from 2 longitudinal genetic FTD cohort studies in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, collected between 2021 and 2024. Participants were either presymptomatic, prodromal, or symptomatic pathogenic variant carriers or healthy controls (first-degree family members without pathogenic variants for FTD). Grouping was based on the global CDR-plus-NACC-FTLD score. Participants were assessed with both MoCA and MMSE. Statistical analyses compared total and subscores between groups and evaluated predictive and classification accuracy of both tests.

Results: A total of 243 participants (mean age 49.9 ± 13.1 years, mean education 14.5 ± 3.0 years, 56% female), 157 of whom were pathogenic variant carriers (MAPT, GRN, C9orf72, TARDBP, and TBK1) and 86 controls, were included. Carriers were classified as presymptomatic (n = 119), prodromal (n = 18), or symptomatic (n = 20). Both MoCA [F(3,239) = 16.565, p < 0.001] and MMSE [F(3,239) = 13.529, p < 0.001] total scores differed significantly between groups, with controls (median MoCA 28.5, 95% CI 28.0-29.0; median MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0) outperforming prodromal (median MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0; median MMSE 29, 95% CI 27.5-29.5) and symptomatic (median MoCA 20.5, 95% CI 17.0-24.0; median MMSE 26, 95% CI 23.5-29.0) carriers. MoCA distinguished between presymptomatic carriers and controls (median MoCA 28, 95% CI 27.0-29.0), but MMSE did not. MoCA demonstrated superior discriminative ability compared with MMSE (MoCA area under the curve [AUC] = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94; MMSE AUC = 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89).

Discussion: Its higher sensitivity and better discriminative power make MoCA a more valuable tool for cognitive screening in upcoming clinical trials targeting preclinical FTD. Future studies should aim for larger sample sizes from additional study centers.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
蒙特利尔认知评估与迷你精神状态检查作为遗传性额颞叶痴呆患者的筛查工具。
背景和目的:随着即将开展的针对遗传性额颞叶痴呆(FTD)临床前阶段的临床试验,通过认知筛查进行早期检测至关重要。迷你精神状态检查(MMSE)和蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)有潜力作为早期遗传性FTD的筛查工具。然而,没有进行比较评价。我们的目的是比较MMSE和MoCA在症状前、前驱和症状性致病变异携带者中的表现,以分析哪种筛查试验具有更好的鉴别能力。方法:我们使用了来自荷兰和英国的两项纵向遗传FTD队列研究的横断面和纵向数据,收集时间为2021年至2024年。参与者要么是症状前、前驱或症状性致病变异携带者,要么是健康对照(没有FTD致病变异的一级家庭成员)。分组基于全局cdr + nacc - ftld评分。用MoCA和MMSE对参与者进行评估。统计分析比较了两组之间的总分和分值,并评估了两种测试的预测和分类准确性。结果:共纳入243例受试者(平均年龄49.9±13.1岁,平均受教育程度14.5±3.0年,56%为女性),其中病原变异携带者(MAPT、GRN、C9orf72、TARDBP和TBK1) 157例,对照组86例。携带者分为症状前(n = 119)、前驱(n = 18)和症状前(n = 20)。MoCA [F(3239) = 16.565, p < 0.001]和MMSE [F(3239) = 13.529, p < 0.001]总分在两组间差异显著,对照组(MoCA中位数28.5,95% CI 28.0 ~ 29.0;中位MMSE 30, 95% CI 30.0-30.0)优于前驱(中位MoCA 26, 95% CI 23.0-27.0;MMSE中位数为29,95% CI为27.5-29.5)和症状(MoCA中位数为20.5,95% CI为17.0-24.0;中位MMSE为26,95% CI为23.5-29.0)。MoCA能区分症状前携带者和对照组(MoCA中位数为28,95% CI为27.0-29.0),但MMSE不能。与MMSE相比,MoCA表现出更强的判别能力(MoCA曲线下面积[AUC] = 0.87, 95% CI 0.81-0.94;Mmse auc = 0.80, 95% ci 0.72-0.89)。讨论:MoCA具有更高的灵敏度和更好的鉴别能力,在即将进行的针对临床前FTD的临床试验中,它将成为更有价值的认知筛查工具。未来的研究应着眼于从其他研究中心获得更大的样本量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
期刊最新文献
Aneurysm Location Determined Mortality Rates After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage-Even in the Prehospital Setting. Case Fatality of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage by Aneurysm Location: A Population-Based Study From Finland and New Zealand. Central Retinal Artery Occlusion: Early Diagnosis With Advanced Ultrasound Transorbital Doppler Imaging. Treating Hearing Loss With Hearing Aids for the Prevention of Cognitive Decline and Dementia. Bridging or Direct Thrombectomy in Posterior Circulation Large-Vessel Occlusion Stroke: Analysis of Binational Registries and Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1