Nicole Ridley1, Jennifer Batchelor2, Brian Draper3,4, Apo Demirkol1,5, Nicholas Lintzeris1,6, Adrienne Withall5. 1. a Drug and Alcohol Services , South Eastern Sydney Local Health District , Sydney , NSW , Australia. 2. b Department of Psychology , Macquarie University , North Ryde , NSW , Australia. 3. c School of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine , UNSW Australia , NSW , Sydney , Australia. 4. d Academic Department for Old Age Psychiatry , Prince of Wales Hospital , Randwick , NSW , Australia. 5. e School of Public Health & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine , UNSW Australia , Sydney , NSW , Australia. 6. f Discipline of Addiction Medicine, Central Clinical School , Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney , Sydney , NSW , Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the considerable prevalence of cognitive impairment in substance-using populations, there has been little investigation of the utility of cognitive screening measures within this context. In the present study the accuracy of three cognitive screening measures in this population was examined-the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). METHOD: A sample of 30 treatment-seeking substance users and 20 healthy individuals living in the community were administered the screening measures and a neuropsychological battery (NPB). Agreement of classification of cognitive impairment by the screening measures and NPB was examined. RESULTS: Results indicated that the ACE-R and MoCA had good discriminative ability in detection of cognitive impairment, with areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve of .85 (95% confidence interval, CI [.75. .94] and .84 (95% CI [.71, .93]) respectively. The MMSE had fair discriminative ability (.78, 95% CI [.65, .93]). The optimal cut-score for the ACE-R was 93 (impairment = score of 92 or less), at which it correctly classified 89% of individuals as cognitively impaired or intact, while the optimal cut-score for the MoCA was <26 or <27 depending on preference for either specificity or sensitivity. The optimal cut-score for the MMSE was <29; however, this had low sensitivity despite good specificity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the MoCA and ACE-R are both valid and time-efficient screening tools to detect cognitive impairment in the context of substance use.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the considerable prevalence of cognitive impairment in substance-using populations, there has been little investigation of the utility of cognitive screening measures within this context. In the present study the accuracy of three cognitive screening measures in this population was examined-the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised (ACE-R), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). METHOD: A sample of 30 treatment-seeking substance users and 20 healthy individuals living in the community were administered the screening measures and a neuropsychological battery (NPB). Agreement of classification of cognitive impairment by the screening measures and NPB was examined. RESULTS: Results indicated that the ACE-R and MoCA had good discriminative ability in detection of cognitive impairment, with areas under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve of .85 (95% confidence interval, CI [.75. .94] and .84 (95% CI [.71, .93]) respectively. The MMSE had fair discriminative ability (.78, 95% CI [.65, .93]). The optimal cut-score for the ACE-R was 93 (impairment = score of 92 or less), at which it correctly classified 89% of individuals as cognitively impaired or intact, while the optimal cut-score for the MoCA was <26 or <27 depending on preference for either specificity or sensitivity. The optimal cut-score for the MMSE was <29; however, this had low sensitivity despite good specificity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the MoCA and ACE-R are both valid and time-efficient screening tools to detect cognitive impairment in the context of substance use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination–Revised; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; cognition; cognitive screening; substance use
Authors: Jennapher Lingo VanGilder; Christopher S Walter; Caitlin R Hengge; Sydney Y Schaefer Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: Antonio Verdejo-Garcia; Valentina Lorenzetti; Victoria Manning; Hugh Piercy; Raimondo Bruno; Rob Hester; David Pennington; Serenella Tolomeo; Shalini Arunogiri; Marsha E Bates; Henrietta Bowden-Jones; Salvatore Campanella; Stacey B Daughters; Christos Kouimtsidis; Dan I Lubman; Dieter J Meyerhoff; Annaketurah Ralph; Tara Rezapour; Hosna Tavakoli; Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Anna Zilverstand; Douglas Steele; Scott J Moeller; Martin Paulus; Alex Baldacchino; Hamed Ekhtiari Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Michael M Copenhaver; Victoria Sanborn; Roman Shrestha; Colleen B Mistler; Matthew C Sullivan; John Gunstad Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-04-24 Impact factor: 4.852