Giulia Seghezzo1, Yvonne Van Hoecke2, Laura James1, Donna Davoren2, Elizabeth Williamson2, Neil Pearce2, Damien McElvenny2,3,4, Valentina Gallo5,6,7. 1. Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 3. Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK. 4. Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 5. Institute of Population Health Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. v.gallo@rug.nl. 6. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. v.gallo@rug.nl. 7. Campus Fryslân, University of Groningen, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. v.gallo@rug.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) is a composite score which can detect the first signs of cognitive impairment, which can be of importance for research and clinical practice. It is designed to be administered in person; however, in-person assessments are costly, and are difficult during the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of performing the PACC assessment with videoconferencing, and to compare the validity of this remote PACC with the in-person PACC obtained previously. METHODS: Participants from the HEalth and Ageing Data IN the Game of football (HEADING) Study who had already undergone an in-person assessment were re-contacted and re-assessed remotely. The correlation between the two PACC scores was estimated. The difference between the two PACC scores was calculated and used in multiple linear regression to assess which variables were associated with a difference in PACC scores. FINDINGS: Of the 43 participants who were invited to this external study, 28 were re-assessed. The median duration in days between the in-person and the remote assessments was 236.5 days (7.9 months) (IQR 62.5). There was a strong positive correlation between the two assessments for the PACC score, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0·82 (95% CI 0·66, 0·98). The multiple linear regression found that the only predictor of the PACC difference was the time between assessments. INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence on the feasibility of performing cognitive tests online, with the PACC tests being successfully administered through videoconferencing. This is relevant, especially during times when face-to-face assessments cannot be performed.
BACKGROUND: The Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) is a composite score which can detect the first signs of cognitive impairment, which can be of importance for research and clinical practice. It is designed to be administered in person; however, in-person assessments are costly, and are difficult during the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of performing the PACC assessment with videoconferencing, and to compare the validity of this remote PACC with the in-person PACC obtained previously. METHODS:Participants from the HEalth and Ageing Data IN the Game of football (HEADING) Study who had already undergone an in-person assessment were re-contacted and re-assessed remotely. The correlation between the two PACC scores was estimated. The difference between the two PACC scores was calculated and used in multiple linear regression to assess which variables were associated with a difference in PACC scores. FINDINGS: Of the 43 participants who were invited to this external study, 28 were re-assessed. The median duration in days between the in-person and the remote assessments was 236.5 days (7.9 months) (IQR 62.5). There was a strong positive correlation between the two assessments for the PACC score, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0·82 (95% CI 0·66, 0·98). The multiple linear regression found that the only predictor of the PACC difference was the time between assessments. INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence on the feasibility of performing cognitive tests online, with the PACC tests being successfully administered through videoconferencing. This is relevant, especially during times when face-to-face assessments cannot be performed.
Authors: Robert J Spencer; Carrington R Wendell; Paul P Giggey; Leslie I Katzel; David M Lefkowitz; Eliot L Siegel; Shari R Waldstein Journal: Exp Aging Res Date: 2013 Impact factor: 1.645
Authors: Michael C Donohue; Reisa A Sperling; David P Salmon; Dorene M Rentz; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Michael Weiner; Paul S Aisen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Suzan van Amerongen; Dewi K Caton; Rik Ossenkoppele; Frederik Barkhof; Petra J W Pouwels; Charlotte E Teunissen; Annemieke J M Rozemuller; Jeroen J M Hoozemans; Yolande A L Pijnenburg; Philip Scheltens; Everard G B Vijverberg Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 8.823