Tehila Eilam-Stock1, Pamela Best1, Kathleen Sherman1, Michael T Shaw2, Joseph Ventura3, Lauren B Krupp1, Leigh E Charvet1. 1. Department of Neurology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States. 2. Department of Psychology, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is a common feature of multiple sclerosis (MS). A semi-structured interview, including informant input, can characterize the experience of individuals living with MS and cognitive involvement. Objective: We administered the Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI), a patient- and informant-based semi-structured interview, to characterize the experience of cognitive impairments in those living with MS. Methods: Trained raters administered the CAI to a sample of MS participants and their informants enrolled for a trial of cognitive remediation. Cognitive impairments on the CAI were characterized and compared to those captured by neuropsychological and self-report measures. Results: A total of n = 109 MS participants (mean age = 50.3 ± 12.2) and their available informants (n = 71) were interviewed. Participants reported experiencing processing speed (90/106, 85%), working memory (87/109, 80%), and learning and memory (79/109, 72%) problems most commonly. CAI-based ratings were moderately correlated with a self-report measure (Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire, r s = 0.52, p < 0.001) and only mildly correlated with objective neuropsychological measures specific to executive functions (r s = 0.21, p = 0.029). For those with informant interviews, ratings were overall consistent, suggesting that the CAI is valid even in cases in which an informant is unavailable and the interview is conducted with the patient alone (as is often the case in clinical and research settings). Conclusions: The CAI provides a semi-structured interview to characterize the experience of cognitive impairment in MS, with findings representing real-world functioning, adding valuable information to both self-report measures and neuropsychological assessment.
Background: Cognitive impairment is a common feature of multiple sclerosis (MS). A semi-structured interview, including informant input, can characterize the experience of individuals living with MS and cognitive involvement. Objective: We administered the Cognitive Assessment Interview (CAI), a patient- and informant-based semi-structured interview, to characterize the experience of cognitive impairments in those living with MS. Methods: Trained raters administered the CAI to a sample of MS participants and their informants enrolled for a trial of cognitive remediation. Cognitive impairments on the CAI were characterized and compared to those captured by neuropsychological and self-report measures. Results: A total of n = 109 MS participants (mean age = 50.3 ± 12.2) and their available informants (n = 71) were interviewed. Participants reported experiencing processing speed (90/106, 85%), working memory (87/109, 80%), and learning and memory (79/109, 72%) problems most commonly. CAI-based ratings were moderately correlated with a self-report measure (Multiple Sclerosis Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire, r s = 0.52, p < 0.001) and only mildly correlated with objective neuropsychological measures specific to executive functions (r s = 0.21, p = 0.029). For those with informant interviews, ratings were overall consistent, suggesting that the CAI is valid even in cases in which an informant is unavailable and the interview is conducted with the patient alone (as is often the case in clinical and research settings). Conclusions: The CAI provides a semi-structured interview to characterize the experience of cognitive impairment in MS, with findings representing real-world functioning, adding valuable information to both self-report measures and neuropsychological assessment.
Authors: Alan J Thompson; Brenda L Banwell; Frederik Barkhof; William M Carroll; Timothy Coetzee; Giancarlo Comi; Jorge Correale; Franz Fazekas; Massimo Filippi; Mark S Freedman; Kazuo Fujihara; Steven L Galetta; Hans Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Ruth Ann Marrie; Aaron E Miller; David H Miller; Xavier Montalban; Ellen M Mowry; Per Soelberg Sorensen; Mar Tintoré; Anthony L Traboulsee; Maria Trojano; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Sandra Vukusic; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian G Weinshenker; Stephen C Reingold; Jeffrey A Cohen Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Joseph Ventura; Steven P Reise; Richard S E Keefe; Lyle E Baade; James M Gold; Michael F Green; Robert S Kern; Raquelle Mesholam-Gately; Keith H Nuechterlein; Larry J Seidman; Robert M Bilder Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Joseph Ventura; Steven P Reise; Richard S E Keefe; Irene M Hurford; Rachel C Wood; Robert M Bilder Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Leigh E Charvet; Michael T Shaw; Kathleen Sherman; Shannon Haas; Lauren B Krupp Journal: Mult Scler Relat Disord Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Ilse M Nauta; Lisanne J Balk; Judith M Sonder; Hanneke E Hulst; Bernard Mj Uitdehaag; Luciano Fasotti; Brigit A de Jong Journal: Mult Scler Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 6.312