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

IF 7.7 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":7.7000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信