Alzheimer's Disease (AD) is a progressive degenerative disease of unknown aetiology, as first described by Alois Alzheimer (19

Authors Avatar

A critical review of studies on neuropsychiatric symptoms in Alzheimer’s disease.

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is a progressive degenerative disease of unknown aetiology, as first described by Alois Alzheimer (1907).  According to Shoenberg et.  al (1987), it is the commonest cause of dementia in the elderly with an incidence ranging from 2.5 to 5 per thousand.  Furthermore, this incidence has grown in recent years as a result people generally living longer.  The disease is incurable at present but there are drug treatments that delay the symptoms in the early stages.  Therefore, there is a real need for early identification of the disease, so that a treatment program can be administered.  

In the later stages of AD, there are typical neurological signs of the disease.  These are plaques and tangles in the hippocampal region of the brain.  However, it may be a while into the disease before these can be detected by diagnostic tools such as CT, MRI and fMRI.  In addition, reliance on these tools can lead to a false diagnosis of AD, where some form of vascular dementia is actually the cause.  In fact, according to Brazzelli et al. (1994), there is no unequivocal instrumental test to establish the presence of the disease.  Therefore, it is also common practice to establish the neuropsychological symptoms of AD.  Numerous studies have been conducted into the neuropsychiatric symptoms of AD so that diagnosis can be as accurate as possible.

According to Venneri, Turnbull and Sala (1996) the low contribution of neurological and neuroradiological examination to the diagnosis of AD in its early stages raises severe diagnostic problems.  This is because up to 30 per cent of dementias may be curable (e.g. depressive psuedodementia, normotensive hydrocephalus) and the possible diagnosis of AD needs to be excluded for these to be treated.  According to the ICD-10 other causes of dementia (such as CVD, Parkinsons, Corea, and Hydrocephalus) must be excluded before making a diagnosis of AD.  The ICD-10 diagnostic criterion for AD is verbal and non-verbal memory decline, decline of all other cognitive abilities, objective evaluation, environmental awareness, emotional weakness, irritability, apathy and disorders of behaviour.  A history of these symptoms proceeding at least 6 months must also be present.  However, this is not the case with the DSM-IV.  The DSM-IV criteria starts the same as the ICD-10 with memory impairment, then states one or more cognitive deficits (aphasia, apraxia, agnosia) must be present.  On top of this, there must also be deficits in executive functions, deficits interfering with working and social activities, gradual changes compared with previous evaluations and slow progressive decline.  As with the ICD-10, the DSM-IV also states that other causes of dementia must be excluded.  These are the same as seen in the ICD-10 but also include additional causes such as subdural haematoma, tumour, neurosyphilis and AIDS.  The differences between these two diagnostic tools show the first problem in diagnosing AD.  This may be the reason that they are not the most common tool used for diagnostic criteria.  Instead, the NINCDS-ARDA criteria are used.  This distinguishes between probable and possible cases of AD and includes the use of common mental state instruments (MMSE, Blessed Dementia Scale and similar).  This tool also states that other signs compatible with a diagnosis of probable AD, once all other causes of dementia have been excluded.  These associated symptoms include depression, insomnia, incontinence, delusions illusions, emotional crisis, verbal and physical abuse, sexual dysfunction, disinhibition, sleep disorders, and weight loss.  However, although the NINCDS-ARDA provides a safer diagnosis of AD (possible and probable) than with the DSM-IV or ICD-10, a recent review shows that there are even problems with this tool.

An evaluation of the research and diagnosis of possible AD over the last two decades was carried out by Lopez et al. (2000).  The study looked mainly at problems with the NINCDS-ARDA criteria.  According to the study, ‘the lack of a clearly delineated border between probable and possible AD has been the source of diagnostic disagreement in most of the published reliability and accuracy studies’ (p1863).  One of the examples given was whether AD patients with Mild Cerebrovascular Disease (CVD) should be classified as probable or possible AD.  Additionally, issues of differentiation with comorbidities and overlap with possible AD and Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) were noted.  

Join now!

In the study, the AD research centre of Pittsburgh examined 1139 patients with probable AD between April 1983 and February 2000.  They found several sub groups of AD with the sensitivity at 97% and the specificity at 80%.  However, it was also found that from 1983 to 1989, the sensitivity was still high at 94% but the specificity was only 52%.  The specificity increased from 1990 to 2000, to 88%.  This was thought to be due to better diagnostic tools that detected other forms of dementia (e.g. vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia, progressive supranuclear palsy and dementia with lewy bodies), separating ...

This is a preview of the whole essay