Quantitative electroencephalography reveals different physiological profiles between benign and remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis patients

BACKGROUND A possible method of finding physiological markers of multiple sclerosis (MS) is the application of EEG quantification (QEEG) of brain activity when the subject is stressed by the demands of a cognitive task. In particular, modulations of the spectral content that take place in the EEG of patients with multiple sclerosis remitting-relapsing (RRMS) and benign multiple sclerosis (BMS) during a visuo-spatial task need to be observed. METHODS The sample consisted of 19 patients with RRMS, 10 with BMS, and 21 control subjects. All patients were free of medication and had not relapsed within the last month. The power spectral density (PSD) of different EEG bands was calculated by Fast-Fourier-Transformation (FFT), those analysed being delta, theta, alpha, beta and gamma. Z-transformation was performed to observe individual profiles in each experimental group for spectral modulations. Lastly, correlation analyses was performed between QEEG values and other variables from participants in the study (age, EDSS, years of evolution and cognitive performance). RESULTS Nearly half (42%) the RRMS patients showed a statistically significant increase of two or more standard deviations (SD) compared to the control mean value for the beta-2 and gamma bands (F = 2.074, p = 0.004). These alterations were localized to the anterior regions of the right hemisphere, and bilaterally to the posterior areas of the scalp. None of the BMS patients or control subjects had values outside the range of +/- 2 SD. There were no significant correlations between these values and the other variables analysed (age, EDSS, years of evolution or behavioural performance). CONCLUSION During the attentional processing, changes in the high EEG spectrum (beta-2 and gamma) in MS patients exhibit physiological alterations that are not normally detected by spontaneous EEG analysis. The different spectral pattern between pathological and controls groups could represent specific changes for the RRMS patients, indicative of compensatory mechanisms or cortical excitatory states representative of some phases during the RRMS course that are not present in the BMS group.

Effectiveness and costs of phototest in dementia and cognitive impairment screening

BACKGROUND To assess and compare the effectiveness and costs of Phototest, Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Memory Impairment Screen (MIS) to screen for dementia (DEM) and cognitive impairment (CI). METHODS A phase III study was conducted over one year in consecutive patients with suspicion of CI or DEM at four Primary Care (PC) centers. After undergoing all screening tests at the PC center, participants were extensively evaluated by researchers blinded to screening test results in a Cognitive-Behavioral Neurology Unit (CBNU). The gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists. Effectiveness was assessed by the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and by the kappa index of concordance between test results and gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices and hospital accounts. RESULTS The study included 140 subjects (48 with DEM, 37 with CI without DEM, and 55 without CI). The MIS could not be applied to 23 illiterate subjects (16.4%). For DEM, the maximum effectiveness of the MMSE was obtained with different cutoff points as a function of educational level [k = 0.31 (95% Confidence interval [95%CI], 0.19-0.43), DA = 0.60 (95%CI, 0.52-0.68)], and that of the MIS with a cutoff of 3/4 [k = 0.63 (95%CI, 0.48-0.78), DA = 0.83 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)]. Effectiveness of the Phototest [k = 0.71 (95%CI, 0.59-0.83), DA = 0.87 (95%CI, 0.80-0.92)] was similar to that of the MIS and higher than that of the MMSE. Costs were higher with MMSE (275.9 ± 193.3€ [mean ± sd euros]) than with Phototest (208.2 ± 196.8€) or MIS (201.3 ± 193.4€), whose costs did not significantly differ. For CI, the effectiveness did not significantly differ between MIS [k = 0.59 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.97)] and Phototest [k = 0.58 (95%CI, 0.45-0.74), DA = 0.78 (95%CI, 0.64-0.95)] and was lowest for the MMSE [k = 0.27 (95%CI, 0.09-0.45), DA = 0.69 (95%CI, 0.56-0.84)]. Costs were higher for MMSE (393.4 ± 121.8€) than for Phototest (287.0 ± 197.4€) or MIS (300.1 ± 165.6€), whose costs did not significantly differ. CONCLUSION MMSE is not an effective instrument in our setting. For both DEM and CI, the Phototest and MIS are more effective and less costly, with no difference between them. However, MIS could not be applied to the appreciable percentage of our population who were illiterate.

Diagnostic accuracy, effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment and dementia screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates

BACKGROUND Illiteracy, a universal problem, limits the utilization of the most widely used short cognitive tests. Our objective was to assess and compare the effectiveness and cost for cognitive impairment (CI) and dementia (DEM) screening of three short cognitive tests applicable to illiterates. METHODS Phase III diagnostic test evaluation study was performed during one year in four Primary Care centers, prospectively including individuals with suspicion of CI or DEM. All underwent the Eurotest, Memory Alteration Test (M@T), and Phototest, applied in a balanced manner. Clinical, functional, and cognitive studies were independently performed in a blinded fashion in a Cognitive Behavioral Neurology Unit, and the gold standard diagnosis was established by consensus of expert neurologists on the basis of these results. Effectiveness of tests was assessed as the proportion of correct diagnoses (diagnostic accuracy [DA]) and the kappa index of concordance (k) with respect to gold standard diagnoses. Costs were based on public prices at the time and hospital accounts. RESULTS The study included 139 individuals: 47 with DEM, 36 with CI, and 56 without CI. No significant differences in effectiveness were found among the tests. For DEM screening: Eurotest (k = 0.71 [0.59-0.83], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), M@T (k = 0.72 [0.60-0.84], DA = 0.87 [0.80-0.92]), Phototest (k = 0.70 [0.57-0.82], DA = 0.86 [0.79-0.91]). For CI screening: Eurotest (k = 0.67 [0.55-0.79]; DA = 0.83 [0.76-0.89]), M@T (k = 0.52 [0.37-0.67]; DA = 0.80 [0.72-0.86]), Phototest (k = 0.59 [0.46-0.72]; DA = 0.79 [0.71-0.86]). There were no differences in the cost of DEM screening, but the cost of CI screening was significantly higher with M@T (330.7 ± 177.1 €, mean ± sd) than with Eurotest (294.1 ± 195.0 €) or Phototest (296.0 ± 196. 5 €). Application time was shorter with Phototest (2.8 ± 0.8 min) than with Eurotest (7.1 ± 1.8 min) or M@T (6.8 ± 2.2 min). CONCLUSIONS Eurotest, M@T, and Phototest are equally effective. Eurotest and Phototest are both less expensive options but Phototest is the most efficient, requiring the shortest application time.

Differential cognitive impairment for diverse forms of multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND Cognitive impairment is a common feature in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients and occurs in 60% of all cases. Unfortunately, neurological examination does not always agree with the neuropsychological evaluation in determining the cognitive profile of the patient. On the other hand, psychophysiological techniques such as event-related potentials (ERPs) can help in evaluating cognitive impairment in different pathologies. Behavioural responses and EEG signals were recorded during the experiment in three experimental groups: 1) a relapsing-remitting group (RRMS), 2) a benign multiple sclerosis group (BMS) and 3) a Control group. The paradigm employed was a spatial attention task with central cues (Posner experiment). The main aim was to observe the differences in the performance (behavioural variables) and in the latency and amplitude of the ERP components among these groups. RESULTS Our data indicate that both MS groups showed poorer task performance (longer reaction times and lower percentage of correct responses), a latency delay for the N1 and P300 component, and a different amplitude for the frontal N1. Moreover, the deficit in the BMS group, indexed by behavioural and pyschophysiological variables, was more pronounced compared to the RRMS group. CONCLUSION The present results suggest a cognitive impairment in the information processing in all of these patients. Comparing both pathological groups, cognitive impairment was more accentuated in the BMS group compared to the RMSS group. This suggests a silent deterioration of cognitive skills for the BMS that is not usually treated with pharmacological or neuropsychological therapy.