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.

The use of liver biopsy evaluation in discrimination of idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis versus drug-induced liver injury.

Distinguishing drug-induced liver injury (DILI) from idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) can be challenging. We performed a standardized histologic evaluation to explore potential hallmarks to differentiate AIH versus DILI. Biopsies from patients with clinically well-characterized DILI [n = 35, including 19 hepatocellular injury (HC) and 16 cholestatic/mixed injury (CS)] and AIH (n = 28) were evaluated for Ishak scores, prominent inflammatory cell types in portal and intra-acinar areas, the presence or absence of emperipolesis, rosette formation, and cholestasis in a blinded fashion by four experienced hepatopathologists. Histologic diagnosis was concordant with clinical diagnosis in 65% of cases; but agreement on final diagnosis among the four pathologists was complete in only 46% of cases. Interface hepatitis, focal necrosis, and portal inflammation were present in all evaluated cases, but were more severe in AIH (P < 0.05) than DILI (HC). Portal and intra-acinar plasma cells, rosette formation, and emperiopolesis were features that favored AIH (P < 0.02). A model combining portal inflammation, portal plasma cells, intra-acinar lymphocytes and eosinophils, rosette formation, and canalicular cholestasis yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.90 in predicting DILI (HC) versus AIH. All Ishak inflammation scores were more severe in AIH than DILI (CS) (P ≤ 0.05). The four AIH-favoring features listed above were consistently more prevalent in AIH, whereas portal neutrophils and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis were more prevalent in DILI (CS) (P < 0.02). The combination of portal inflammation, fibrosis, portal neutrophils and plasma cells, and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis yielded an AUC of 0.91 in predicting DILI (CS) versus AIH. Conclusion: Although an overlap of histologic findings exists for AIH and DILI, sufficient differences exist so that pathologists can use the pattern of injury to suggest the correct diagnosis.