The BHA had excellent combined sensitivity and specificity to detect dementia and MCI, including MCI due to diverse etiologies. The subtests provide efficient, valid measures of neurocognition that are critical in making a differential diagnosis.

BackgroundAlzheimer disease (AD) is a progressive disorder that affects cognitive function. There is increasing support for the role of neuroinflammation and aberrant immune regulation in the pathophysiology of AD. The immunoregulatory human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex has been linked to susceptibility for a number of neurodegenerative diseases, including AD; however, studies to date have failed to consistently identify a risk HLA haplotype for AD. Contributing to this difficulty are the complex genetic organization of the HLA region, differences in sequencing and allelic imputation methods, and diversity across ethnic populations.Methods and findingsBuilding on prior work linking the HLA to AD, we used a robust imputation method on two separate case–control cohorts to examine the relationship between HLA haplotypes and AD risk in 309 individuals (191 AD, 118 cognitively normal [CN] controls) from the San Francisco-based University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Memory and Aging Center (collected between 1999–2015) and 11,381 individuals (5,728 AD, 5,653 CN controls) from the Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium (ADGC), a National Institute on Aging (NIA)-funded national data repository (reflecting samples collected between 1984–2012). We also examined cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker measures for patients seen between 2005–2007 and longitudinal cognitive data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (n = 346, mean follow-up 3.15 ± 2.04 y in AD individuals) to assess the clinical relevance of identified risk haplotypes. The strongest association with AD risk occurred with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) haplotype A*03:01~B*07:02~DRB1*15:01~DQA1*01:02~DQB1*06:02 (p = 9.6 x 10−4, odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval] = 1.21 [1.08–1.37]) in the combined UCSF + ADGC cohort. Secondary analysis suggested that this effect may be driven primarily by individuals who are negative for the established AD genetic risk factor, apolipoprotein E (APOE) ɛ4. Separate analyses of class I and II haplotypes further supported the role of class I haplotype A*03:01~B*07:02 (p = 0.03, OR = 1.11 [1.01–1.23]) and class II haplotype DRB1*15:01- DQA1*01:02- DQB1*06:02 (DR15) (p = 0.03, OR = 1.08 [1.01–1.15]) as risk factors for AD. We followed up these findings in the clinical dataset representing the spectrum of cognitively normal controls, individuals with mild cognitive impairment, and individuals with AD to assess their relevance to disease. Carrying A*03:01~B*07:02 was associated with higher CSF amyloid levels (p = 0.03, β ± standard error = 47.19 ± 21.78). We also found a dose-dependent association between the DR15 haplotype and greater rates of cognitive decline (greater impairment on the 11-item Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale cognitive subscale [ADAS11] over time [p = 0.03, β ± standard error = 0.7 ± 0.3]; worse forgetting score on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) over time [p = 0.02, β ± standard error = −0.2 ± 0.06]). In a subset of the same cohort, dose of DR15 was also asso...

BackgroundPrimary care providers (PCPs) are typically the first to screen and evaluate patients for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), including mild cognitive impairment and dementia. However, data on PCP attitudes and evaluation and management practices are sparse. Our objective was to quantify perspectives and behaviors of PCPs and neurologists with respect to NCD evaluation and management.MethodsA cross-sectional survey with 150 PCPs and 50 neurologists in the United States who evaluated more than 10 patients over age 55 per month. The 51-item survey assessed clinical practice characteristics, and confidence, perceived barriers, and typical practices when diagnosing and managing patients with NCDs.ResultsPCPs and neurologists reported similar confidence and approaches to general medical care and laboratory testing. Though over half of PCPs performed cognitive screening or referred patients for cognitive testing in over 50% of their patients, only 20% reported high confidence in interpreting results of cognitive tests. PCPs were more likely to order CT scans than MRIs, and only 14% of PCPs reported high confidence interpreting brain imaging findings, compared to 70% of specialists. Only 21% of PCPs were highly confident that they correctly recognized when a patient had an NCD, and only 13% were highly confident in making a specific NCD diagnosis (compared to 72 and 44% for neurologists, both p < 0.001). A quarter of all providers identified lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes as a barrier to clinical practice.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates how PCPs approach diagnosis and management of patients with NCDs, and identified areas for improvement in regards to cognitive testing and neuroimaging. This study also identified all providers’ lack of familiarity with published diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes. These findings may inform the development of new policies and interventions to help providers improve the efficacy of their decision processes and deliver better quality care to patients with NCDs.