Cognitive functioning is a major health concern that affects an individual’s ability to live independently [, ] and is a key determinant of quality of life []. Among older adults, cognitive function varies widely with aging. Generally, some cognitive functions are relatively stable with aging, including vocabulary and knowledge of world events [], whereas other cognitive functions, particularly those that rely on mental processing speed and attention, working memory, executive function, and verbal recall, decline with age [–]. These decrements in cognitive functioning with aging have been related to changes in underlying neuroanatomic structures, such as decreases in white matter integrity and decreased volumes of the caudate, cerebellum, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and medial temporal lobes [–].
Conversely, improved cognitive functioning with aging has been correlated with intact neuroanatomic structures, most notably in the hippocampus and the frontal lobes []. However, intact neuroanatomic structures may be only one component of improved cognitive aging. Studies linking the size of neuroanatomic structures to functioning have had mixed results []. The model of the relationship of neuroanatomic structures to cognitive functioning should account for neural connectivity and functional measures such as the response to mental challenges, which can be assessed by modern neuroimaging techniques, including positron emission tomography [PET] and functional magnetic resonance imaging.
The integrity of white matter tracts decreases with age, affecting the connectivity between neural networks and changes in the pattern of response to mental challenges [, , ]. Older adults with improved cognitive performance had greater activation of their frontal lobes and parietal and temporal cortices []. Increased prefrontal activation in response to mental tasks has been shown to occur in healthy older adults, as well as in individuals with mild cognitive impairment and early dementia [, –]. The increased responsivity in the prefrontal cortex and improved performance on a range of cognitive tasks has also been related to underactivity in posterior regions [, ]. The greater brain responsivity may therefore be associated with higher cognitive functioning in one anatomic area, that compensates for potential underperformance of another area. Overall, this pattern of responsivity demonstrates the plasticity of the brain in response to the aging process, and the potential for interventions such as cognitive retraining to improve cognition with aging [].
The concept of brain plasticity and the development of cognitive reserve [] are important in understanding the aging process. Cognitive reserve implies that there is a compensatory mechanism in the form of functional neurons within the same anatomic structure, or the larger neural network, being recruited to compensate for neuronal structures that are not functioning optimally []. Cognitive training has been demonstrated to improve executive functioning and working memory by strengthening prefrontal networks []. Aerobic exercise can also improve cognitive reserve by maintaining the integrity of underlying neuroanatomic structures [–]. Future research, including randomized clinical trials, is needed to determine the public health benefits of nonpharmacologic interventions such as aerobic exercise programs and structured mental exercises [e.g., through the use of video games []] in maintaining cognitive health. Developing strategies to improve cognitive performance with aging could provide significant public health benefits.
Neurocognitive Disorders
Understanding normal aging may aid in developing compensatory strategies to maximize function; however, the neurodegenerative dementias show an acceleration of the neuropathological process. The prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease [AD], the most common neurodegenerative dementia, increases with age from less than 1% of people who are younger than 60 years to over 40% of those older than 85 years []. It is estimated that by the year 2050, people over the age of 59 will be approximately 22% of the world’s population []. Stated another way, that is approximately 1.25 billion people, who will disproportionately represent countries with lower socioeconomic status []. The worldwide estimate of persons with dementia was 35.5 million in 2010, with the number of patients with dementia almost doubling every 20 years, to 65.7 million in 2030 and 115.4 million in 2050 []. Identifying and treating patients with neurocognitive disorders should therefore be a public health priority.
The DSM-IV [] had four categories for cognitive disorders [delirium, dementia, amnestic disorders, and other cognitive disorders] that were replaced with three categories in the DSM-5 []: delirium, mild neurocognitive disorder [NCD], and major NCD. The diagnosis of delirium is an exclusion criterion for patients with other NCDs. Whereas the DSM-IV used the areas of cognitive dysfunction to define dementias [e.g., memory impairment, aphasia, apraxia, agnosia, and executive dysfunction], the DSM-5 substitutes specific cognitive domains: complex attention, executive function, learning and memory, language, perceptual-motor, and social cognition. The criteria in the DSM-5 are also more inclusive of a range of potential cognitive disorders and do not, for example, restrict the disorders to NCDs that occur primarily in older adults [i.e., AD]. The definition for a major NCD in the DSM-5 also includes NCDs that occur in younger patients, such as those with traumatic brain injury and human immunodeficiency virus [HIV].
The DSM-5 criteria for the mild and major NCDs are outlined in . The diagnosis of mild NCD is reserved for individuals with cognitive difficulties that go beyond what would be expected for normal aging, but not to the point of limiting the ability of the person to live independently. These difficulties may be noticed by coworkers, spouses, or friends and require the individual to use compensatory strategies and accommodations. Mild NCD distinguishes individuals who are living independently and have normal cognitive functioning from those who are having difficulty, but do not have dementia []. The distinction between mild and major NCDs is operationalized with psychometric tests. Patients with mild NCDs should not be more than one to two standard deviations below the normative scores that are adjusted for age and education, whereas patients with major NCDs fall more than two standard deviations below the norm, or in about the third percentile or lower.
Box 1: DSM-5 CRITERIA FOR MILD AND MAJOR NEUROCOGNITIVE DISORDERSa
A.
Evidence of cognitive decline from a previous level of performance in one or more cognitive domains [complex attention, executive function, learning and memory, language, perceptual-motor, or social cognition] based on:
1.
Concern of the individual, a knowledgeable informant, or the clinician that there has been a significant decline in cognitive function; and
2.
Impairment in cognitive performance, preferably documented by standardized neuropsychological testing or, in its absence, another quantified clinical assessment.
B.
[Major] The cognitive deficits interfere with independence in everyday activities [i.e., at a minimum, requiring assistance with complex instrumental activities of daily living such as paying bills or managing medications].
B.
[Minor] The cognitive deficits do not interfere with capacity for independence in everyday activities [i.e., complex instrumental activities of daily living such as paying bills or managing medications are preserved, but greater effort, compensatory strategies, or accommodation may be required].
C.
The cognitive deficits do not occur exclusively in the context of a delirium.
D.
The cognitive deficits are not better explained by another mental disorder [e.g., major depressive disorder, schizophrenia].
Specifiers
1.
Due to Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, Lewy body disease, vascular disease, traumatic brain injury, substance/medication use, HIV infection, prion disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, other medical condition, multiple etiologies, or unspecified.
2.
Accompanied by a clinically significant behavioral disturbance [e.g., psychotic symptoms, mood disturbance, agitation, apathy, or other behavioral symptoms]
3.
Current severity: Mild: Difficulties with instrumental activities of daily living [e.g., housework, managing money]. Moderate: Difficulties with basic activities of daily living [e.g., feeding, dressing]. Severe: Fully dependent.
___________________
aThe main distinction between a mild and a major NCD is that people with major NCDs have impairment on neuropsychological testing more than two standard deviations below the norm and a decrease in their ability to live independently. Criteria reprinted from American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Copyright 2013, American Psychiatric Association. Used with permission.
Mild NCDs include diagnoses such as mild cognitive impairment [–] as well as older terms, such as age-associated cognitive decline [] and questionable dementia []. The internationally accepted definition of mild cognitive impairment [] is very similar to the DSM-5 definition of mild NCD []. The distinction in these diagnoses may be subtle. Mild cognitive impairment primarily applies to older adults, whereas mild NCD includes all age groups [].
The prevalence of mild cognitive impairment has been estimated to be 14% to 18% for individuals age 70 years and older []. Patients with mild cognitive impairment are at significant risk of developing dementia, particularly AD []. The annual rates of progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD were estimated to range from 5% to 10%, with higher estimates in clinical versus community samples [, ]. However, it is important to note that most patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild NCD do not necessarily progress to dementia, even after 10 years of follow-up []. Primary goals in the treatment of neurodegenerative dementias should be to identify the disorders early and develop effective interventions to change the course of the disease.
One strategy to identify patients at risk of progressing from mild to major NCD is to stratify patients with mild cognitive impairment on the basis of a known marker for AD. With AD, several biomarkers can be identified in mild NCD to track the level of cognitive decline relative to disease progression. These biomarkers have been incorporated into the diagnostic criteria for AD and include cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] beta-amyloid, tau and phosphorylated tau, and PET imaging tracers that have high affinity for beta-amyloid [–].
Bertens et al. divided patients with mild cognitive impairment into two groups: those with amyloid beta 1–42 [Aβ42] in CSF that was below 192 pg/ml [mild cognitive impairment with AD pathology] and patients with mild cognitive impairment and CSF Aβ42 levels above 192 pg/ml [mild cognitive impairment–other []]. Compared with the mild cognitive impairment–other group, the group with mild cognitive impairment with AD pathology showed significant differences on a variety of genetic markers [higher rates of apoplipoprotein ε4 allele carriers], neuroanatomic changes [lower hippocampal volumes, larger ventricles], and clinical variables [lower scores on tests of memory and executive function]. These variables, as well as other common markers for determining risk for mild cognitive impairment and mild NCD progressing to AD, are outlined in .
Box 2: RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MINOR NEUROCOGNITIVE DISORDERSa
Factors associated with developing minor neurocognitive disorders
•
Lower scores on cognitive testing than controls including MMSE, ADAS-cog, and tests assessing memory and executive functioning []
•
APOE ε4 genotype intermediate between controls and patients with AD [, ]
•
CSF tau levels intermediate between controls and patients with AD []
•
Hippocampal volumes approximately one standard deviation smaller than controls []
•
Larger ventricular volumes than controls []
•
Decreased FDG-PET uptake in bilateral angular gyrus, posterior cingular, and bilateral inferior temporal gyrus compared with controls []
•
Major depression []
Risk factors for progression from minor neurocognitive disorders to AD
•
Amnestic subtype of mild cognitive impairment []
•
Smaller hippocampal volumes than controls [, , ]
•
More APOE ε4 allele carriers; higher CSF tau levels; decreased FDG-PET uptake as above; smaller hippocampal volumes; larger ventricular volume; lower ADAS-cog, memory, and executive function scores than patients with mild cognitive impairment at lower risk of developing AD []
•
Major depression [, , ]
___________________
aRisk for developing AD was stratified in the Bertens et al. study by comparing patients with mild cognitive impairment who were classified as having AD pathology if their CSF Aβ1–42 level was below 192 pg/ml and higher risk to develop AD and mild cognitive impairment with lower risk of developing AD if their CSF Aβ1–42 level was below 192 pg/ml [see text []. Abbreviations: MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; ADAS-cog, Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive; APOE ε4, apoliprotein E genotype and ε4 allele; CSF, cerebrospinal fluid; AD, Alzheimer’s disease; FDG-PET uptake, fluoro-d-glucose positron emission tomography uptake normalized.
The wide variation in the rate at which patients with neurocognitive disorders progress, as discussed above, is due in part to risk factors that can be divided into two groups: nonmodifiable and modifiable. Nonmodifiable risk factors cannot be mitigated by diet or lifestyle changes and are part of an individual’s potential for developing a neurocognitive disorder. For example, the rate of AD is in part determined by nonmodifiable risk factors such as older age, female gender, and apoliprotein E genotype and ε4 allele. Just as important, epidemiological studies have shown that some modifiable factors can increase or decrease the risk of developing dementia. In a recent review, Cheng described physical activity—specifically, aerobic exercise—as a modifiable behavior associated with a decreased the risk of developing dementia []. Cheng pointed to the advantages of aerobic exercise in improving cerebrovascular and respiratory function; stimulating growth factors, particularly brain-derived neurotrophic factor; and decreasing oxidative stress and the inflammatory response []. In fact, a number of longitudinal studies support an association of physical exercise with increased hippocampal [], prefrontal, and cingulate cortex volumes []; a decreased risk of dementia for older adults [–]; and a decrease in gray matter volume of patients with mild cognitive impairment or dementia [, ].
Other modifiable behaviors and risk factors include lower socioeconomic [] and educational attainment [, ], smoking, and higher homocysteine levels as a proxy for antioxidant status [higher homocysteine levels are an independent risk factor for cerebrovascular disease []]. In the analysis by Beydoun et al., the most important modifiable factors associated with an increased risk of dementia were elevated plasma homocysteine levels and lower educational attainment []. A modifiable behavior associated with a lower risk of dementia is increasing mental stimulation [, ], although mental stimulation has not been conclusively linked to changes in neuroanatomic structures and can be difficult to quantify []. Understanding the modifiable behaviors and risk factors can inform policymakers as to where to allocate resources and guide research in treatments that may delay the onset of AD and other dementias from mild NCDs to major NCDs.
A major NCD is defined as a significant decline in cognitive abilities that is severe enough to interfere with the individual’s everyday activities, such as paying bills, dressing, or preparing meals. The major NCDs are further defined as being probable or possible, classified on the basis of whether there is a behavioral disturbance, and rated for severity [mild, moderate, or severe].
The major NCDs are classified by diagnoses, including AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, Lewy body disease, vascular disease, traumatic brain injury, substance or medication use, HIV infection, prion disease, Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, another medical condition, multiple etiologies, and unspecified. The most common major NCDs are AD, vascular dementia [VaD], dementia with Lewy body [DLB], and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. There can be overlap in all of these dementias. For example, vascular disease is common in people over the age of 75 years [] and therefore is often found in older patients with other NCDs. Determining the contribution of cerebrovascular disease to the dementia symptoms of older patients with other NCDs can be difficult []. The diagnostic criteria for the major NCDs are outlined in .
TABLE 1. Diagnostic Criteria for the Most Common Major Neurocognitive Disorders
CharacteristicProbable Alzheimer’s dementia []Vascular dementia [, ]Dementia with Lewy body [, ]Frontotemporal dementia []Clinical OnsetInsidiousMay be abrupt onset and have a stepwise declineProgressive cognitive decline and dementia occurs before or concurrently with parkinsonismInsidious and gradual, often before age 65 years Impairment With amnestic presentation, impairment in learning and recall and at least one other cognitive domain; with nonamnestic presentation, impairment in language and visuospatial or executive function with deficits in at least one other cognitive domainImpairment in memory and two other cognitive domains; deficits severe enough to interfere with ADLs and not due simply to the effects of a stroke or CVAFluctuations in alertness and attention; visual hallucinations; parkinsonian motor symptomsEarly behavioral and executive deficits [behavioral variant]; primary progressive aphasia, with deficits in speech, grammar, and word output [nonfluent variant] or with deficits in knowledge and naming [semantic variant]Supporting data or biomarkersLow CSF Aβ42; positive PET amyloid imaging; elevated CSF tau; decreased FDG uptake in the temporoparietal cortex; atrophy of the medial, basal, and lateral temporal lobes and medial parietal cortex on MRIEvidence of CVA on neuroimaging in temporal proximity to the memory loss [within three months]; presence of focal signs on neurologic examination consistent with a CVAREM sleep behavior disorder; severe neuroleptic sensitivity; low dopamine transporter uptake in basal ganglia demonstrated by SPECT or PET imagingNeuroimaging with predominant frontal or temporal atrophy; atrophy in the frontoinsular region with hypoperfusion and hypometabolism of these regions on FDG-PET
TABLE 1. Diagnostic Criteria for the Most Common Major Neurocognitive Disorders
AD is the most common neurodegenerative dementia, and criteria have been established by the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association work group on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease []. The diagnosis of AD is made with patients who have cognitive difficulties that [a] interfere with usual activities; [b] represent a decline from a previous level of functioning; [c] are not due to delirium; and [d] demonstrate impairment documented by bedside testing or neuropsychological testing in two of the following areas: memory, reasoning, visuospatial ability, language, personality, and behavior.
The work group outlines two types of presentations. The amnestic presentation is the most common and features deficiencies primarily in learning and recall of recently learned information. This should be accompanied by deficiencies in at least one other cognitive domain [impaired reasoning and handling of complex tasks, impaired language functions, or impaired visuospatial ability]. Patients diagnosed as having the nonamnestic presentation do not have prominent memory problems but do have one of the following as the primary cognitive deficit: language [word finding], visuospatial ability [inability to recognize faces or common objects], or executive dysfunction [impaired reasoning, judgment, and problem solving].
AD is further categorized as either possible or probable. Possible is reserved for patients who have an atypical course [e.g., meets core criteria but experiences a sudden onset of symptoms] or who have a mixed presentation [e.g., evidence of significant cerebrovascular disease]. Although the biomarkers discussed above are not included in the core diagnostic criteria, they can be considered further evidence of the pathophysiological process of AD and help confirm the diagnosis. The identification of genetic mutations, including presenilin 1 and 2 and amyloid beta protein, can also be used to increase the certainty of the diagnosis.
Vascular disease causes approximately 15% of the cases of dementia, although, as stated above, many dementias have vascular components, particularly in older patients []. In fact, pure VaD is relatively rare. In an autopsy study of over 1,100 patients, only 10.8% of patients had a diagnosis of only VaD, and these patients had multiple vascular risk factors [e.g., 85%−95% had histories of diabetes or morphologic signs of hypertension, 65% had myocardial infarction or cardiac decompensation, and 75% had a history of stroke []. The incidence of pure VaD decreased for older patients [age 60 to 90], in that older patients were more likely to have concomitant age-related neurodegenerative disorders such as AD.
The widely accepted VaD criteria set forth by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the Association Internationale pour la Recherche et l’Enseignement en Neurosciences [] have been described as having high specificity, albeit low sensitivity []. These criteria require that [a] the patient demonstrate a cognitive decline from a previously higher level of functioning manifested by impairment of memory and of two or more cognitive domains [orientation, attention, language, visuospatial functions, executive functions, motor control, and praxis]; [b] deficits be severe enough to interfere with activities of daily living and not be due to physical effects of stroke alone; [c] there be evidence of cerebrovascular disease, including the presence of focal signs on neurologic examination [e.g., hemiparesis, lower facial weakness, Babinski sign, sensory deficit, hemianopia, and dysarthria] and neuroimaging consistent with stroke or significant cerebrovascular disease; and [d] onset occur within three months of a stroke or with abrupt deterioration or stepwise progression of cognitive deficits [, ].
The risk factors for developing dementia after a stroke include low education attainment, female gender, vascular risk factors [e.g., hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and obesity], stroke location, and global and medial temporal atrophy on neuroimaging []. Some genes are related to cardiovascular disease, such as the cerebral autosomal-dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy gene [], but individuals with this gene represent a rare genotype that does not provide much insight into the nature of VaD []. Generally, genetic studies have not identified specific mutations that could help with diagnosis or treatment of VaD [].
The distinction between definite, probable, and possible VaD is primarily clinical. A probable VaD diagnosis is given to patients with neurological signs of cerebrovascular disease, including early gait disturbance, falls, urinary symptoms, and pseudobulbar palsy. For the VaD to be classified as definite, there should be temporal evidence of cerebrovascular disease in relation to the dementia, with the absence of neurofibrillary tangles and neuritic plaques exceeding those expected for the person’s age.
If combined with Parkinson’s disease dementia, DLB is the second most common degenerative dementia for patients over the age of 65 years []. Some have argued that given their common pathology and clinical presentations, these two dementias should be viewed along a continuum rather than as discrete disorders []. In neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, dementia is common [], and early detection of cognitive disorders can provide clinicians with a more complete picture of the challenges affecting the individual.
The core diagnostic criteria for DLB are [a] a progressive decline in cognitive function that interferes with normal functioning, causing prominent memory impairment and deficits in tests of attention, executive function, and visuospatial ability, and [b] fluctuating attention, visual hallucinations that are typically well formed and detailed, and parkinsonian motor features [two criteria for probable and one for possible DLB [].
In addition, McKeith et al. [] cited “suggestive features” that can support the diagnosis of probable DLB if core diagnostic criteria are present: rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder, severe neuroleptic sensitivity, and low dopamine transporter uptake in basal ganglia demonstrated by single-photon emission computed tomography [SPECT] or PET imaging. Finally, some features do not have any diagnostic specificity but can support the diagnosis: repeated falls and syncope; transient, unexplained loss of consciousness; severe autonomic dysfunction; hallucinations in other modalities; systematized delusions; depression; relative preservation of medial temporal lobe structures on a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan; generalized low uptake on SPECT/PET perfusion scan with reduced occipital activity; abnormal [low uptake] on myocardial scintigraphy; and prominent slow-wave activity on electroencephalogram with temporal lobe transient sharp waves [].
In movement disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, cognitive testing is complicated by the fact that the motor symptoms of some diseases [e.g., bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease] may impair a patient’s ability to complete paper-and-pencil cognitive tests. For some movement disorders, specific cognitive tests have been developed with this limitation in mind, such as the Parkinson’s Disease–Cognitive Functional Rating Scale []. This brief 12-item scale assesses functional abnormalities associated with cognitive impairment as well as demonstrated impairments in instrumental activities of daily living of patients with Parkinson’s disease who do not have dementia. Note that instrumental activities of daily living are not considered necessary for basic functioning but do allow an individual to live independently. Examples of such activities include managing a checkbook, taking medication as prescribed, and doing daily housework. They can be contrasted with the six basic activities of daily living: eating, bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring [walking], and grooming.
Burn et al. described a wish list for a neuropsychological battery in Parkinson’s disease that includes tests sensitive to early cognitive decline, tests that could determine mild cognitive impairment, tests with sensitivity to worsening cognitive impairment over time, and a demonstration of the relationship of cognitive tests for Parkinson’s disease biomarkers []. They pointed out that further research linking the quantification of biomarkers such as CSF α-synuclein [] to cognitive status in Parkinson’s disease is needed. PET tau and α-synuclein can potentially serve to inform clinicians of disease progression and determine the association of disease progression and cognitive status in Parkinson’s disease [, , ].
Other markers are more sensitive to cognitive decline. In one study, dopamine transporter uptake and perfusion SPECT were used in de novo, drug-naive Parkinson’s disease patients to predict cognitive decline over four years []. Ravina et al. followed Parkinson’s disease patients over five and one-half years and found that baseline striatal dopamine transporter binding was predictive of cognitive decline as well as motor-related disability, falling, postural instability, psychosis, and depression [].
Frontotemporal dementia [FTD] represents a group of disorders characterized by selective degeneration of the frontal and temporal cortices and progressive deficits in behavior, executive dysfunction, or language []. FTD is the fourth leading type of dementia [behind AD, VaD, and DLB] and is distinguished by the fact that it is the most common dementia among patients with early-onset disease, with 70% of patients experiencing onset before the age of 65 years []. FTD is also associated with behavioral changes that can make it difficult to distinguish from psychiatric disorders.
There are three clinical variants of FTD. The behavioral variant is associated with early behavioral [personality changes, disinhibition, and apathy] and executive deficits. The nonfluent variant is associated with primary progressive aphasia and deficits in language production, object naming, syntax, or word comprehension. Finally, the semantic variant is characterized by primary progressive aphasia with progressive deficits in knowledge and naming []. As noted in Bang et al. [], primary progressive aphasia can be associated with AD, and reconsideration of a diagnosis of FTD should occur if prominent visuospatial impairment or episodic or visual memory impairments are present. Also, patients with significant behavioral disturbances early in the disease process may be more appropriately diagnosed as having a DLB behavioral variant.
Neuroimaging shows atrophy of the frontal and temporal lobes. Evidence on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans of atrophy of the gray matter in the orbital frontal, insular, and anterior cingulate is even more specific for FTD []. Approximately 40% of patients with FTD have a family history of dementia []. Mutations in the C9orf72, MAPT, and GRN genes account for about 60% of all cases of inherited FTD [].
Cognition and Psychiatric Disorders
Much of the dementia research has focused on identifying AD and neurodegenerative disorders early in the disease process, yet other researchers have pointed out the importance of identifying cognitive disorders early in the course of psychiatric disorders. Cognitive dysfunction may be part of a psychiatric disorder and can be a major contributor to disability. For example, in patients with schizophrenia, cognitive impairment can predict the course of the disorder and be independent of the psychotic symptoms []. Others argue that cognitive impairment is not a core symptom of schizophrenia, although it could be used as specifier of the disorder [].
However, Keefe and Fenton argued that cognitive deficits in schizophrenia determine functional outcome more than do core diagnostic criteria, such as positive and negative symptoms, and that these deficits distinguish patients with schizophrenia from those with affective disorders []. The investigators also asserted that the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia should include a specific criterion of “a level of cognitive functioning suggesting a consistent severe impairment and/or a significant decline from premorbid levels considering the patient’s educational, familial, and socioeconomic background” []. Identifying and targeting the cognitive symptoms early in the course of schizophrenia may therefore have an impact on an individual’s long-term course.
Major depression is also associated with a number of cognitive deficits during the depressive episode, including deficits in attention, memory, psychomotor speed, processing speed, and executive function. These deficits are particularly noted among patients with an earlier onset to their depression and a longer duration of the depressive episode [] and in tests of executive function, processing speed, attention, and category fluency []. In many [–] but not all [] longitudinal studies of patients with mood disorders, cognitive deficits [i.e., attention and processing speed] do not normalize even after sustained remission. Residual cognitive symptoms have also been associated with a failure to respond to pharmacotherapy [].
Neuroanatomic changes that could help explain these deficits have been demonstrated in both unipolar and bipolar patients. These changes are to structures important in both mood and cognitive functioning, including the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus [–]. Other research has pointed to the overlap in symptoms found in depressed patients and patients with neurodegenerative disorders such as reduced neurogenesis, increased apoptosis, and immune-inflammatory responses [, ]. Major depression may also affect the progression of cognitive dysfunction to dementia. Depression may significantly increase the likelihood of a person progressing from no cognitive dysfunction to mild cognitive impairment [] and from mild cognitive impairment to AD [, ].
Conclusions
Understanding the role of neuroanatomic structures and neural networks with normal aging is essential to developing strategies to optimize cognitive function with aging. These strategies could include nonpharmacological interventions [i.e., diet, exercise, and mental training] as well as public health policies to improve socioeconomic status and educational attainment. Longitudinal studies support the role of interventions in preserving structures important in cognition, such as the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Future research, particularly randomized clinical trials, are needed to further refine and develop these interventions.
Neurodegenerative disorders are an important global health concern, with approximately 115 million people worldwide expected to receive a diagnosis of dementia by the year 2050. The DSM-5 has provided a framework for understanding the continuum of mild cognitive impairment to AD. The DSM-5 criteria eliminate the requirement of a memory impairment in the diagnosis of a mild or major NCD and introduce new elements of cognitive function, including complex attention and social cognition []. This approach allows for a broader understanding of cognitive decline and focuses on identifying individuals early in the dementing process, potentially allowing for the provision of effective early interventions that could alter the course of the disorder. Identifying patients early in the course of mild NCD will also facilitate research into strategies that may alter the trajectory of the cognitive decline. Biomarkers will increasingly be used to target vulnerable populations, and research should focus on developing appropriate interventions and strategies to improve long-term outcomes for vulnerable individuals.
Recognizing cognitive disorders in patients with psychiatric disorders is also important in developing an accurate assessment of the patient’s functional level and long-term prognosis. This is also the first step toward developing pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments targeting cognitive dysfunction.
Dr. McDonald is with the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA [e-mail: ].
Dr. McDonald reports receiving royalties from Oxford University Press and research support from Soterix, Neuronetics, and Cervel Neurotherapeutics.
References
1 Sousa RM, Ferri CP, Acosta D, et al.: Contribution of chronic diseases to disability in elderly people in countries with low and middle incomes: a 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. Lancet 2009; 374:1821–1830Crossref, Google Scholar
2 Depp CA, Jeste DV: Definitions and predictors of successful aging: a comprehensive review of larger quantitative studies. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2006; 14:6–20Crossref, Google Scholar
3 Reichstadt J, Depp CA, Palinkas LA, et al.: Building blocks of successful aging: a focus group study of older adults’ perceived contributors to successful aging. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2007; 15:194–201Crossref, Google Scholar
4 Baltes PB: The aging mind: potential and limits. Gerontologist 1993; 33:580–594Crossref, Google Scholar
5 Park DC, Lautenschlager G, Hedden T, et al.: Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychol Aging 2002; 17:299–320Crossref, Google Scholar
6 Harada CN, Natelson Love MC, Triebel KL: Normal cognitive aging. Clin Geriatr Med 2013; 29:737–752Crossref, Google Scholar
7 Cheng ST: Cognitive reserve and the prevention of dementia: the role of physical and cognitive activities. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2016; 18:85Crossref, Google Scholar
8 Salthouse TA: The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychol Rev 1996; 103:403–428Crossref, Google Scholar
9 Raz N, Lindenberger U, Rodrigue KM, et al.: Regional brain changes in aging healthy adults: general trends, individual differences and modifiers. Cereb Cortex 2005; 15:1676–1689Crossref, Google Scholar
10 Tamnes CK, Walhovd KB, Dale AM, et al.: Brain development and aging: overlapping and unique patterns of change. Neuroimage 2013; 68:63–74Crossref, Google Scholar
11 Gunning-Dixon FM, Brickman AM, Cheng JC, et al.: Aging of cerebral white matter: a review of MRI findings. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2009; 24:109–117Crossref, Google Scholar
12 Kaup AR, Mirzakhanian H, Jeste DV, et al.: A review of the brain structure correlates of successful cognitive aging. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2011; 23:6–15Crossref, Google Scholar
13 Clément F, Belleville S: Effect of disease severity on neural compensation of item and associative recognition in mild cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis 2012; 29:109–123Crossref, Google Scholar
14 Grady CL, McIntosh AR, Beig S, et al.: Evidence from functional neuroimaging of a compensatory prefrontal network in Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurosci 2003; 23:986–993Crossref, Google Scholar
15 Davis SW, Dennis NA, Daselaar SM, et al.: Que PASA? The posterior-anterior shift in aging. Cereb Cortex 2008; 18:1201–1209Crossref, Google Scholar
16 Reuter-Lorenz PA, Park DC: Human neuroscience and the aging mind: a new look at old problems. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2010; 65:405–415Crossref, Google Scholar
17 Stern Y: Cognitive reserve in ageing and Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11:1006–1012Crossref, Google Scholar
18 Sexton CE, Betts JF, Demnitz N, et al.: A systematic review of MRI studies examining the relationship between physical fitness and activity and the white matter of the ageing brain. Neuroimage 2016; 131:81–90Crossref, Google Scholar
19 Erickson KI, Leckie RL, Weinstein AM: Physical activity, fitness, and gray matter volume. Neurobiol Aging 2014; 35[Suppl 2]:S20–S28Crossref, Google Scholar
20 Chaddock-Heyman L, Erickson KI, Holtrop JL, et al.: Aerobic fitness is associated with greater white matter integrity in children. Front Hum Neurosci 2014; 8:584Crossref, Google Scholar
21 Tian Q, Simonsick EM, Erickson KI, et al.: Cardiorespiratory fitness and brain diffusion tensor imaging in adults over 80 years of age. Brain Res 2014; 1588:63–72Crossref, Google Scholar
22 Anguera JA, Boccanfuso J, Rintoul JL, et al.: Video game training enhances cognitive control in older adults. Nature 2013; 501:97–101Crossref, Google Scholar
23 Beydoun MA, Beydoun HA, Gamaldo AA, et al.: Epidemiologic studies of modifiable factors associated with cognition and dementia: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 2014; 14:643Crossref, Google Scholar
24 Prince M, Bryce R, Albanese E, et al.: The global prevalence of dementia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Alzheimers Dement 2013; 9:63–75Crossref, Google Scholar
25 American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2000Google Scholar
26 American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013Crossref, Google Scholar
27 Stokin GB, Krell-Roesch J, Petersen RC, et al.: Mild neurocognitive disorder: an old wine in a new bottle. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2015; 23:368–376Crossref, Google Scholar
28 Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M, et al.: Mild cognitive impairment—beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 2004; 256:240–246Crossref, Google Scholar
29 Petersen RC: Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity. J Intern Med 2004; 256:183–194Crossref, Google Scholar
30 Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D, et al.: The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National -Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7:270–279Crossref, Google Scholar
31 Levy R: Aging-associated cognitive decline. Int Psychogeriatr 1994; 6:63–68Crossref, Google Scholar
32 Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, et al.: A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry 1982; 140:566–572Crossref, Google Scholar
33 Petersen RC, Roberts RO, Knopman DS, et al.: Mild cognitive impairment: ten years later. Arch Neurol 2009; 66:1447–1455Crossref, Google Scholar
34 Mitchell AJ, Shiri-Feshki M: Rate of progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia—meta-analysis of 41 robust inception cohort studies. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2009; 119:252–265Crossref, Google Scholar
35 Farias ST, Mungas D, Reed BR, et al.: Progression of mild cognitive impairment to dementia in clinic- vs community-based cohorts. Arch Neurol 2009; 66:1151–1157Crossref, Google Scholar
36 Jack CR Jr, Albert MS, Knopman DS, et al.: Introduction to the recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7:257–262Crossref, Google Scholar
37 Burn D, Weintraub D, Ravina B, et al.: Cognition in movement disorders: where can we hope to be in ten years? Mov Disord 2014; 29:704–711Crossref, Google Scholar
38 Dubois B, Feldman HH, Jacova C, et al.: Research criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease: revising the NINCDS-ADRDA criteria. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6:734–746Crossref, Google Scholar
39 Klunk WE, Engler H, Nordberg A, et al.: Imaging brain amyloid in Alzheimer’s disease with Pittsburgh Compound-B. Ann Neurol 2004; 55:306–319Crossref, Google Scholar
40 Hansson O, Zetterberg H, Buchhave P, et al.: Association between CSF biomarkers and incipient Alzheimer’s disease in patients with mild cognitive impairment: a follow-up study. Lancet Neurol 2006; 5:228–234Crossref, Google Scholar
41 Dickerson BC, Stoub TR, Shah RC, et al.: Alzheimer-signature MRI biomarker predicts AD dementia in cognitively normal adults. Neurology 2011; 76:1395–1402Crossref, Google Scholar
42 Bertens D, Knol DL, Scheltens P, et al.: Temporal evolution of biomarkers and cognitive markers in the asymptomatic, MCI, and dementia stage of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2015; 11:511–522Crossref, Google Scholar
43 Grundman M, Petersen RC, Ferris SH, et al.: Mild cognitive impairment can be distinguished from Alzheimer disease and normal aging for clinical trials. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:59–66Crossref, Google Scholar
44 Rosenberg PB, Mielke MM, Xue QL, et al.: Depressive symptoms predict incident cognitive impairment in cognitive healthy older women. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010; 18:204–211Crossref, Google Scholar
45 Jack CR, Jr., Petersen RC, Xu, YC, et al.: Prediction of AD with MRI-based hippocampal volume in mild cognitive impairment. Neurology 1999 52:1397–1403Crossref, Google Scholar
46 Killiany RJ, Gomez-Isla T, Moss M, et al.: Use of structural magnetic resonance imaging to predict who will get Alzheimer's disease. Ann Neurol 2000 47:430–439Crossref, Google Scholar
47 Panza F, Frisardi V, Capurso C, et al.: Late-life depression, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia: possible continuum? Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010; 18:98–116Crossref, Google Scholar
48 Modrego PJ, Ferrández J: Depression in patients with mild cognitive impairment increases the risk of developing dementia of Alzheimer type: a prospective cohort study. Arch Neurol 2004; 61:1290–1293Crossref, Google Scholar
49 Erickson KI, Voss MW, Prakash RS, et al.: Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011; 108:3017–3022Crossref, Google Scholar
50 Ruscheweyh R, Willemer C, Krüger K, et al.: Physical activity and memory functions: an interventional study. Neurobiol Aging 2011; 32:1304–1319Crossref, Google Scholar
51 Norton S, Matthews FE, Barnes DE, et al.: Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis of population-based data. Lancet Neurol 2014; 13:788–794Crossref, Google Scholar
52 Luck T, Riedel-Heller SG, Luppa M, et al.: Apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 genotype and a physically active lifestyle in late life: analysis of gene–environment interaction for the risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia. Psychol Med 2014; 44:1319–1329Crossref, Google Scholar
53 Kishimoto H, Ohara T, Hata J, et al.: The long-term association between physical activity and risk of dementia in the community: the Hisayama Study. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31:267–274Crossref, Google Scholar
54 Beckett MW, Ardern CI, Rotondi MA: A meta-analysis of prospective studies on the role of physical activity and the prevention of Alzheimer’s disease in older adults. BMC Geriatr 2015; 15:9Crossref, Google Scholar
55 Boyle CP, Raji CA, Erickson KI, et al.: Physical activity, body mass index, and brain atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol Aging 2015; 36[Suppl 1]:S194–S202Crossref, Google Scholar
56 ten Brinke LF, Bolandzadeh N, Nagamatsu LS, et al.: Aerobic exercise increases hippocampal volume in older women with probable mild cognitive impairment: a 6-month randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49:248–254Crossref, Google Scholar
57 Almeida RP, Schultz SA, Austin BP, et al.: Effect of cognitive reserve on age-related changes in cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol 2015; 72:699–706Crossref, Google Scholar
58 Roe CM, Xiong C, Miller JP, et al.: Education and Alzheimer disease without dementia: support for the cognitive reserve hypothesis. Neurology 2007; 68:223–228Crossref, Google Scholar
59 Verghese J, Lipton RB, Katz MJ, et al.: Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2508–2516Crossref, Google Scholar
60 Geda YE, Roberts RO, Knopman DS, et al.: Physical exercise, aging, and mild cognitive impairment: a population-based study. Arch Neurol 2010; 67:80–86Crossref, Google Scholar
61 Deramecourt V, Slade JY, Oakley AE, et al.: Staging and natural history of cerebrovascular pathology in dementia. Neurology 2012; 78:1043–1050Crossref, Google Scholar
62 O’Brien JT, Thomas A: Vascular dementia. Lancet 2015; 386:1698–1706Crossref, Google Scholar
63 McKhann GM, Knopman DS, Chertkow H, et al.: The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer’s Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7:263–269Crossref, Google Scholar
64 Román GC, Tatemichi TK, Erkinjuntti T, et al.: Vascular dementia: diagnostic criteria for research studies. Report of the NINDS-AIREN International Workshop. Neurology 1993; 43:250–260Crossref, Google Scholar
65 Walker Z, Possin KL, Boeve BF, et al.: Lewy body dementias. Lancet 2015; 386:1683–1697Crossref, Google Scholar
66 Bang J, Spina S, Miller BL: Frontotemporal dementia. Lancet 2015; 386:1672–1682Crossref, Google Scholar
67 Jellinger KA, Attems J: Is there pure vascular dementia in old age?J Neurol Sci 2010; 299:150–154Crossref, Google Scholar
68 NINDS – AIREN Criteria for the Diagnosis of Vascular Dementia. The Internet Stroke Center, 2016. Available at //www.strokecenter.org/professionals/stroke-diagnosis/stroke-assessment-scales/ninds-airen-criteria-for-the-diagnosis-of-vascular-dementia/. Accessed Aug 15, 2016Google Scholar
69 Pendlebury ST, Rothwell PM: Prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with pre-stroke and post-stroke dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8:1006–1018Crossref, Google Scholar
70 Chabriat H, Joutel A, Dichgans M, et al.: CADASIL. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8:643–653Crossref, Google Scholar
71 Emre M, Aarsland D, Brown R, et al..: Clinical diagnostic criteria for dementia associated with Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2007; 22:1689–1707Crossref, Google Scholar
72 McKeith IG, Galasko D, Kosaka K, et al.: Consensus guidelines for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of dementia with Lewy bodies [DLB]: report of the consortium on DLB international workshop. Neurology 1996; 47:1113–1124Crossref, Google Scholar
73 Kulisevsky J, Fernández de Bobadilla R, Pagonabarraga J, et al.: Measuring functional impact of cognitive impairment: validation of the Parkinson’s disease cognitive functional rating scale. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2013; 19:812–817Crossref, Google Scholar
74 Wang Y, Shi M, Chung KA, et al.: Phosphorylated α-synuclein in Parkinson’s disease. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4:121ra20Crossref, Google Scholar
75 Fodero-Tavoletti MT, Mulligan RS, Okamura N, et al.: In vitro characterisation of BF227 binding to alpha-synuclein/Lewy bodies. Eur J Pharmacol 2009; 617:54–58Crossref, Google Scholar
76 Arnaldi, D, Campus, C, Ferrara, M, et al..: What predicts cognitive decline in de novo Parkinson’s disease? Neurobiol Aging, 2012; 33:1127.e11—1127.e20Crossref, Google Scholar
77 Ravina B, Marek K, Eberly S, et al.: Dopamine transporter imaging is associated with long-term outcomes in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord 2012; 27:1392–1397Crossref, Google Scholar
78 Rosen HJ, Gorno-Tempini ML, Goldman WP, et al.: Patterns of brain atrophy in frontotemporal dementia and semantic dementia. Neurology 2002; 58:198–208Crossref, Google Scholar
79 Rohrer JD, Guerreiro R, Vandrovcova J, et al.: The heritability and genetics of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Neurology 2009; 73:1451–1456Crossref, Google Scholar
80 Le Ber I: Genetics of frontotemporal lobar degeneration: an up-date and diagnosis algorithm. Rev Neurol [Paris] 2013; 169:811–819Crossref, Google Scholar
81 Keefe RS, Fenton WS: How should DSM-V criteria for schizophrenia include cognitive impairment? Schizophr Bull 2007; 33:912–920Crossref, Google Scholar
82 Bora E, Yücel M, Pantelis C: Cognitive impairment in schizophrenia and affective psychoses: implications for DSM-V criteria and beyond. Schizophr Bull 2010; 36:36–42Crossref, Google Scholar
83 Papakostas GI: Cognitive symptoms in patients with major depressive disorder and their implications for clinical practice. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75:8–14Crossref, Google Scholar
84 Pantzar A, Atti AR, Fratiglioni L, et al.: Cognitive performance in unipolar old-age depression: a longitudinal study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry [Epub ahead of print, Jun 1, 2016]Crossref, Google Scholar
85 Airaksinen E, Wahlin A, Larsson M, et al.: Cognitive and social functioning in recovery from depression: results from a population-based three-year follow-up. J Affect Disord 2006; 96:107–110Crossref, Google Scholar
86 Neu P, Bajbouj M, Schilling A, et al.: Cognitive function over the treatment course of depression in middle-aged patients: correlation with brain MRI signal hyperintensities. J Psychiatr Res 2005; 39:129–135Crossref, Google Scholar
87 Bora E, Harrison BJ, Yücel M, et al.: Cognitive impairment in euthymic major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. Psychol Med 2013; 43:2017–2026Crossref, Google Scholar
88 Gualtieri CT, Johnson LG, Benedict KB: Neurocognition in depression: patients on and off medication versus healthy comparison subjects. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 2006; 18:217–225Crossref, Google Scholar
89 Krysta K, Krzystanek M, Janas-Kozik M, et al.: Impact of pharmacological and psychological treatment methods of depressive and anxiety disorders on cognitive functioning. J Neural Transm [Vienna] 2015; 122[Suppl 1]:S101–S110Crossref, Google Scholar
90 Konarski JZ, McIntyre RS, Kennedy SH, et al.: Volumetric neuroimaging investigations in mood disorders: bipolar disorder versus major depressive disorder. Bipolar Disord 2008; 10:1–37Crossref, Google Scholar
91 Monkul ES, Malhi GS, Soares JC: Anatomical MRI abnormalities in bipolar disorder: do they exist and do they progress? Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2005; 39:222–226Crossref, Google Scholar
92 Drevets WC: Orbitofrontal cortex function and structure in depression. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2007; 1121:499–527Crossref, Google Scholar
93 MacMaster FP, Mirza Y, Szeszko PR, et al.: Amygdala and hippocampal volumes in familial early onset major depressive disorder. Biol Psychiatry 2008; 63:385–390Crossref, Google Scholar
94 Talarowska M, Bobińska K, Zajączkowska M, et al.: Impact of oxidative/nitrosative stress and inflammation on cognitive functions in patients with recurrent depressive disorders