2019
DOI: 10.1007/7854_2019_116
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reliably Measuring Cognitive Change in the Era of Chronic HIV Infection and Chronic HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 70 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…demographics, as neurocognitive change is best measured using scores that do not remove reliable sources of variance in change over time (e.g., age) 27 .…”
Section: A C C E P T E Dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…demographics, as neurocognitive change is best measured using scores that do not remove reliable sources of variance in change over time (e.g., age) 27 .…”
Section: A C C E P T E Dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These quadratic trajectories may also be more consistent with a regression to the mean phenomenon, whereby early declines in performance are followed by subsequent improvements toward baseline status, which in the present study reflected average or low levels of performance that were concordant with the CN and CI classifications, respectively. Survivor bias, an issue inherent to neuroHIV and aging research [53,54], may also partially explain this pattern under the assumption that individuals in Class 2 Quadratic Average and Class 3 Quadratic Low who experienced early neurocognitive declines dropped out of the study due to worsening disease. To help mitigate this possibility, we included auxiliary predictors of missing data, which did not significantly differ by latent trajectory groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The majority of longitudinal neurocognitive studies in PWH with chronic disease have focused on identifying individuals who exhibit poor/declining trajectories, but have not been designed for detection of an elite longitudinal subgroup. Cysique and colleagues noted in a recent review that these studies focused on decline significantly vary in length and operationalization of neurocognitive change [53], yet the most consistent observation is that the majority of PWH exhibit a stable/non-progressive neurocognitive trajectory while a smaller subgroup may experience a subtle yet systematic decline [53,55]. Only a handful of studies have explicitly focused on neurocognitive change within older groups of PWH (i.e., aged 50 or older), with support for amplified risk of neurocognitive decline compared to younger PWH and older HIV-seronegative adults [5,56].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclusion criteria for individuals with HIV-1 Infection were (i) a diagnosis of HIV-1 Infection in the asymptomatic stage; (ii) age ranging between 18 and 58 y/o (to control any potential age-related cognitive immaturity or decline) [24]; (iii) the completion of at least two years of elementary school; (iv) a maximum time since HIV diagnosis of 9 years (considering nine years is the maximum period HIV-1 infected individuals can remain asymptomatic) [40]; and (v) no history of alcohol and/or drug use, neurological, neuropsychological, and/or psychopathological disorders before HIV-1 diagnosis. The target population is primarily of low socioeconomic status, making it more vulnerable to develop HAND [19]. On the other hand, the control group accomplished the same criteria but was not infected with HIV.…”
Section: Subjectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…More recently, batteries such as the Western Neuropsychological Test Battery of the HIV Neurobehavioral Research Center [11], and a battery developed by Brazilian researchers [17] are available. Although these comprehensive batteries are more sensible than screening tests [11,18], the lack of access to them in environments with limited resources [19] increases the need to develop screening tools and short assessment protocols that facilitate HAND detection [20,21]. Some of these screening instruments include the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) (scrutinized for its low sensitivity) [8,9], the HIV Dementia Scale (HDS) [22], and the International HIV Dementia Scale (IHDS) [23] (with limited performance especially for the diagnosis of MND) [18,24,25], the Cognitive Assessment Tool-Rapid version (CAT-rapid) (with borderline sensitivity and low specificity) [8], the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA, with acceptable sensitivity but low specificity) [8], and the CogState computerized battery (with a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 71%, when compared to full neuropsychological testing) [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%