文章摘要
温咪咪 ,刘茂 ,张晓凡 ,刘鑫 ,张旻.早发性与晚发性阿尔茨海默病神经心理损害特征的比较研究[J].神经损伤功能重建,2021,16(3):130-134
早发性与晚发性阿尔茨海默病神经心理损害特征的比较研究
Comparison of Neuropsychological Impairment between Patients with Early-onset andLate-onset Alzheimer's Disease
  
DOI:
中文关键词: 早发性阿尔茨海默病  晚发性阿尔茨海默病  神经心理评估  精神行为症状
英文关键词: early-onset Alzheimer’s disease  late-onset Alzheimer’s disease  neuropsychological assessment  behavioral and psychological symptoms
基金项目:科技部政府间国际 科技创新合作重点 专项(No.2018YFE 0118900)
作者单位
温咪咪1 ,刘茂1 ,张晓凡1 ,刘鑫2 ,张旻1 1. 华中科技大学同 济医学院附属同济 医院神经内科 2. 中国人民解放军 战略支援部队特色 医学中心特勤诊疗 三科 
摘要点击次数: 3157
全文下载次数: 4916
中文摘要:
      目的:比较早发性与晚发性阿尔茨海默病(AD)患者神经心理学损害特征的差异。方法:收集2018年 10月至2020年10月于武汉同济医院神经内科门诊就诊的诊断为很可能的AD患者137例,其中发病年龄< 65岁的早发性AD(EOAD组)65例,发病年龄>65岁的晚发性AD(LOAD组)72例,对患者进行简易智能精 神状态检查量表(MMSE)、画钟测验(CDT)、波士顿命名测验(BNT-30)、日常生活能力评定量表(ADL)、神 经精神量表(NPI)的评估,对2组患者的基本信息及神经心理学评分进行统计学分析。结果:EOAD组的 MMSE分数显著低于LOAD组(P=0.009);2组的CDT、BNT-30、ADL、NPI总分及照料者苦恼评分差异无统 计学意义(P>0.05);NPI 12 个分项分析可见 EOAD 组较 LOAD 组的抑郁及淡漠分数更高(P=0.030,P= 0.035),且淡漠的发生率显著增加(52.31% v.s. 33.33%,P=0.025)。EOAD患者的NPI总分与MMSE、CDT、 BNT-30评分呈负相关,与ADL评分正相关;而LOAD患者的NPI总分仅与ADL评分正相关;EOAD患者与 LOAD患者的照料者苦恼评分均与NPI总分正相关。结论:EOAD和LOAD患者在神经心理损害方面具有 不同特点,EOAD患者的认知损害程度、抑郁和淡漠症状均较LOAD更严重。
英文摘要:
      To compare the neuropsychological impairment between patients with early-onset and late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). Methods: Total 137 patients diagnosed with probable AD in the department of Neurology of Tongji Hospital were recruited from October 2018 to October 2020, including 65 cases with early-onset (onset age less than 65 years old) Alzheimer's disease (EOAD group), and 72 cases with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD group). A series of neuropsychological tests including Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Clock Drawing Test (CDT), Boston Naming Test (BNT-30), Activity of Daily Living Scale (ADL), and Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) were performed for all patients. Demographic and neuropsychological data were compared between these two groups of patients. Results: MMSE score of the EOAD group were significantly lower than that of the LOAD group (P=0.009). CDT, BNT-30, ADL, total NPI, and caregiver distress scores showed no significant differences between the two groups. The sub-scores of depression and apathy of the EOAD group were higher than those of the LOAD group (P=0.030, P=0.035), while apathy was significantly more common in the EOAD group than the LOAD group (52.31% v.s. 33.33% , P= 0.025). The total NPI score of the EOAD group was negatively correlated with MMSE, CDT, and BNT-30 scores, and was positively correlated with ADL score, while that of the LOAD patients was only positively correlated with ADL score. Caregiver distress score was positively correlated with NPI total scores in both groups. Conclusion: Patterns of neuropsychological impairment were different between the EOAD and the LOAD patients with higher degrees of cognitive decline, depression, and apathy in the EOAD patients.
查看全文   查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器
关闭