Advertisement

Journal of Neurology

, Volume 265, Issue 11, pp 2587–2593 | Cite as

The Brief International Cognitive Assessment in Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS): results from the German validation study

  • M. Filser
  • H. Schreiber
  • J. Pöttgen
  • S. Ullrich
  • M. Lang
  • I. K. Penner
Original Communication
  • 65 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Recent research has convincingly shown that the ability to work mainly depends on the cognitive status in multiple sclerosis (MS). An international committee of experts recommended a brief neuropsychological battery to evaluate cognitive performance in MS. BICAMS comprises three tests, the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the learning trials of the California Verbal Learning Test II (CVLT-II), and the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R).

Objective

To validate BICAMS on a sample of German MS patients and healthy controls (HCs).

Methods

According to the international guidelines for validation, examiner’s instructions were standardized and translated into German. Due to the availability of better normative data for future applications in routine clinical care and classification of individual performance degree, the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) (German version: Verbaler Lern- und Merkfähigkeits-Test, VLMT) was chosen instead of CVLT-II. 172 MS patients and 100 HCs entered the study. BICAMS was administered at baseline and retest (after 3–4 weeks).

Results

The groups did not differ in age, gender or education. Mean age of MS patients was 43.33 years (SD 11.64); 68% were female and 86.9% had relapsing-remitting MS. Patients performed significantly worse than HCs on the SDMT (p < 0.01) and on BVMT-R (p < 0.05) but not on VLMT. In addition, BICAMS was shown to be reliable over time: r = 0.71 for BVMT-R, r = 0.72 for VLMT and r = 0.85 for SDMT. SDMT z-score proved to be a good predictor for the ability to work in a full-time (p < 0.001) as well as in a part-time job (p < 0.001). VLMT z-score turned out to be a significant predictor only for the ability to work in a part-time job, while BVMT-R z-score showed no significant predictive value.

Conclusion

In this German validation study with the VLMT, the modified BICAMS (BICAMS-M) turned out to reliably detect cognitive problems in MS patients and to monitor cognitive performance over time. SDMT revealed the best predictive value for working ability. Moreover, only the SDMT was able to predict the ability to work in a part-time or full-time job. Following these results, application of the SDMT is recommended for medical statements on working ability of MS patients.

Keywords

Multiple sclerosis BICAMS Cognition Working ability Validation 

Abbreviations

BICAMS

Brief International Cognitive Assessment in Multiple Sclerosis

BICAMS-M

Modified Brief International Cognitive Assessment in Multiple Sclerosis

BL

Baseline

BRB-N

Brief Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological tests

BVMT-R

Brief Visual Memory Test Revised

CVLT-II

California Verbal Learning Test II

EDSS

Expanded Disability Status Scale

HCs

Healthy controls

LÄK

Landesärztekammer

MACFIMS

Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis

MS

Multiple sclerosis

N

Population size

p

Probability of an event or outcome in a statistical experiment

PPMS

Primary progressive multiple sclerosis

r

Pearson’s r, correlation coefficient

RAVLT

Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test

RRMS

Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis

RT

Retest

SD

Standard deviations

SDMT

Symbol Digit Modalities Test

SPMS

Secondary progressive multiple sclerosis

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

VLMT

Verbaler Lern- und Merkfähigkeitstest

Notes

Author contributions

MF: statistical data analysis, data interpretation, manuscript preparation. HS: Co-PI of study, study conceptualization, data collection, data interpretation, manuscript preparation. JP: data collection, data interpretation, manuscript preparation. SU: support of statistical analysis, data interpretation, review of manuscript. ML: data collection, study coordination. IKP: PI of study, study conceptualization, data collection, data interpretation, manuscript preparation.

Funding

Michael Lang received a research Grant from Merck for this study (at 4 December 2013). Reference number: 4501354695.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. It was approved in October 2014 by the ethical committee of the University of Hamburg, committee’s reference number is PV4770, and in June 2014 by the Landesärztekammer (LÄK) Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, committee’s reference number is F-2014-048. All participants were informed of the full details of the study and to give their confirmation to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. There are no details, images, or videos relating to an individual person included in this manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of interest

MF has nothing to disclose. HS has received travel Grants and honoraria for speaking at scientific meetings, participating in scientific advisory boards and consulting activities from Almirall, Bayer Healthcare, Biogen GmbH, Genzyme, Merck, Novartis and Teva. JP has received travel cost compensation from Bayer Pharma and honoria for speaking at scientific meetings from Novartis Pharma GmbH. SU has nothing to disclose. ML has received travel Grants, speaker’s honoraria, financial research support, consultancy fees from Teva, Merck Serono, Genzyme -Sanofi, Novartis, Bayer, Biogen. IKP has received honoraria for speaking at scientific meetings, serving at scientific advisory boards and consulting activities from Adamas Pharma, Almiral, Bayer Pharma, Biogen GmbH, Desitin, Genzyme, Merck Serono, Novartis Pharma GmbH, Roche and Teva.

References

  1. 1.
    Benedict RHB, Drake AS, Irwin LN, Frndak SE, Kunker KA, Khan AL et al (2016) Benchmarks of meaningful impairment on the MSFC and BICAMS. Mult Scler J 22:1874–1882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kobelt G, Thompson A, Berg J, Capsa D, Eriksson J, Miller D et al (2017) New insights into the burden and costs of multiple sclerosis in Europe: results for United Kingdom. Mult Scler J 23(Suppl 2):204–216Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pitteri M, Romualdi C, Magliozzi R, Monaco S, Calabrese M (2017) Cognitive impairment predicts disability progression and cortical thinning in MS: an 8-year study. Mult Scler J 23:848–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Langdon D, Amato M, Boringa J, Brochet B, Foley F, Fredrikson S et al (2012) Recommendations for a Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Mult Scler J 18:891–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Smith A (1973) Symbol Digit Modalities Test. Western Psychological Services, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Ober BA (2000) California Verbal Learning Test (CVLT-II) adult version: manual, 2nd edn. Psychological Corporation, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benedict RHB (1997) Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, OdessaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eshaghi A, Riyahi-Alam S, Roostaei T, Haeri G, Aghsaei A, Aidi MR et al (2012) Validity and reliability of a persian translation of the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (MACFIMS). Clin Neuropsychol 26:975–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costers L, Gielen J, Eelen PL, Van Schependom J, Laton J, Van Remoortel A et al (2017) Does including the full CVLT-II and BVMT-R improve BICAMS? Evidence from a Belgian (Dutch) validation study. Mult Scler Relat Disord 18:33–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vanotti S, Smerbeck A, Benedict RHB, Caceres F (2016) A new assessment tool for patients with multiple sclerosis from Spanish-speaking countries: validation of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS) in Argentina. Clin Neuropsychol 30:1023–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker LAS, Osman L, Berard JA, Rees LM, Freedman MS, MacLean H et al (2016) Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS): Canadian contribution to the international validation project. J Neurol Sci 362:147–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Polychroniadou E, Bakirtzis C, Langdon D, Lagoudaki R, Kesidou E, Theotokis P et al (2016) Validation of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) in Greek population with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler Relat Disord 9:68–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spedo CT, Frndak SE, Marques VD, Foss MP, Pereira DA, Carvalho LDF et al (2015) Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity of the BICAMS in Brazil. Clin Neuropsychol 29:836–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandi D, Rudisch T, Füvesi J, Fricska-Nagy Z, Huszka H, Biernacki T et al (2015) The Hungarian validation of the brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS) battery and the correlation of cognitive impairment with fatigue and quality of life. Mult Scler Relat Disord 4:499–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Connell K, Langdon D, Tubridy N, Hutchinson M, McGuigan C (2015) A preliminary validation of the brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS) tool in an Irish population with multiple sclerosis (MS). Mult Scler Relat Disord 4:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giedraitienė N, Kizlaitienė R, Kaubrys G (2015) The BICAMS Battery for Assessment of Lithuanian-Speaking Multiple Sclerosis patients: relationship with age, education, disease disability, and duration. Med Sci Monit 21:3853–3859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goretti B, Niccolai C, Hakiki B, Sturchio A, Falautano M, Minacapelli E et al (2014) The Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS): normative values with gender, age and education corrections in the Italian population. BMC Neurol 14:171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dusankova JB, Kalincik T, Havrdova E, Benedict RHB (2012) Cross cultural validation of the Minimal Assessment of Cognitive Function in Multiple Sclerosis (MACFIMS) and the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Clin Neuropsychol 26:1186–1200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ozakbas S, Yigit P, Cinar BP, Limoncu H, Kahraman T, Kösehasanogullari G (2017) The Turkish validation of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS) battery. BMC Neurol 17:208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niino M, Fukazawa T, Kira J-I, Okuno T, Mori M, Sanjo N et al (2017) Validation of the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis in Japan. Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin 3:1–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benedict RHB, Amato MP, Boringa J, Brochet B, Foley F, Fredrikson S et al (2012) Brief International Cognitive Assessment for MS (BICAMS): international standards for validation. BMC Neurol 12:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmidt M (1996) Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test: a handbook. Western Psychological Services, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helmstaedter C, Lendt M, Lux S (2001) Verbaler Lern-und Merkfähigkeitstest: VLMT: manual, 1st edn. Hogrefe Verlag, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Benedict RHB, Duquin JA, Jurgensen S, Rudick RA, Feitcher J, Munschauer FE et al (2008) Repeated assessment of neuropsychological deficits in multiple sclerosis using the Symbol Digit Modalities Test and the MS Neuropsychological Screening Questionnaire. Mult Scler 14:940–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rao S (1990) A manual for the brief repeatable battery of neuropsychological tests in multiple sclerosis. Medical College of Wisconsin, MilwaukeeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Strober L, Chiaravalloti N, Moore N, Deluca J (2014) Unemployment in multiple sclerosis (MS): utility of the MS functional composite and cognitive testing. Mult Scler J 20:112–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morrow SA, Drake A, Zivadinov R, Munschauer F, Weinstock-Guttman B, Benedict RHB (2010) Predicting loss of employment over three years in multiple sclerosis: clinically meaningful cognitive decline. Clin Neuropsychol 24:1131–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benedict RHB, Wahlig E, Bakshi R, Fishman I, Munschauer F, Zivadinov R et al (2005) Predicting quality of life in multiple sclerosis: accounting for physical disability, fatigue, cognition, mood disorder, personality, and behavior change. J Neurol Sci 231:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Stegen S, Stepanov I, Cookfair D, Schwartz E, Hojnacki D, Weinstock-Guttman B et al (2010) Validity of the California Verbal Learning Test-II in multiple sclerosis. Clin Neuropsychol 24:189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Benedict RHB, Cookfair D, Gavett R, Gunther M, Munschauer F, Garg N et al (2006) Validity of the minimal assessment of cognitive function in multiple sclerosis (MACFIMS). J Int Neuropsychol Soc 12:549–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smerbeck A, Benedict RHB, Eshaghi A, Vanotti S, Spedo C, Blahova Dusankova J et al (2018) Influence of nationality on the Brief International Cognitive Assessment for Multiple Sclerosis (BICAMS). Clin Neuropsychol 32:54–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    López E, Steiner AJ, Hardy DJ, IsHak WW, Anderson WB (2016) Discrepancies between bilinguals’ performance on the Spanish and English versions of the WAIS Digit Span task: cross-cultural implications. Appl Neuropsychol 23:343–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Janssen AB, Geiser C (2012) Cross-cultural differences in spatial abilities and solution strategies- an investigation in Cambodia and Germany. J Cross Cult Psychol 43:533–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kail RV, McBride-Chang C, Ferrer E, Cho J-R, Shu H (2013) Cultural differences in the development of processing speed. Dev Sci 16:476–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Filser
    • 1
  • H. Schreiber
    • 2
  • J. Pöttgen
    • 3
  • S. Ullrich
    • 4
  • M. Lang
    • 2
  • I. K. Penner
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Cogito Center for Applied Neurocognition and Neuropsychological ResearchDüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Neurological Practice and Neuropoint AcademyUlmGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Neuroimmunologie und Multiple SkleroseUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  4. 4..05 StatistikberatungDüsseldorfGermany
  5. 5.Department of Neurology, Medical FacultyHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations