Real World Financial Mismanagement in Alzheimer's Disease, Frontotemporal Dementia, and Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Background: Whereas clinical experience in dementia indicates high risk for financial mismanagement, there has been little formal study of real world financial errors in dementia. Objective: We aimed to compare caregiver-reported financial mistakes among people with Alzheimer's disease, behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), and primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Methods: Caregivers reported whether participants with dementia had made financial mistakes within the last year; and if so, categorized these as resulting from: (a) being too trusting or gullible, (b) being wasteful or careless with money, or (c) trouble with memory. In a pre-registered analysis https://archive.org/details/osf-registrations-vupj7-v1), we examined the hypotheses that (1) financial mistakes due to impaired socioemotional function and diminished sensitivity to negative outcomes are more prevalent in bvFTD than in Alzheimer's disease, and (2) financial mistakes due to memory are more prevalent in Alzheimer's disease than in bvFTD. Exploratory analyses addressed vulnerability in PPA and brain-behavior relationships using voxel-based morphometry. Results: Concordant with our first hypothesis, bvFTD was more strongly associated than Alzheimer's disease with mistakes due to being too trusting/gullible or wasteful/careless; contrary to our second hypothesis, both groups were similarly likely to make mistakes due to memory. No differences were found between Alzheimer's disease and PPA. Exploratory analyses indicated associations between financial errors and atrophy in right prefrontal and insular cortex. Conclusions: Our findings cohere with documented socioemotional and valuation impairments in bvFTD, and with research indicating comparable memory impairment between bvFTD and Alzheimer's disease.

Bilingual Primary Progressive Aphasia: A Scoping Review of Assessment and Treatment Practices.

BACKGROUND: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) is a neurodegenerative syndrome characterized by speech and/or language impairment with relatively spared cognition. Research investigating behavioral speech-language intervention and methods for cognitive-linguistic assessment in PPA has predominantly centered around monolingual speakers. This gap hinders the widespread adoption of evidence-based approaches and exacerbates the inequities faced by culturally and linguistically diverse populations living with PPA. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review synthesizes the current evidence for assessment and treatment practices in bilingual PPA as well as the operationalization of bilingualism in PPA. METHODS: Arksey & O'Malley's scoping review methodology was utilized. Information was extracted from each study and entered into a data-charting template designed to capture information regarding operationalization of bilingualism in PPA and assessment and treatment practices. RESULTS: Of the 16 identified studies, 14 reported the results of assessments conducted in both languages. Three studies reported positive naming treatment outcomes. Thirteen studies included English-speaking participants, revealing linguistic bias. Most studies reported age of acquisition, proficiency, and patterns of language use rather than providing an operational definition for bilingualism. CONCLUSIONS: Neither formal assessment measures nor clear guidelines for assessment of bilingual PPA currently exist; however, language-specific measures are emerging. Speech-language intervention in bilingual PPA has been relatively unexplored, representing a significant gap in the literature. In order to improve diagnostic and treatment options for bilingual PPA, targeted efforts to increase representation of bilinguals from various sociocultural contexts, as well as those who speak a variety of language pairs, is necessary.

"Please Don't Assess Him to Destruction": The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment Framework for Primary Progressive Aphasia.

PURPOSE: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) assess people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) through measurements of speech, language, communication, and well-being, with the aims of identifying challenges and strengths, monitoring change, and informing treatment directions and supports. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to highlight the necessity for person-centered assessment specific to PPA and to conceptualize a framework that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of assessment for this population. In this framework, the unique challenges posed by a diagnosis of PPA are addressed with the aim to provide practical guidance for clinicians and to support reflection on current practices. METHOD: In clinical and research practice, assessment of people with PPA requires an ever-evolving approach that is centered on the client. In this clinical focus article, a discussion-based consensus process was used to synthesize authentic longitudinal experiences of people with PPA to explore assessment approaches, tools, and philosophies. RESULTS: This analysis of person-centered assessment identifies seven essential components of assessment in PPA that set the foundation for the five steps of the R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework. These components each contribute to a clear definition of assessment that reveals clients' competencies with a strengths-based focus; prioritizes the reciprocity of benefits; promotes dynamic assessment; and recognizes the complexity, evolution of assessment over time, and advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: This clinical focus article takes a novel look at assessment in PPA by stepping away from assessment practices that focus on revealing deficits and decline and, instead, provides practical recommendations through the conceptualization of a PPA-specific assessment framework. The R.A.I.S.E. Assessment framework is grounded in principles of uplifting clients through person-centered assessment, keeps pace with best practice in PPA intervention, and contributes to a supportive experience for clients and families in the face of a progressive diagnosis over time.

Access, referral, service provision and management of individuals with primary progressive aphasia: A survey of speech-language therapists in Italy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Italy, approximately 650 individuals receive a diagnosis of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) every year. Unfortunately, the frequency with which patients are referred to speech-language services is suboptimal, likely due to skepticism regarding the value of speech-language therapy in the context of neurodegeneration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a virtual survey of speech and language therapists (SLTs) across Italy, to collect information about the assessment, intervention and management of patients with PPA. To ensure that as many SLTs as possible received the survey, the Italian Federation of SLTs (Federazione Logopedisti Italiani, FLI) aided in disseminating the survey. RESULTS: In total, 336 respondents participated in the online survey, 140 of whom had previous experience with PPA patients. Respondents indicated having seen a total of 428 PPA patients in the previous 24 months (three patients on average, range: 0-40). SLTs who reported never working with PPA identified underdiagnoses, low referral rates and the rarity of the clinical syndrome as major reasons for their lack of experience with PPA. SLTs with experience working with PPA indicated that patients may not have accessed services because of service dysfunction and geographical barriers. Respondents reported using informal interviews during assessments and tests developed for post-stroke aphasia, while impairment-based/restitutive interventions were utilised most often. CONCLUSION: Findings may serve to inform health policy organisations regarding the current shortcomings and needed recommendations for improving the care of individuals with PPA in Italy. Improving awareness of the utility of rehabilitation among SLTs and other clinical service providers may serve to facilitate access to intervention, which in turn will serve to better support individuals living with PPA. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Speech and language therapists (SLTs) play a crucial role in the assessment, diagnosis and treatment of people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). However, the frequency with which individuals with PPA are referred for speech and language services is suboptimal due to skepticism regarding the value of speech and language therapy in the context of neurodegeneration, the scarcity of SLTs with expertise in the treatment of PPA and the lack of awareness of the SLT role amongst referrers. What this paper adds to existing knowledge In recognition of the lack of published information on the provision of speech and language therapy services and clinicians' approaches to the assessment and treatment of individuals with PPA in Italy, we conducted an online survey to evaluate the current referral patterns for speech and language therapy services and to examine the current barriers to access these services for individuals with PPA in Italy. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The data presented here support that SLTs view treatment as useful for individuals with PPA and other professional figures and may serve to improve access to intervention, which in turn will serve to better support individuals living with PPA. The results highlight the need to inform health policy organisations about current gaps and aid in developing recommendations for improving the care of individuals with PPA, in order to understand how SLTs can best support individuals with PPA and their families.

Acoustic and Kinematic Assessment of Motor Speech Impairment in Patients With Suspected Four-Repeat Tauopathies.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to use acoustic and kinematic speech measures to characterize type of motor speech impairment-apraxia of speech (AOS) versus dysarthria-in individuals with four-repeat tauopathy (4RT)-associated syndromes, including nonfluent variant primary progressive aphasia (nfvPPA), primary progressive AOS (PPAOS), corticobasal syndrome (CBS), and progressive supranuclear palsy syndrome (PSPs). METHOD: Twenty patient participants were recruited and stratified into two groups: (a) a motor-speech-impaired group of individuals with nfvPPA, PPAOS, CBS, or PSPs and suspected 4RT pathology ("MSI+") and (b) a non-motor-speech-impaired group of individuals with logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia ("MSI-"). Ten healthy, age-matched controls also participated in the study. Participants completed a battery of speech tasks, and 15 acoustic and kinematic speech measures were derived. Quantitative speech measures were grouped into feature categories ("AOS features," "dysarthria features," "shared features"). In addition to quantitative speech measures, two certified speech-language pathologists made independent, blinded auditory-perceptual ratings of motor speech impairment. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to investigate the relative contributions of quantitative features. RESULTS: Quantitative speech measures were generally concordant with independent clinician ratings of motor speech impairment severity. Hypothesis-driven groupings of quantitative measures differentiated predominantly apraxic from predominantly dysarthric presentations within the MSI+ group. PCA results provided additional evidence for differential profiles of motor speech impairment in the MSI+ group; heterogeneity across individuals is explained in large part by varying levels of overall severity-captured by the shared feature variable group-and degree of apraxia severity, as measured by the AOS feature variable group. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative features reveal heterogeneity of MSI in the 4RT group in terms of both overall severity and subtype of MSI. Results suggest the potential for acoustic and kinematic speech assessment methods to inform characterization of motor speech impairment in 4RT-associated syndromes. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21401778.

Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Assessment of Behavior in Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech and Agrammatic Aphasia.

INTRODUCTION: Progressive agrammatic aphasia (PAA) can be associated with abnormal behaviors; however, it is unknown whether behaviors occur and/or are different in patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS). We aimed to compare baseline and longitudinal behavioral symptomatology between PPAOS, patients with PAA, and patients with both apraxia of speech and PAA (AOS-PAA). METHODS: We recruited 89 patients for this study, 40 with PPAOS, 11 with PAA, and 38 with AOS-PAA. Behavioral disturbances were evaluated using the frontal behavior inventory (FBI) which was also split into negative behaviors and disinhibition, and the 20-item behavioral assessment scale (20-BAS). Data analysis was performed using linear regression and linear mixed models. RESULTS: Of the 89 patients in the study, 54% were women and the mean age at onset was 68 years. All patients, regardless of diagnosis, endorsed at least one symptom on the FBI at baseline, most frequently verbal apraxia (100%), logopenia (95.6%), irritability (55.9%), and apathy (42.6%). On the 20-BAS, 47.6% of the patients endorsed at least one symptom, most commonly "crying more easily" (19.5%) and personality change (18.3%). PPAOS was the least behaviorally affected group, with differences between PPAOS and AOS-PAA mainly driven by negative behaviors as opposed to disinhibition for PPAOS and PAA. The behavioral metrics showed average sensitivity and specificity to distinguish between groups. Behavioral disturbances worsened over time although rate of behavioral change across groups was similar. CONCLUSION: Behavioral disturbances are more common and severe in patients with agrammatic aphasia with or without AOS compared to patients with isolated apraxia of speech.

A Brief Digital Cognitive Assessment for Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Cuban Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Rapid technological advances offer a possibility to develop cost-effective digital cognitive assessment tools. However, it is unclear whether these measures are suitable for application in populations from Low and middle-income countries (LMIC). OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy and validity of the Brain Health Assessment (BHA) in detecting cognitive impairment in a Cuban population. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 146 participants (cognitively healthy = 53, mild cognitive impairment (MCI) = 46, dementia = 47) were recruited at primary care and tertiary clinics. The main outcomes included: accuracy of the BHA and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in discriminating between controls and cognitively impaired groups (MCI and dementia) and correlations between the BHA subtests of memory, executive functions, and visuospatial skills and criterion-standard paper-and-pencil tests in the same domains. RESULTS: The BHA had an AUC of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.91-0.98) in discriminating between controls and cognitively impaired groups (MCI and dementia, combined) with 0.91 sensitivity at 0.85 specificity. In discriminating between control and MCI groups only, the BHA tests had an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.99) with 0.71 sensitivity at 0.85 specificity. Performance was superior to the MoCA across all diagnostic groups. Concurrent and discriminant validity analyses showed moderate to strong correlations between the BHA tests and standard paper-and-pencil measures in the same domain and weak correlations with standard measures in unrelated domains. CONCLUSION: The BHA has excellent performance characteristics in detecting cognitive impairment including dementia and MCI in a Hispanic population in Cuba and outperformed the MoCA. These results support potential application of digital cognitive assessment for older adults in LMIC.

Diagnostic Assessment in Primary Progressive Aphasia: An Illustrative Case Example.

Purpose Diagnosis and classification of primary progressive aphasia (PPA) requires confirmation of specific speech and language symptoms, highlighting the important role of speech-language pathologists in the evaluation process. The purpose of this case report is to inform speech-language pathologists regarding current practices for diagnostic assessment in PPA, describing standard approaches as well as complementary, state-of-the-art procedures that may improve diagnostic precision. Method We describe the diagnostic evaluation of a 49-year-old woman with complaints of progressive word-finding difficulty. She completed standard neurological, neuropsychological, and speech-language evaluations, as well as magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography imaging of her brain. In addition, a history of developmental speech, language, and learning abilities was obtained, as well as genetic testing and assessment of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. We discuss the evaluation results in the context of the most current research related to PPA diagnosis. Conclusion Detailed behavioral assessment, thorough intake of symptom history and neurodevelopmental differences, multimodal neuroimaging, and comprehensive examination of genes and biomarkers are of paramount importance for detecting and characterizing PPA, with ramifications for early behavioral and/or pharmacological intervention. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12771113.

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Performance and Domain-Specific Index Scores in Amnestic Versus Aphasic Dementia.

OBJECTIVE: The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a popular and simple-to-administer screening instrument to detect cognitive impairment. The MoCA generates a total score and six domain-specific index scores: (1) Memory, (2) Executive Functioning, (3) Attention, (4) Language, (5) Visuospatial, and (6) Orientation. It is unclear whether these MoCA scores can differentiate between distinct clinical dementia syndromes. This study compared MoCA Index scores between amnestic dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA), a language-based dementia. METHOD: Baseline MoCA data were analyzed from 33 DAT, 37 PPA, and 83 cognitively normal individuals enrolled in the Clinical Core of the Northwestern Alzheimer's Disease Center. A one-way analysis of covariance adjusted for age was used to compare MoCA scores among groups. A logistic regression model was implemented to observe individual likelihood of group affiliation based on MoCA Index scores. RESULTS: The mean MoCA total score was significantly higher in controls compared to both patient groups (p < .001) but did not differ between DAT and PPA groups. However, in accordance with salient clinical features commonly observed in DAT versus PPA, Memory and Orientation Index scores were lowest in the DAT group (p < .001), whereas Language and Attention Index scores were lowest in the PPA group (p < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the individual effects of Memory (p = .001), Language (p = .002), and Orientation (p = .025) Indices were significant. CONCLUSIONS: MoCA Index scores can help differentiate among distinct cognitive syndromes, suggesting it may be a useful brief screening tool to detect domain-specific cognitive impairment.

Clinical Assessment of Characteristics of Apraxia of Speech in Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Purpose We sought to examine interrater reliability in clinical assessment of apraxia of speech (AOS) in individuals with primary progressive aphasia and to identify speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis. Method Fifty-two individuals with primary progressive aphasia were recorded performing a variety of speech tasks. These recordings were viewed by 2 experienced speech-language pathologists, who independently rated them on the presence and severity of AOS as well as 14 associated speech characteristics. We calculated interrater reliability (percent agreement and Cohen's kappa) for these ratings. For each rater, we used stepwise regression to identify speech characteristics significantly predictive of AOS diagnosis. We used the overlap between raters to create a more parsimonious model, which we evaluated with multiple linear regression. Results Results yielded high agreement on the presence (90%) and severity of AOS (weighted Cohen's κ = .834) but lower agreement for specific speech characteristics (weighted Cohen's κ ranging from .036 to .582). Stepwise regression identified 2 speech characteristics predictive of AOS diagnosis for both raters (articulatory groping and increased errors with increased length/complexity). These alone accounted for ≥ 50% of the variance of AOS severity in the constrained model. Conclusions Our study adds to a growing body of research that highlights the difficulty in objective clinical characterization of AOS and perceptual characterization of speech features. It further supports the need for consensus diagnostic criteria with standardized testing tools and for the identification and validation of objective markers of AOS. Additionally, these findings underscore the need for a training protocol if diagnostic tools are to be effective when shared beyond the research teams that develop and test them and disseminated to practicing speech-language pathologists, in order to ensure consistent application.

Speech and language therapy for primary progressive aphasia: Referral patterns and barriers to service provision across the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent of UK speech and language therapy engagement in assessment and management of primary progressive aphasia, determine the factors contributing to any shortfall and explore a gap in the research literature on current speech and language therapy practices with people with primary progressive aphasia. METHODS: A 37-item, pilot-tested survey was distributed electronically via clinical networks and through the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. Survey items included questions on intervention approaches, referral numbers and demographics, referral sources and access to services. RESULTS: One hundred and five speech and language therapists completed the survey. Over the previous 24 months, respondents reported seeing a total of 353 people with primary progressive aphasia (an average of 3.27 per speech and language therapist). Neurologists were the most commonly reported referrers to speech and language therapy (22.5%). Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported that people with primary progressive aphasia experienced barriers to accessing speech and language therapy. Key barriers were a lack of referrer awareness of a speech and language therapist's role, and restrictive eligibility criteria for services. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted inequities in access to speech and language therapy for people with primary progressive aphasia. The medical and speech and language therapy professions need to develop appropriate care pathways for people with primary progressive aphasia. Speech and language therapists have a duty to develop a relevant evidence base for speech and language interventions for people with primary progressive aphasia.

Lost for words: Perspectives and experiences of people with primary progressive aphasia and Alzheimer's disease and their families of participation in a lexical retrieval intervention.

Purpose: Previous qualitative research involving family members' experiences of living with a person with dementia has consistently revealed themes of reduced connectedness and reciprocity of communication, highlighting the importance of education, support and practical strategies to facilitate communication within families. This study aimed to evaluate the perspectives and experiences of both family members and people with dementia following participation in a targeted speech-language pathology intervention involving people with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their family members. Method: Semi-structured interviews of eight people with dementia (six PPA, two AD) and 10 family members were conducted following an intervention to increase lexical retrieval within functional contexts. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Result: Two themes common to participants with dementia and family members emerged: (1) perceived benefits of the intervention and (2) lack of previous information on communication difficulties. Two separate themes emerged for people with dementia, predominantly people with PPA, involving: (1) improved communication and (2) increased participation. Three separate themes emerged for family members: (1) increased awareness and knowledge, (2) increased value of interaction and engagement and (3) uncertainty of the future. Conclusion: The findings of this qualitative study revealed a range of perspectives on the experiences of client and family participants following a communication focussed intervention, examining both the nature of perceived direct gains and gaining insight into the issues faced by these client populations and their families. The provision of individualised information and education should be a fundamental human right for all people with communication impairment with greater attention given to people with progressive conditions where such needs are not currently met.

Quantitative assessment of grammar in amyloid-negative logopenic aphasia.

Logopenic primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) typically results from underlying Alzheimer's disease, but subjects have been reported that do not show beta-amyloid (Aß) deposition. These subjects do not differ on neurological and speech-language testing from Aß-positive lvPPA, but they impressionistically show increased grammatical deficits. We performed a quantitative linguistic analysis of grammatical characteristics in Aß-negative lvPPA compared to Aß-positive lvPPA and agrammatic PPA, which is characterized by increased grammatical difficulties. Aß-negative lvPPA used fewer function words and correct verbs but more syntactic and semantic errors compared to Aß-positive lvPPA. These measures did not differ between Aß-negative lvPPA and agPPA. Both lvPPA cohorts showed a higher mean length of utterance, more complex sentences, and fewer nouns than agPPA. Aß-negative lvPPA subjects appear unique and share linguistic features with both agPPA and Aß-positive lvPPA. Quantitative language analysis in lvPPA may be able to distinguish those with and without Aß deposition.

Assessment of Individuals with Primary Progressive Aphasia.

Speech-language pathologists play a crucial role in the assessment and treatment of individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA). The speech-language evaluation is a critical aspect of the diagnostic and rehabilitative process, informing differential diagnosis as well as intervention planning and monitoring of cognitive-linguistic status over time. The evaluation should include a thorough case history and interview and a detailed assessment of speech-language and cognitive functions, with tasks designed to detect core and associated deficits outlined in current diagnostic criteria. In this paper, we review assessments that can be utilized to examine communication and cognition in PPA, including general aphasia batteries designed for stroke and/or progressive aphasia as well as tests of specific cognitive-linguistic functions, including naming, object/person knowledge, single-word and sentence comprehension, repetition, spontaneous speech/language production, motor speech, written language, and nonlinguistic cognitive domains. The comprehensive evaluation can inform diagnostic decision making and facilitate planning of interventions that are tailored to the patient's current status and likely progression of deficits. As such, the speech-language evaluation allows the medical team to provide individuals with PPA and their families with appropriate recommendations for the present and the future.

Bedside Approach to the Mental Status Assessment.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article presents a clinically useful approach to obtaining the history and performing the mental status examination of patients with cognitive, language, or behavioral problems. RECENT FINDINGS: Laboratory and imaging biomarkers are being developed for accurate diagnosis of neurobehavioral disorders, yet few are currently available for clinical use. Moreover, not all centers have access to these potential tools. Practicing clinicians are therefore left primarily with their skills of history taking and examination. Although geared for research, diagnostic criteria have been refined over the past several years and can nevertheless aid the clinician with the diagnosis of disorders such as mild cognitive impairment, Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies, the primary progressive aphasias, corticobasal syndrome, vascular cognitive impairment, and posterior cortical atrophy. Regularly revised criteria reflect ongoing knowledge gained from in-depth studies of these disorders. SUMMARY: The focused history and mental status examination remain essential tools for the evaluation and diagnosis of neurologic disorders affecting cognition, language, and behavior.

The social and economic burden of frontotemporal degeneration.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the socioeconomic burden of frontotemporal degeneration (FTD) compared to previously published data for Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: A 250-item internet survey was administered to primary caregivers of patients with behavioral-variant FTD (bvFTD), primary progressive aphasia, FTD with motor neuron disease, corticobasal syndrome, or progressive supranuclear palsy. The survey included validated scales for disease staging, behavior, activities of daily living, caregiver burden, and health economics, as well as investigator-designed questions to capture patient and caregiver experience with FTD. RESULTS: The entire survey was completed by 674 of 956 respondents (70.5%). Direct costs (2016 US dollars) equaled $47,916 and indirect costs $71,737, for a total annual per-patient cost of $119,654, nearly 2 times higher than reported costs for AD. Patients ≥65 years of age, with later stages of disease, and with bvFTD correlated with higher direct costs, while patients <65 years of age and men were associated with higher indirect costs. An FTD diagnosis produced a mean decrease in household income from $75,000 to $99,000 12 months before diagnosis to $50,000 to $59,999 12 months after diagnosis, resulting from lost days of work and early departure from the workforce. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of FTD is substantial. Counting productivity-related costs, per-patient costs for FTD appear to be greater than per-patient costs reported for AD. There is a need for biomarkers for accurate and timely diagnosis, effective treatments, and services to reduce this socioeconomic burden.

Qualitative Assessment of Verbal Fluency Performance in Frontotemporal Dementia.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Verbal fluency is impaired in patients with frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA). This study explored qualitative differences in verbal fluency (clustering of words, switching between strategies) between FTD and PPA variants. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD) and 50 with PPA (13 nonfluent/agrammatic, 14 semantic, and 23 logopenic) performed a semantic and letter fluency task. Clustering (number of multiword strings) and switching (number of transitions between clustered and nonclustered words) were recorded by two independent raters. Between-group differences, associations with memory, language, and executive functioning, and longitudinal change (subsample) in clustering and switching were examined. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was high (median 0.98). PPA patients generated (a) smaller (number of) clusters on semantic and letter fluency than bvFTD patients (p < 0.05). Semantic variant patients used more switches than nonfluent/agrammatic or logopenic variant patients (p < 0.05). Clustering in semantic fluency was significantly associated with memory and language (range standardized regression coefficients 0.24-0.38). Switching in letter fluency was associated with executive functioning (0.32-0.35). CONCLUSION: Clustering and switching in verbal fluency differed between patients with subtypes of FTD and PPA. Qualitative aspects of verbal fluency provide additional information on verbal ability and executive control which can be used for clinically diagnostic purposes.

Clinical marker for Alzheimer disease pathology in logopenic primary progressive aphasia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether logopenic features of phonologic loop dysfunction reflect Alzheimer disease (AD) neuropathology in primary progressive aphasia (PPA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of 34 patients with PPA with available autopsy tissue. We compared baseline and longitudinal clinical features in patients with primary AD neuropathology to those with primary non-AD pathologies. We analyzed regional neuroanatomic disease burden in pathology-defined groups using postmortem neuropathologic data. RESULTS: A total of 19/34 patients had primary AD pathology and 15/34 had non-AD pathology (13 frontotemporal lobar degeneration, 2 Lewy body disease). A total of 16/19 (84%) patients with AD had a logopenic spectrum phenotype; 5 met published criteria for the logopenic variant (lvPPA), 8 had additional grammatical or semantic deficits (lvPPA+), and 3 had relatively preserved sentence repetition (lvPPA-). Sentence repetition was impaired in 68% of patients with PPA with AD pathology; forward digit span (DF) was impaired in 90%, substantially higher than in non-AD PPA (33%, p < 0.01). Lexical retrieval difficulty was common in all patients with PPA and did not discriminate between groups. Compared to non-AD, PPA with AD pathology had elevated microscopic neurodegenerative pathology in the superior/midtemporal gyrus, angular gyrus, and midfrontal cortex (p < 0.01). Low DF scores correlated with high microscopic pathologic burden in superior/midtemporal and angular gyri (p ≤ 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Phonologic loop dysfunction is a central feature of AD-associated PPA and specifically correlates with temporoparietal neurodegeneration. Quantitative measures of phonologic loop function, combined with modified clinical lvPPA criteria, may help discriminate AD-associated PPA.

Can MRI Visual Assessment Differentiate the Variants of Primary-Progressive Aphasia?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary-progressive aphasia is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous condition. Nonfluent, semantic, and logopenic are the currently recognized clinical variants. The recommendations for the classification of primary-progressive aphasia have advocated variant-specific patterns of atrophy. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the proposed imaging criteria and to assess the intra- and interrater reporting agreements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The cohort comprised 51 patients with a root diagnosis of primary-progressive aphasia, 25 patients with typical Alzheimer disease, and 26 matched control participants. Group-level analysis (voxel-based morphometry) confirmed the proposed atrophy patterns for the 3 syndromes. The individual T1-weighted anatomic images were reported by 3 senior neuroradiologists. RESULTS: We observed a dichotomized pattern of high sensitivity (92%) and specificity (93%) for the proposed atrophy pattern of semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia and low sensitivity (21% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 43% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) but high specificity (91% for nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia and 95% for logopenic-variant primary-progressive aphasia) in other primary-progressive aphasia variants and Alzheimer disease (sensitivity 43%, specificity 92%). MR imaging was least sensitive for the diagnosis of nonfluent-variant primary-progressive aphasia. Intrarater agreement analysis showed mean κ values above the widely accepted threshold of 0.6 (mean, 0.63 ± 0.16). Pair-wise interobserver agreement outcomes, however, were well below this threshold in 5 of the 6 possible interrater contrasts (mean, 0.41 ± 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While the group-level results were in precise agreement with the recommendations, semantic-variant primary-progressive aphasia was the only subtype for which the proposed recommendations were both sensitive and specific at an individual level.

Neuroeconomic dissociation of semantic dementia and behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia.

Many neuropsychiatric disorders are marked by abnormal behaviour and decision-making, but prevailing diagnostic criteria for such behaviours are typically qualitative and often ambiguous. Behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and semantic variant primary progressive aphasia (also called semantic dementia) are two clinical variants of frontotemporal dementia with overlapping but distinct anatomical substrates known to cause profound changes in decision-making. We investigated whether abnormal decision-making in these syndromes could be more precisely characterized in terms of dissociable abnormalities in patients' subjective evaluations of valence (positive versus negative outcome) and of time (present versus future outcome). We presented 28 patients with behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, 14 patients with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia, 25 patients with Alzheimer's disease (as disease controls), and 61 healthy older control subjects with experimental tasks assaying loss aversion and delay discounting. In general linear models controlling for age, gender, education and Mini-Mental State Examination score, patients with behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia were less averse to losses than control subjects (P < 0.001), while patients with semantic variant primary progressive aphasia discounted delayed rewards more steeply than controls (P = 0.019). There was no relationship between loss aversion and delay discounting across the sample, nor in any of the subgroups. These findings suggest that abnormal behaviours in neurodegenerative disease may result from the disruption of either of two dissociable neural processes for evaluating the outcomes of action. More broadly, these findings suggest a role for computational methods to supplement traditional qualitative characterizations in the differential diagnosis of neuropsychiatric disorders.