How Do Standing Neutral, Supine Lateral, Standing Flexion, and Standing Extension Radiographs Compare in Detecting the Presence and Magnitude of Stable and Dynamic Spondylolisthesis?

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend standing radiographs as the most appropriate imaging for detecting degenerative spondylolisthesis, although reliable evidence about the standing position is absent. To our knowledge, no studies have compared different radiographic views and pairings to detect the presence and magnitude of stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the percentage of new patients presenting with back or leg pain with stable (3 mm or greater listhesis on standing radiographs) and dynamic (3 mm or greater listhesis difference on standing-supine radiographs) spondylolisthesis? (2) What is the difference in the magnitude of spondylolisthesis between standing and supine radiographs? (3) What is the difference in the magnitude of dynamic translation among flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine radiographic pairs? METHODS: This cross-sectional, diagnostic study was performed at an urban, academic institution between September 2010 and July 2016; 579 patients 40 years or older received a standard radiographic three-view series (standing AP, standing lateral, and supine lateral radiographs) at a new patient visit. Of those individuals, 89% (518 of 579) did not have any of the following: history of spinal surgery, evidence of vertebral fracture, scoliosis greater than 30°, or poor image quality. In the absence of a reliable diagnosis of dynamic spondylolisthesis using this three-view series, patients may have had flexion and extension radiographs, and approximately 6% (31 of 518) had flexion and extension radiographs. A total of 53% (272 of 518) of patients were female, and the patients had a mean age of 60 ± 11 years. Listhesis distance (in mm) was measured by two raters as displacement of the posterior surface of the superior vertebral body in relation to the posterior surface of the inferior vertebral body from L1 to S1; interrater and intrarater reliability, assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients, was 0.91 and 0.86 to 0.95, respectively. The percentage of patients with and the magnitude of stable spondylolisthesis was estimated on and compared between standing neutral and supine lateral radiographs. The ability of common pairs of radiographs (flexion-extension, standing-supine, and flexion-supine) to detect dynamic spondylolisthesis was assessed. No single radiographic view or pair was considered the gold standard because stable or dynamic listhesis on any radiographic view is often considered positive in clinical practice. RESULTS: Among 518 patients, the percentage of patients with spondylolisthesis was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%) on standing radiographs alone, and the percentage of patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis was 11% (95% CI 8% to 13%) on the standing-supine pair. Standing radiographs detected greater listhesis than supine radiographs did (6.5 ± 3.9 mm versus 4.9 ± 3.8 mm, difference 1.7 mm [95% CI 1.2 to 2.1 mm]; p < 0.001). Among 31 patients, no single radiographic pairing identified all patients with dynamic spondylolisthesis. The listhesis difference detected between flexion-extension was no different from the listhesis difference detected between standing-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.0 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.2 mm [95% CI -0.5 to 1.0 mm]; p = 0.53) and flexion-supine (1.8 ± 1.7 mm versus 2.5 ± 2.2 mm, difference 0.7 mm [95% CI 0.0 to 1.5]; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: This study supports current clinical guidelines that lateral radiographs should be obtained with patients in the standing position, because all cases of stable spondylolisthesis of 3 mm or greater were detected on standing radiographs alone. Each radiographic pair did not detect different magnitudes of listhesis, and no single pair detected all cases of dynamic spondylolisthesis. Clinical concern for dynamic spondylolisthesis may justify standing neutral, supine lateral, standing flexion, and standing extension views. Future studies could identify and evaluate a set of radiographic views that provides the greatest capacity to diagnose stable and dynamic spondylolisthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Estimating prevalence of early Alzheimer's disease in the United States, accounting for racial and ethnic diversity.

INTRODUCTION: Updated estimates of the US Alzheimer's disease (AD) population, including under-represented populations, are needed to improve clinical trial diversity. METHODS: A step-wise approach calculating prevalent numbers from clinical syndrome to biomarker-positive mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD and mild AD was developed, using age-and-race/ethnicity-stratified data where available. RESULTS: The estimated percentage of Americans aged ≥ 65 years with MCI due to AD was 9.2% of non-Hispanic Whites, 13.6% of non-Hispanic Blacks, 11.1% Hispanics, and 9.7% other race/ethnicities. The estimated percentage of Americans aged ≥ 65 years with mild dementia due to AD among non-Hispanic Whites was 3.7%, non-Hispanic Blacks 7.0%, Hispanics 5.3%, and 3.9% other race/ethnicities. Of these early-stage AD cases, few are likely diagnosed, ranging from 13% of prevalent non-Hispanic Black cases to 27% of non-Hispanic White cases. DISCUSSION: Under-representation in clinical trials may be improved by setting recruitment goals reflecting the diversity of the AD patient population and supporting efforts toward timely diagnosis.

Severity Distribution of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in the Framingham Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies providing Alzheimer's disease (AD) prevalence data have largely neglected to characterize the proportion of AD that is mild, moderate, or severe. Estimates of the severity distribution along the AD continuum, including the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) stage, are important to plan research and allocate future resources, particularly resources targeted at particular stages of disease. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the distribution of severity of AD dementia and MCI among prevalent cases in the population-based Framingham Heart Study. METHODS: Participants (aged 50-94) with prevalent MCI or AD dementia clinical syndrome were cross-sectionally selected from three time-windows of the population-based Framingham Heart Study in 2004-2005 (n = 381), 2006-2007 (n = 422), and 2008-2009 (n = 389). Summary estimates of the severity distribution were achieved by pooling results across time-windows. Diagnosis and severity were assessed by consensus dementia review. MCI-progressive was determined if the participant had documented progression to AD dementia clinical syndrome using longitudinal data. RESULTS: Among AD dementia participants, the pooled percentages were 50.4%for mild, 30.3%for moderate, and 19.3%for severe. Among all MCI and AD participants, the pooled percentages were 29.5%, 19.6%, 25.7%, and 45.2%for MCI-not-progressive, MCI-progressive, mild AD dementia, and the combined group of MCI-progressive and mild AD dementia, respectively. Distributions by age and sex were presented. CONCLUSION: The finding that half of the people living with AD have mild disease underscores the need for research and interventions to slow decline or prevent progression of this burdensome disease.

The incidence of mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and data synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Incidence estimates of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) range widely. We obtained contemporary age-specific MCI incidence rates and examined sources of heterogeneity. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of population-based studies from the Americas, Europe, and Australia using restrictive inclusion criteria to limit heterogeneity. Incidence was examined using 5-year age categories for MCI and amnestic/nonamnestic subtypes. Data were synthesized using quantitative and qualitative descriptive analyses and quantitative meta-analyses. RESULTS: Meta-analysis estimates (95% CI) of MCI incidence per 1000 person-years were 22.5 (5.1-51.4) for ages 75-79y, 40.9 (7.7-97.5) for ages 80-84y, and 60.1 (6.7-159.0) for ages 85+y. Despite restrictive inclusion criteria, considerable heterogeneity (measured by I2) remained. Meta-analysis findings and simple descriptive statistics were consistent and supported by qualitative review. DISCUSSION: Heterogeneity in MCI incidence estimates persisted across age-specific estimates from population samples, likely reflecting differences in populations and methods. Incidence rate ranges are important to consider with summary point estimates.