BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed parkinsonian motor features across variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Our objective was to compare degree of parkinsonian motor features between two PPA variants. METHODS: Parkinsonian motor features were assessed with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale in prospectively recruited PPA subjects, classified based on recently published criteria. Comparisons across groups were performed with Fisher's exact test for binary data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. RESULTS: Twenty-three PPA subjects were diagnosed with logopenic (n = 11) or nonfluent/agrammatic (n = 12) aphasia. There were no significant differences in illness duration (agrammatic = 3.4 years; logopenic = 3.3 years) or age at onset (nonfluent/agrammatic = 67.3; logopenic = 62.0), but those with logopenic aphasia were more impaired on mini-mental state examination (21.7/30 points vs. 26.1/30; p = 0.04). In contrast, those with logopenic aphasia had fewer parkinsonian motor features than those with agrammatic aphasia (5.7/132 vs. 16.8/132; p = 0.003) which was driven by bradykinesia (p = 0.02) and speech facial/expression (p = 0.04); less so rigidity (p = 0.06). Dysarthria was more frequent in the nonfluent/agrammatic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Nonfluent/agrammatic subjects have more parkinsonian motor features than logopenic subjects, likely reflecting underlying tau pathology in the agrammatic variant.
BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed parkinsonian motor features across variants of primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Our objective was to compare degree of parkinsonian motor features between two PPA variants. METHODS:Parkinsonian motor features were assessed with the unified Parkinson's disease rating scale in prospectively recruited PPA subjects, classified based on recently published criteria. Comparisons across groups were performed with Fisher's exact test for binary data and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous data. RESULTS: Twenty-three PPA subjects were diagnosed with logopenic (n = 11) or nonfluent/agrammatic (n = 12) aphasia. There were no significant differences in illness duration (agrammatic = 3.4 years; logopenic = 3.3 years) or age at onset (nonfluent/agrammatic = 67.3; logopenic = 62.0), but those with logopenic aphasia were more impaired on mini-mental state examination (21.7/30 points vs. 26.1/30; p = 0.04). In contrast, those with logopenic aphasia had fewer parkinsonian motor features than those with agrammatic aphasia (5.7/132 vs. 16.8/132; p = 0.003) which was driven by bradykinesia (p = 0.02) and speech facial/expression (p = 0.04); less so rigidity (p = 0.06). Dysarthria was more frequent in the nonfluent/agrammatic subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Nonfluent/agrammatic subjects have more parkinsonian motor features than logopenic subjects, likely reflecting underlying tau pathology in the agrammatic variant.
Authors: Naomi Kouri; Melissa E Murray; Anhar Hassan; Rosa Rademakers; Ryan J Uitti; Bradley F Boeve; Neill R Graff-Radford; Zbigniew K Wszolek; Irene Litvan; Keith A Josephs; Dennis W Dickson Journal: Brain Date: 2011-09-20 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: M L Gorno-Tempini; A E Hillis; S Weintraub; A Kertesz; M Mendez; S F Cappa; J M Ogar; J D Rohrer; S Black; B F Boeve; F Manes; N F Dronkers; R Vandenberghe; K Rascovsky; K Patterson; B L Miller; D S Knopman; J R Hodges; M M Mesulam; M Grossman Journal: Neurology Date: 2011-02-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Naomi Kouri; Jennifer L Whitwell; Keith A Josephs; Rosa Rademakers; Dennis W Dickson Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Keith A Josephs; Joseph R Duffy; Edyth A Strand; Jennifer L Whitwell; Kenneth F Layton; Joseph E Parisi; Mary F Hauser; Robert J Witte; Bradley F Boeve; David S Knopman; Dennis W Dickson; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Brain Date: 2006-04-13 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Nina F Dronkers; Katherine P Rankin; Jennifer M Ogar; La Phengrasamy; Howard J Rosen; Julene K Johnson; Michael W Weiner; Bruce L Miller Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jennifer L Whitwell; Joseph R Duffy; Mary M Machulda; Heather M Clark; Edythe A Strand; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Anthony J Spychalla; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs Journal: Cortex Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 4.027
Authors: Katerina A Tetzloff; Joseph R Duffy; Heather M Clark; Edythe A Strand; Mary M Machulda; Christopher G Schwarz; Matthew L Senjem; Robert I Reid; Anthony J Spychalla; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: Brain Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Boon Lead Tee; Li Ying Lorinda Kwan-Chen; Ta-Fu Chen; Connie T Y Yan; Joshua Tsoh; Andrew Lung-Tat Chan; Adrian Wong; Raymond Y Lo; Chien Long Lu; Pei-Ning Wang; YiChen Lee; Fanpei G Yang; Giovanni Battistella; Isabel Elaine Allen; Nina F Dronkers; Bruce L Miller; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Na-Yeon Jung; Kee Hyung Park; Sang Won Seo; Hee Jin Kim; Jee Hoon Roh; Jae-Hong Lee; Kyung Won Park; Jay C Kwon; Jee Hyang Jeong; Soo Jin Yoon; Byeong C Kim; Young Ho Park; SangYun Kim; Jae-Won Jang; Young Chul Youn; Dong Won Yang; Seong Hye Choi; Duk L Na; Eun-Joo Kim Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Charles R Marshall; Chris J D Hardy; Anna Volkmer; Lucy L Russell; Rebecca L Bond; Phillip D Fletcher; Camilla N Clark; Catherine J Mummery; Jonathan M Schott; Martin N Rossor; Nick C Fox; Sebastian J Crutch; Jonathan D Rohrer; Jason D Warren Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Aitana Sogorb-Esteve; Imogen J Swift; Ione O C Woollacott; Jason D Warren; Henrik Zetterberg; Jonathan D Rohrer Journal: J Neuroinflammation Date: 2021-10-03 Impact factor: 8.322