Mario F Mendez1,2,3, Lorena H Monserratt1, Li-Jung Liang4, Diana Chavez1,3, Elvira E Jimenez1,3, Joseph J Maurer4, Megan Laffey3. 1. Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Neurobehavior Unit, V.A. Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The neuropsychological recognition of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be difficult because of non-amnestic variants such as logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the similarities and differences between typical amnestic AD (tAD) and lvPPA and PCA on a screening neuropsychological battery. METHODS: We enrolled 51 patients meeting NIA-AA criteria for biomarker-supported AD (amnestic or non-amnestic) and having an age of onset of <65 years of age. Based on additional recommended clinical criteria for lvPPA and PCA, the early-onset AD patients were divided into three groups (28 tAD, 9 lvPPA, 14 PCA) of comparable age and dementia severity. We then analyzed their profiles on a focused, screening neuropsychological battery for early-onset AD. RESULTS: In addition to greater variance on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the lvPPA and PCA variants had episodic memory impairment that did not significantly differ from the memory impairment in the tAD patients. Despite differences on language and visuospatial tasks, they did not significantly distinguish the lvPPA and PCA from tAD. The lvPPA group, however, was distinguishable by worse performance on measures reflecting working memory (digit span forward, memory registration). CONCLUSIONS: On neuropsychological screening, all clinical early-onset AD subtypes may have memory impairments. Screening batteries for early-onset AD should also include measures of working memory, which is disproportionately decreased in lvPPA.
BACKGROUND: The neuropsychological recognition of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be difficult because of non-amnestic variants such as logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA). OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the similarities and differences between typical amnestic AD (tAD) and lvPPA and PCA on a screening neuropsychological battery. METHODS: We enrolled 51 patients meeting NIA-AA criteria for biomarker-supported AD (amnestic or non-amnestic) and having an age of onset of <65 years of age. Based on additional recommended clinical criteria for lvPPA and PCA, the early-onset ADpatients were divided into three groups (28 tAD, 9 lvPPA, 14 PCA) of comparable age and dementia severity. We then analyzed their profiles on a focused, screening neuropsychological battery for early-onset AD. RESULTS: In addition to greater variance on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the lvPPA and PCA variants had episodic memory impairment that did not significantly differ from the memory impairment in the tADpatients. Despite differences on language and visuospatial tasks, they did not significantly distinguish the lvPPA and PCA from tAD. The lvPPA group, however, was distinguishable by worse performance on measures reflecting working memory (digit span forward, memory registration). CONCLUSIONS: On neuropsychological screening, all clinical early-onset AD subtypes may have memory impairments. Screening batteries for early-onset AD should also include measures of working memory, which is disproportionately decreased in lvPPA.
Authors: Marina Buciuc; Jennifer L Whitwell; Koji Kasanuki; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Mary M Machulda; Joseph R Duffy; Edythe A Strand; Val J Lowe; Neill R Graff-Radford; Beth K Rush; Malgorzata B Franczak; Margaret E Flanagan; Matthew C Baker; Rosa Rademakers; Owen A Ross; Bernardino F Ghetti; Joseph E Parisi; Aditya Raghunathan; R Ross Reichard; Eileen H Bigio; Dennis W Dickson; Keith A Josephs Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2020-12-17 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jennifer Whitwell; Peter R Martin; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Mary Machulda; Irene Sintini; Marina Buciuc; Matthew L Senjem; Christopher G Schwarz; Hugo Botha; Minerva M Carrasquillo; Nilufer Ertekin-Taner; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Keith Anthony Josephs Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Alissa M Butts; Mary M Machulda; Peter Martin; Scott A Przybelski; Joseph R Duffy; Jonathan Graff-Radford; David S Knopman; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Val J Lowe; Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Rep Date: 2022-08-05
Authors: Siddharth Ramanan; Muireann Irish; Karalyn Patterson; James B Rowe; Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini; Matthew A Lambon Ralph Journal: Brain Date: 2022-09-14 Impact factor: 15.255