| 311. |
- Norberg, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Regional differences in effects of APOE ε4 on cognitive impairment in non-demented subjects
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders. - : S. Karger AG. - 1421-9824 .- 1420-8008. ; 32:2, s. 135-142
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- <i>Background:</i> The <i>APOE</i> ε4 allele is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). <i>APOE</i> ε4 is common in non-demented subjects with cognitive impairment. In both healthy people and people with AD, its prevalence has a north-south gradient across Europe. In the present study, we investigated whether the relation between the <i>APOE</i> ε4 allele and cognitive impairment varied across Northern, Middle and Southern Europe. We also investigated whether a north-south gradient existed in subjects with subjective cognitive impairment (SCI), amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and non-amnestic MCI. <i>Methods:</i> Data from 16 centers across Europe were analyzed. <i>Results:</i> A north-south gradient in <i>APOE</i> ε4 prevalence existed in the total sample (62.7% for <i>APOE</i> ε4 carriers in the northern region, 42.1% in the middle region, and 31.5% in the southern region) and in subjects with SCI and amnestic MCI separately. Only in Middle Europe was the <i>APOE</i> ε4 allele significantly associated with poor performance on tests of delayed recall and learning, as well as with the amnestic subtype of MCI. <i>Conclusion:</i> The <i>APOE</i> ε4 allele frequencies in subjects with SCI and amnestic MCI have a north-south gradient. The relation between the <i>APOE</i> ε4 allele and cognition is region dependent.
|
|
| 312. |
|
|
| 313. |
|
|
| 314. |
|
|
| 315. |
- Peakman, G, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of clinical rating scales in genetic frontotemporal dementia within the GENFI cohort
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry. - : BMJ. - 1468-330X .- 0022-3050. ; 93:2, s. 158-168
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Therapeutic trials are now underway in genetic forms of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) but clinical outcome measures are limited. The two most commonly used measures, the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)+National Alzheimer’s Disease Coordinating Center (NACC) Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) and the FTD Rating Scale (FRS), have yet to be compared in detail in the genetic forms of FTD.MethodsThe CDR+NACC FTLD and FRS were assessed cross-sectionally in 725 consecutively recruited participants from the Genetic FTD Initiative: 457 mutation carriers (77 microtubule-associated protein tau (MAPT), 187 GRN, 193 C9orf72) and 268 family members without mutations (non-carrier control group). 231 mutation carriers (51 MAPT, 92 GRN, 88 C9orf72) and 145 non-carriers had available longitudinal data at a follow-up time point.ResultsCross-sectionally, the mean FRS score was lower in all genetic groups compared with controls: GRN mutation carriers mean 83.4 (SD 27.0), MAPT mutation carriers 78.2 (28.8), C9orf72 mutation carriers 71.0 (34.0), controls 96.2 (7.7), p<0.001 for all comparisons, while the mean CDR+NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes was significantly higher in all genetic groups: GRN mutation carriers mean 2.6 (5.2), MAPT mutation carriers 3.2 (5.6), C9orf72 mutation carriers 4.2 (6.2), controls 0.2 (0.6), p<0.001 for all comparisons. Mean FRS score decreased and CDR+NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes increased with increasing disease severity within each individual genetic group. FRS and CDR+NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes scores were strongly negatively correlated across all mutation carriers (rs=−0.77, p<0.001) and within each genetic group (rs=−0.67 to −0.81, p<0.001 in each group). Nonetheless, discrepancies in disease staging were seen between the scales, and with each scale and clinician-judged symptomatic status. Longitudinally, annualised change in both FRS and CDR+NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes scores initially increased with disease severity level before decreasing in those with the most severe disease: controls −0.1 (6.0) for FRS, −0.1 (0.4) for CDR+NACC FTLD Sum of Boxes, asymptomatic mutation carriers −0.5 (8.2), 0.2 (0.9), prodromal disease −2.3 (9.9), 0.6 (2.7), mild disease −10.2 (18.6), 3.0 (4.1), moderate disease −9.6 (16.6), 4.4 (4.0), severe disease −2.7 (8.3), 1.7 (3.3). Sample sizes were calculated for a trial of prodromal mutation carriers: over 180 participants per arm would be needed to detect a moderate sized effect (30%) for both outcome measures, with sample sizes lower for the FRS.ConclusionsBoth the FRS and CDR+NACC FTLD measure disease severity in genetic FTD mutation carriers throughout the timeline of their disease, although the FRS may be preferable as an outcome measure. However, neither address a number of key symptoms in the FTD spectrum, for example, motor and neuropsychiatric deficits, which future scales will need to incorporate.
|
|
| 316. |
- Pelak, Victoria S., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus recommendations for clinical assessment tools for the diagnosis of posterior cortical atrophy syndrome from the Atypical AD PIA of ISTAART
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's and Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment and Disease Monitoring. - 2352-8729. ; 15:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: Delay in diagnosis of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) syndrome is common, and the lack of familiarity with assessment tools for identifying visual cortical dysfunction is a contributing factor. We propose recommendations for the approach to the evaluation of PCA clinical features during the office visit, the neuropsychological evaluation, and the research setting. A recommended screening battery for eye clinics is also proposed. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using results from a web-based survey of members of Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART) Atypical Alzheimer's Disease Professional Interest Area (PIA), literature review, and consensus by the PCA assessment working party of the Atypical Alzheimer's Disease PIA. RESULTS: Survey results revealed robust agreement for assessment tool preferences for PCA features, and many respondents indicated that they reserve assessment tools for use only when PCA is suspected. For some PCA features, curated tools were preferred over validated battery tools, particularly for the office visit. Consensus recommendations superseded survey preferences for two core cognitive features within the 2017 PCA diagnostic criteria. DISCUSSION: These consensus recommendations provide an evaluation framework for PCA clinical features and can facilitate timely and accurate recognition and diagnosis of PCA. Broader use of these tools should be sought, and development and validation of novel PCA clinical outcome assessments are needed to improve our understanding of atypical AD and other dementias and support the inclusion of those with PCA in treatment trials.
|
|
| 317. |
|
|
| 318. |
|
|
| 319. |
|
|
| 320. |
|
|
