Kane, Joseph

Abstract BACKGROUND We sought to characterize the cognitive profile among individuals with mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI‐LB) to help guide future clinical criteria. METHODS Systematic review and meta‐analysis included MCI‐LB studies with cognitive data from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO (January 1990 to March 2023). MCI‐LB scores were compared to controls, MCI due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI‐AD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) groups with random‐effects models. RESULTS We included 26 studies and 2823 participants. Across all domains, the MCI‐LB group performed worse than controls and better than DLB. Compared to MCI‐AD, the MCI‐LB group performed worse in attention/processing speed ( g = –0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –0.35, –0.12), attention/executive ( g = –0.42, 95% CI: –0.56, –0.28); better in verbal immediate recall ( g = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.59) and delayed memory ( g = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.22, 0.58). DISCUSSION The cognitive profiles in MCI‐LB and MCI‐AD are consistent with established profiles in DLB and AD. Neuropsychological assessment may be helpful in differential diagnosis, even in early disease states. Highlights We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis for cognition in mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI‐LB). Compared to MCI due to Alzheimer's disease (MCI‐AD), MCI‐LB had worse attention, executive function, and processing speed. Compared to MCI‐AD, MCI‐LB had better verbal immediate and delayed recall. The MCI‐LB group was worse on all cognitive domains than controls, and better than dementia with Lewy bodies. Studies used different tests and there is a need for global efforts for harmonization.

AbstractBackgroundProdromal dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) research criteria were recently published and further work is needed to characterize the neuropsychological profile and refine clinical criteria. We performed a meta‐analysis to compare the cognitive performance of mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI‐LB) groups to controls, MCI due to Alzheimer’s disease (MCI‐AD), and DLB.MethodFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched the literature for 1) English‐language studies on MCI‐LB; 2) published January 1990‐March 2023, 3) with ≥1 standardized cognitive measure; and 4) comparison data from controls, MCI‐AD, and/or DLB. Pooled means with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for demographics. Effect sizes were calculated for group comparisons on cognitive domains. Random effects meta‐analysis models were used for group comparisons.ResultThere were 3440 participants from 27 studies across 10 countries. Mean age did not differ between groups. The percentage of female subjects was lower in the MCI‐LB group than the MCI‐AD group. Mean years of education for the MCI‐LB group was lower than the controls, but similar to MCI‐AD and DLB groups (Table 1). Compared to controls, the MCI‐LB group had lower scores for the global screening, executive function, visuospatial, language, learning, and memory domains. Compared to MCI‐AD, MCI‐LB performed better on learning and delayed recall, but similarly across other domains. Compared to DLB, MCI‐LB had better scores for global screening, executive function, language, and delayed recall (Table 2). Recognition for MCI‐LB vs. MCI‐AD; visuospatial, learning, and recognition for MCI‐LB vs. DLB could not be assessed, as fewer than 3 studies reported this data.ConclusionCognitive measures can help differentiate MCI‐LB from controls and DLB. Neuropsychological measures of learning and memory may be required to discriminate MCI‐LB from MCI‐AD in clinical practice but global screening measure scores appear insufficient in this regard. High heterogeneity across MCI‐LB studies highlights the need for harmonized neuropsychological research protocols.

AbstractBackgroundNo specific clinical rating scale currently exists for Lewy body dementia (LBD). Clinical rating scales developed for other diseases are therefore used instead for LBD clinical trials. However, these scales are not optimized for LBD and may not sufficiently reflect the complex array of LBD‐related phenomenology, making it more difficult to interpret outcome data from LBD clinical trials.MethodA working group comprised of 14 members bridging various international LBD‐focused research groups was convened to develop the first iteration of the LBD‐DRS with a focus on inclusion of key LBD related symptom domains, ensuring that any scale is mapped to regulatory expectations, and an emphasis on being patient‐centered. This draft was then subsequently presented to a broader stakeholder group (»50 participants) at the International Lewy body Dementia Conference in June 2022 for further feedback, leading to a further iteration of the scale.ResultThe LBD‐DRS has been designed to capture ratings of the frequency and severity of symptoms across the key domains relevant to LBD – cognitive, neuropsychiatric, motor, autonomic and sleep – as well as the functional impact and perceived burden of symptoms for patients and their care partners. An international Delphi exercise is now planned with many LBD‐relevant stakeholders, which will be coupled with workgroup engagement (for example, with patient‐caregiver groups) to further develop the scale with the resulting final draft anticipated for pilot use in the near future.ConclusionsIn this presentation we will elaborate on the development of the scale, key areas that it will cover as well as challenge points and next steps. Upon completion of the development and refinement of the LBD‐DRS, we propose that this scale will have utility as valid and LBD specific outcome measure in LBD clinical trials.

AbstractIntroductionOperationalized research criteria for mild cognitive impairment with Lewy bodies (MCI‐LB) were published in 2020. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to review the evidence for the diagnostic clinical features and biomarkers in MCI‐LB set out in the criteria.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase were searched on 9/28/22 for relevant articles. Articles were included if they presented original data reporting the rates of diagnostic features in MCI‐LB.ResultsFifty‐seven articles were included. The meta‐analysis supported the inclusion of the current clinical features in the diagnostic criteria. Evidence for striatal dopaminergic imaging and meta‐iodobenzylguanidine cardiac scintigraphy, though limited, supports their inclusion. Quantitative electroencephalogram (EEG) and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) show promise as diagnostic biomarkers.DiscussionThe available evidence largely supports the current diagnostic criteria for MCI‐LB. Further evidence will help refine the diagnostic criteria and understand how best to apply them in clinical practice and research.Highlights A meta‐analysis of the diagnostic features of MCI‐LB was carried out. The four core clinical features were more common in MCI‐LB than MCI‐AD/stable MCI. Neuropsychiatric and autonomic features were also more common in MCI‐LB. More evidence is needed for the proposed biomarkers. FDG‐PET and quantitative EEG show promise as diagnostic biomarkers in MCI‐LB.

Abstract Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is clinically defined by the presence of visual hallucinations, fluctuations, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavioral disorder, and parkinsonism. Neuropathologically, it is characterized by the presence of Lewy pathology. However, neuropathological studies have demonstrated the high prevalence of coexistent Alzheimer's disease, TAR DNA‐binding protein 43 (TDP‐43), and cerebrovascular pathologic cases. Due to their high prevalence and clinical impact on DLB individuals, clinical trials should account for these co‐pathologies in their design and selection and the interpretation of biomarkers values and outcomes. Here we discuss the frequency of the different co‐pathologies in DLB and their cross‐sectional and longitudinal clinical impact. We then evaluate the utility and possible applications of disease‐specific and disease‐nonspecific biomarkers and how co‐pathologies can impact these biomarkers. We propose a framework for integrating multi‐modal biomarker fingerprints and step‐wise selection and assessment of DLB individuals for clinical trials, monitoring target engagement, and interpreting outcomes in the setting of co‐pathologies.

Abstract Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) research has seen a significant growth in international collaboration over the last three decades. However, researchers face a challenge in identifying large and diverse samples capable of powering longitudinal studies and clinical trials. The DLB research community has begun to focus efforts on supporting the development and harmonization of consortia, while also continuing to forge networks within which data and findings can be shared. This article describes the current state of DLB research collaborations on each continent. We discuss several established DLB cohorts, many of whom have adopted a common framework, and identify emerging collaborative initiatives that hold the potential to expand DLB networks and diversify research cohorts. Our findings identify geographical areas into which the global DLB networks should seek to expand, and we propose strategies, such as the creation of data‐sharing platforms and the harmonization of protocols, which may further potentiate international collaboration.