Citations

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) manifests prior to the age of 65, and affects 4%–8% of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The current analyses sought to examine longitudinal cognitive trajectories of participants with early‐onset dementia. METHODS Data from 307 cognitively normal (CN) volunteer participants and those with amyloid‐positive EOAD or amyloid‐negative cognitive impairment (EOnonAD) were compared. Cognitive trajectories across a comprehensive cognitive battery spanning 42 months were examined using mixed‐effects modeling. RESULTS The EOAD group displayed worse cognition at baseline relative to EOnonAD and CN groups, and more aggressive declines in cognition over time. The largest effects were observed on measures of executive functioning domains, while memory declines were blunted in EOAD. DISCUSSION EOAD declined 2–4× faster than EOnonAD, and EOAD pathology is not restricted to memory networks. Early identification of deficits is critical to ensure that individuals with sporadic EOAD can be considered for treatment using disease‐modifying medications. Highlights Represents the most comprehensive longitudinal characterization of sporadic EOAD to date. The trajectory of cognitive declines was steep for EOAD participants and worse than for other groups. Executive functioning measures exhibited the greatest declines over time in EOAD.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) share similar amyloid etiology, but evidence from smaller‐scale studies suggests that they manifest differently clinically. Current analyses sought to contrast the cognitive profiles of EOAD and LOAD. METHODS Z‐ score cognitive‐domain composites for 311 amyloid‐positive sporadic EOAD and 314 amyloid‐positive LOAD participants were calculated from baseline data from age‐appropriate control cohorts. Z‐ score composites were compared between AD groups for each domain. RESULTS After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD displayed worse visuospatial, executive functioning, and processing speed/attention skills relative to LOAD, and LOAD displayed worse language, episodic immediate memory, and episodic delayed memory. DISCUSSION Sporadic EOAD possesses distinct cognitive profiles relative to LOAD. Clinicians should be alert for non‐amnestic impairments in younger patients to ensure proper identification and intervention using disease‐modifying treatments. Highlights Both early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants displayed widespread cognitive impairments relative to their same‐aged peers. Cognitive impairments were more severe for EOAD than for LOAD participants in visuospatial and executive domains. Memory and language impairments were more severe for LOAD than for EOAD participants Results were comparable after removing clinical phenotypes of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), primary progressive aphasia (lv‐PPA), and frontal‐variant AD.

Background Hispanic patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. To better understand the factors that impact clinical trial participation, we surveyed patients with NHL receiving care at an academic institution on their perspectives on clinical trials, barriers to care, and helpful aids to encourage clinical trial participation. Here we report the findings of the Hispanic patients and non-Hispanic white patients; accrual is ongoing for other cohorts of patients. Methods Consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically confirmed NHL who received care at MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas were invited to participate regardless of treatment status. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess patient sociodemographic factors, perceptions and willingness to participate in different clinical trial scenarios as well as participant perceived barriers to care and facilitators of trial participation. The questionnaire included a total of 53 items with an additional 13 demographic items. The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Results Of the 1204 patients invited, 316 consented to participate and 285 ultimately completed the survey (participation rate 23.7%). Among the total participants, this cohort included 100 self-identified Hispanic (H) participants and 103 non-Hispanic white (NHW) participants diagnosed with NHL who completed the survey and were included here. The histology of our cohort included Follicular Lymphoma (FL) [35.6%]; Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [18.2%], Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [18.7%], T-cell Lymphoma (TCL) [9.4%] Marginal Zone Lymphoma [7.8%]. Compared with NHW participants, Hispanic patients were younger (Median age of 60 vs 66 years), less likely to be male (H 54% vs NHW 66%), less likely to commute more than an hour away from the doctor's office (54% vs 71.8%), had lower household income (income > $100,000 was 32% vs 41.7%) and less likely to have a bachelors' degree or higher (38% vs 50.5%). There were similar prevalence histologies such as DLBCL (H 20% vs NHW 16.5%) and FL (H 36% vs NHW 35%) compared to rarer histologies such as MCL (H 11.1% vs NHW 26.2%) and MZL (H 12% vs NHW 3.9% ) which had disproportional prevalences. Hispanic patients were less likely to have previously participated in a clinical trial (28% vs 51.5%) and less likely to have discussed clinical trials as an option (49% vs 70.9%). A majority of Hispanic (81.0%) and NHW (92.3%) respondents stated that they understood what was meant by a “clinical research study” or “clinical trial” somewhat well or very well. Less than half of Hispanic participants (38.0%) and NHW participants (48.5%) reported being very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial as their initial course of treatment. The most prevalent concern of both Hispanic and NHW participants respectively was the cost of a clinical trial (34.0%, 22.3%). Other top concerns included distance to the treatment center (32.0%, 13.6%) and frequency of contact with the care team (26.0%, 14.6%). Participants identified access to written materials (69.0%, 60.2%), insurance aid (65.0%, 68.0%), and access to videos (64.0%, 51.5%) as extremely helpful resources that could reduce the burden of participating in a clinical trial. Participants identified that it was most important that a treatment may improve their quality of life by decreasing pain level, increasing activity level, or other symptoms (76.0%, 91.3%). Conclusions Although most Hispanic and NHW participants reported a very good understanding of clinical trials and similar facilitators/barriers for trial participation, Hispanic patients were less likely to have discussed trials as an option with their care teams and less likely to have previously participated in a trial. Evidence-based interventions to address various barriers to clinical trials exist but data on their effectiveness and application is limited. Implementing strategically designed evidence-based interventions to address identified barriers and facilitators will be necessary to improve participation in lymphoma clinical trials.

Purpose: Speakers with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) have an insidious onset of motor speech planning/programming difficulties. As the disease progresses, the apraxia of speech (AOS) becomes more severe and a co-occurring dysarthria often emerges. Here, longitudinal data from speakers with phonetic- and prosodic-predominant PPAOS are used to characterize the progression of their motor speech impairment, including the development of dysarthria and mutism. Method: Data are presented from 52 speakers who had PPAOS at enrollment (i.e., progressive AOS in the absence of aphasia, cognitive, or other neurologic symptoms). Twenty-one had predominantly phonetic features, whereas 31 had primarily prosodic features. All participants underwent a comprehensive motor speech evaluation at their enrollment visit and each annual return visit, with a median of three visits per participant. Results: Almost 25% of the speakers with PPAOS presented with dysarthria at their enrollment visit (median disease duration of 3.65 years), whereas more than 70% of them had developed dysarthria by their last visit (median disease duration of 6.85 years). Neither the likelihood to develop dysarthria nor the disease duration at which it was detected differed significantly between the phonetic and prosodic groups. However, muteness emerged sooner for speakers with phonetic-predominant PPAOS; the median disease duration at which they became mute was 1.5 years shorter than for their prosodic counterparts. Conclusions: Clinically, these results facilitate more accurate prognostication of motor speech symptoms in speakers with PPAOS, allowing for timely introduction of alternative means of communication. The results also support the differentiation between progressive AOS and dysarthria as distinct motor speech disorders that often co-occur in these individuals.

Purpose: This case report aims to raise awareness among health care professionals and students that acute onset Wernicke's aphasia could be misinterpreted as delirium. In such a context, a patient's psychological/emotional reactions (e.g., agitation, anger) to aphasia associated communication breakdowns can be mismanaged as primary psychiatric concerns. Conclusion: Preliminary suggestions for relevant clinical practice are offered.

AbstractThis critical review summarizes the current state of omics‐based biomarkers in the alcohol research field. We first provide definitions and background information on alcohol and alcohol use disorder (AUD), biomarkers, and “omic” technologies. We next summarize using (1) genetic information as risk/prognostic biomarkers for the onset of alcohol‐related problems and the progression from regular drinking to problematic drinking (including AUD), (2) epigenetic information as diagnostic biomarkers for AUD and risk biomarkers for alcohol consumption, (3) transcriptomic information as diagnostic biomarkers for AUD, risk biomarkers for alcohol consumption, and (4) metabolomic information as diagnostic biomarkers for AUD, risk biomarkers for alcohol consumption, and predictive biomarkers for response to acamprosate in subjects with AUD. In the final section, the clinical implications of the findings are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research.

Abstract BACKGROUND Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) carries a poor prognosis with a median survival of less than 12 months. Histone mutation, K27M, and AKT pathway dysregulation play key roles in tumorigenesis. There is no curative treatment with radiation therapy, which currently remains the standard treatment. METHODS This is a phase I study of vorinostat and temsirolimus in newly diagnosed (stratum 1) and progressive (stratum 2) DIPG. The primary aims are to determine the safety, maximum tolerated dose, and toxicities (NCT02420613). Stratum 1 received radiation concurrently with vorinostat, followed by vorinostat and temsirolimus for up to 10 cycles. Stratum 2 received vorinostat and temsirolimus for up to 12 cycles. In stratum 1, vorinostat was administered daily at 230 mg/m2. The maintenance phase (both strata) included concurrent vorinostat 230 mg/m2 daily and temsirolimus 25 or 35 mg/m2 (Days 1 and 8). RESULTS Six patients were enrolled, three in each stratum. Three of the six patients had confirmed H3 K27M mutations. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed, and most adverse effects were limited to grades 1 or 2, including fatigue, nausea, vomiting, myelosuppression, hyperlipidemia, hyperglycemia, elevated liver enzymes, and creatinine. However, one patient experienced grade 3 leukopenia. Two of the three patients in stratum 1 showed evidence of radiographic response after the chemoradiation phase, of whom one patient had progression-free survival of 12 months and completed the 10 maintenance cycles. All patients at stratum 2 had disease progression with no radiographic response. CONCLUSION Overall, the combination of temsirolimus and vorinostat is well tolerated and safe, prompting the need for larger studies to investigate its efficacy. Due to the small number of patients, the study’s findings are limited, and trends in efficacy should be interpreted with caution.