Clark, Heather M.

Purpose: Prior studies have shown that communication-related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment or objective indices of symptom severity. Although there is a growing body of literature documenting that discrepancies between patients with dementia and their care partners' perception of participation restrictions exist, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions specifically match or diverge from the patients' experiences, which may inform the use of care partner proxy in the context of degenerative diseases. Method: Thirty-eight patients with progressive neurologic conditions (progressive supranuclear palsy, corticobasal syndrome, and primary progressive aphasia or apraxia of speech) and, in most instances, focal cognitive-communication disorders were included. The patients and their accompanying care partners independently completed the Communicative Participation Item Bank, short form, a 10-question survey about communication participation restrictions in different contexts. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's experience. The difference between patient and care partner total scores were calculated and analyzed relative to clinical and demographic variables of interest. Results: Care partner ratings modestly tracked with patient experience and objective indices of symptom severity but did not exactly match patient ratings. The presence of aphasia increased, but did not fully account for, the likelihood of a discrepancy between care partner and patient ratings. Conclusion: Although careful consideration should be given prior to using care-partner report as a proxy for patient experience, it is worthwhile to include care partner ratings as a means of supporting conversations about differing perceptions, guiding joint intervention planning, and monitoring care-partner perceptions of change along with the implementation of supported conversation strategies.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the interrater reliability and validity of the Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale (ASRS-3.5) as an index of the presence and severity of apraxia of speech (AOS) and the prominence of several of its important features. Method: Interrater reliability was assessed for 27 participants. Validity was examined in a cohort of 308 participants (120 with and 188 without progressive AOS) through item analysis; item-Total score correlations; correlations among ASRS Total score and component subscores and independent clinical ratings of AOS, dysarthria and aphasia severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors, as well as years postonset and age; and regression models assessing item and Total score prediction of AOS presence. Results: Interrater reliability was good or excellent for most items and excellent for the Total score. Item and Total score analyses revealed good separation of participants with versus without AOS. Inter-item and item-Total score correlations were generally moderately high as were correlations between the ASRS Total score and independent ratings of AOS severity, intelligibility, and articulatory errors. The Total score was not meaningfully correlated with ratings of aphasia and dysarthria severity, years postonset, or age. Total scores below 7 and above 10 revealed excellent diagnostic sensitivity and specificity for AOS. The presence of eight or more abnormal features was also highly predictive of AOS presence. Conclusions: The ASRS-3.5 is a reliable and valid scale for identifying the presence and severity of AOS and its predominant features. It has excellent sensitivity to AOS presence and excellent specificity relative to aphasia and dysarthria in patients with neurodegenerative disease. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21817584

AbstractPrior studies have shown communication‐related participation restrictions in patients with degenerative disease do not always match clinician judgment of symptom severity. Relatedly, there is a growing body of literature documenting discrepancies between patients with dementia and care partner perception of participation restrictions. However, it is not known how care partner perceptions of communication participation restrictions match or diverge from the patient's experience, which was the topic of this study.Toward that end, 28 patients with apraxia of speech and/or dysarthria associated with primary progressive apraxia of speech, nonfluent/agrammatic primary progressive aphasia, or progressive supranuclear palsy, all types of frontotemporal dementia, were seen for speech‐language examinations. The patients and their care partners were asked to independently complete the Communication Participation Item Bank (CPIB), short form, which is a 10‐question survey about communication in different contexts; higher scores reflect less interference from their condition on communication. Care partners were instructed to complete the form with their perception of the patient's restrictions. The total CPIB score (maximum 30) and difference scores were calculated and visualized.The data (Figure) suggest mismatches exist in care partner and patient ratings of communication participation restrictions. Of 28 patients, only 1 pair had identical scores, each rating severe interference in all communication contexts. 57% of patients rated communication as less impacted (higher scores) compared to their family member, leaving 39% of family members rating communication as less impacted than their loved one's perception. This study lays the foundation for future research to include patient and care partner ratings when examining the benefit of impairment‐based therapy, utilization of compensatory speech strategies, effectiveness of such strategies, and impact of other augmentative or alternative means of communication. The CPIB may be useful to document reduced psychosocial impact of disease and diminished burden and burnout on care partners with different intervention options. Future studies will explore possible differences between FTD phenotypes and, more specifically, whether 1) the motor speech disorder (MSD) disorder is primary or secondary to other motor impairment, 2) the nature or severity of the MSD, or 3) concomitant cognitive‐communication impairment predict the existence of and/or direction of a discrepancy.

Introduction: In the context of Alzheimer’s disease phenotypes, patients may present with symptoms and signs that do not exclusively fit into one of the existing phenotypic categories, which often delays timely diagnosis and initiation of services to optimize patient awareness and coping. Case Report: A 74-year-old woman presented with the complaint of progressive word-finding difficulty, raising our suspicion for primary progressive aphasia. Clinical evaluations, however, also revealed emerging cortical visual deficits consistent with posterior cortical atrophy. During evaluation 1 year later, Gerstmann syndrome was evident. Her in vivo neuroimaging was positive for beta-amyloid and tau biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Conclusion: In addition to contributing to the literature on the heterogeneity of the clinical manifestations of Alzheimer’s disease, this report highlights that a breakdown in the visual-lexical interface can account for anomia in posterior cortical atrophy at least in some cases. Other relevant clinical insights pertinent to this case are discussed.

Abstract Primary four-repeat tauopathies are characterized by depositions of the four-repeat isoform of the microtubule binding protein, tau. The two most common sporadic four-repeat tauopathies are progressive supranuclear palsy and corticobasal degeneration. Because tau PET tracers exhibit poor binding affinity to four-repeat pathology, determining how well in vivo MRI findings relate to underlying pathology is critical to evaluating their utility as surrogate markers to aid in diagnosis and as outcome measures for clinical trials. We studied the relationship of cross-sectional imaging findings, such as MRI volume loss and diffusion tensor imaging white matter tract abnormalities, to tau histopathology in four-repeat tauopathies. Forty-seven patients with antemortem 3 T MRI volumetric and diffusion tensor imaging scans plus post-mortem pathological diagnosis of a four-repeat tauopathy (28 progressive supranuclear palsy; 19 corticobasal degeneration) were included in the study. Tau lesion types (pretangles/neurofibrillary tangles, neuropil threads, coiled bodies, astrocytic lesions) were semiquantitatively graded in disease-specific cortical, subcortical and brainstem regions. Antemortem regional volumes, fractional anisotropy and mean diffusivity were modelled using linear regression with post-mortem tau lesion scores considered separately, based on cellular type (neuronal versus glial), or summed (total tau). Results showed that greater total tau burden was associated with volume loss in the subthalamic nucleus (P = 0.001), midbrain (P < 0.001), substantia nigra (P = 0.03) and red nucleus (P = 0.004), with glial lesions substantially driving the associations. Decreased fractional anisotropy and increased mean diffusivity in the superior cerebellar peduncle correlated with glial tau in the cerebellar dentate (P = 0.04 and P = 0.02, respectively) and red nucleus (P < 0.001 for both). Total tau and glial pathology also correlated with increased mean diffusivity in the midbrain (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). Finally, increased subcortical white matter mean diffusivity was associated with total tau in superior frontal and precentral cortices (each, P = 0.02). Overall, results showed clear relationships between antemortem MRI changes and pathology in four-repeat tauopathies. Our findings show that brain volume could be a useful surrogate marker of tau pathology in subcortical and brainstem regions, whereas white matter integrity could be a useful marker of tau pathology in cortical regions. Our findings also suggested an important role of glial tau lesions in the pathogenesis of neurodegeneration in four-repeat tauopathies. Thus, development of tau PET tracers selectively binding to glial tau lesions could potentially uncover mechanisms of disease progression.

The objective of this study was to characterize network-level changes in nonfluent/agrammatic Primary Progressive Aphasia (agPPA) and Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech (PPAOS) with graph theory (GT) measures derived from scalp electroencephalography (EEG) recordings. EEGs of 15 agPPA and 7 PPAOS patients were collected during relaxed wakefulness with eyes closed (21 electrodes, 10–20 positions, 256 Hz sampling rate, 1–200 Hz bandpass filter). Eight artifact-free, non-overlapping 1024-point epochs were selected. Via Brainwave software, GT weighted connectivity and minimum spanning tree (MST) measures were calculated for theta and upper and lower alpha frequency bands. Differences in GT and MST measures between agPPA and PPAOS were assessed with Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Of greatest interest, Spearman correlations were computed between behavioral and network measures in all frequency bands across all patients. There were no statistically significant differences in GT or MST measures between agPPA and PPAOS. There were significant correlations between several network and behavioral variables. The correlations demonstrate a relationship between reduced global efficiency and clinical symptom severity (e.g., parkinsonism, AOS). This preliminary, exploratory study demonstrates potential for EEG GT measures to quantify network changes associated with degenerative speech–language disorders.

This study compared orofacial muscle strength between normal and dysarthric speakers and across types of dysarthria, and examined correlations between strength and dysarthria severity. Participants included 79 speakers with flaccid, spastic, mixed spastic–flaccid, ataxic, or hypokinetic dysarthria and 33 healthy controls. Maximum pressure generation (Pmax) by the tongue, lips, and cheeks represented strength. Pmax was lower for speakers with mixed spastic–flaccid dysarthria for all tongue and lip measures, as well as for speakers with flaccid or spastic dysarthria for anterior tongue elevation and lip compression. Anterior tongue elevation and cheek compression tended to be lower than normal for the hypokinetic group. Pmax did not differ significantly between controls and speakers with ataxic dysarthria on any measure. Correlations were generally weak between dysarthria severity and orofacial weakness but were stronger in the dysarthria groups with more prominent orofacial weakness. The results generally support predictions that orofacial weakness accompanies flaccid and/or spastic dysarthria but not ataxic dysarthria. The findings support including type of dysarthria as a variable of interest when examining orofacial weakness in motor speech disorders.

AbstractBackgroundIndividuals with Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech (PPAOS) have AOS as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. Past research has shown that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co‐occurring language deficits. Previous studies suggest measures of disease severity do not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients over a one‐year interval, measured by 1) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and 2) the speech‐language pathologist via ASHA's Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted Motor Speech Disorder (MSD) severity rating and determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures (e.g. Western Aphasia Battery‐Revised Aphasia Quotient, Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale‐3).MethodSeventeen patients (10 male) with progressive AOS were seen for a second visit approximately one year following the first visit. The measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at each visit and qualitatively compared.ResultThere were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Comparison of correlations suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures may change over time.ConclusionThe findings of this study support the use of patient reported outcome measures, like the CPIB, as they may better reflect the patient experience and associated changes in day‐to‐day functioning when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease.

AbstractBackgroundThe Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo clinic has followed patients with degenerative speech and/or language disorders for over a decade. In this presentation I will present data from this cohort to inform a broader discussion about the importance of apraxia of speech (AOS) and its subtypes, heterogeneity within the agrammatic PPA variant, and perils of mixed phenotypes.MethodWe reviewed the NRG database to identify patients who initially presented with isolated (PPAOS), AOS in conjunction with agrammatic aphasia (AOS‐PAA), isolated agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and patients who had PAA or AOS overlapping with another degenerative diagnosis. Data from the following clinical instruments were abstracted: WAB AQ (aphasia severity), UPDRS III (parkinsonism), WAB Praxis (ideomotor apraxia), and the MoCA (cognitive ability). We assessed the effect of baseline diagnosis and AOS subtype on these outcomes over time using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. We qualitatively reviewed longitudinal diagnostic trajectories. Preliminary analyses were done on available autopsy data.ResultPAA was associated with greater aphasia at baseline and more rapid decline; PPAOS was associated with normal language at baseline and slow decline; and PAA‐AOS with intermediate baseline aphasia and decline. However, for those with AOS longitudinal decline differed based on AOS subtype: prosodic PPAOS was associated with the slowest decline and phonetic PAA‐AOS with the fastest. Some patients met criteria for non‐PPA disorders during follow up. However, compared to patients who met criteria for these disorders at enrollment, the speech/language‐first patients remained qualitatively distinct, and neither resembled the cases that were mixed at onset. Preliminary autopsy data suggests that AOS is predictive of tau and that the specific tauopathy may be related to the initial syndrome and AOS subtype.ConclusionThe differences between PAA, PAA‐AOS and PPAOS suggest that these disorders should not be lumped. In fact, the longitudinal trajectories are sufficiently different that doing so would add noise to observational and interventional studies. Instead, more detailed phenotyping, including AOS subtype, can aid prognostication and may improve prediction of the underlying pathology. Finally, caution should be exercised when considering PPAOS and PPA patients for other FTLD diagnostic categories.

AbstractBackgroundLogopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) have distinct patterns of hypometabolism and atrophy. However, these clinical syndromes overlap: visuospatial impairment has been documented in LPA and aphasia in PCA. Rey‐Osterrieth Complex Figure – Copy (Rey‐O Copy) performance is correlated with parietal‐occipital atrophy in LPA. We explore visuospatial impairment on the Rey‐O Copy in LPA and PCA with the Mayo Older Americans Normative Studies (MOANS; which uses Meyers & Meyers criteria) and the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS). We also examine the proportion of visuospatial impairment in LPA, an under‐appreciated phenomenon, compared to PCA wherein it is fundamental.MethodPatients with LPA (n=25) or PCA (n=23) were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group. Patients underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing (including Rey‐O Copy) at baseline visit. Cut‐offs of T‐score=40 (BQSS) or scaled score=7 (MOANS) were used based on normative data. Proportions of patients with low performance were examined across LPA and PCA groups. Individual logistic regressions and AUROC analyses were then conducted to quantify differences in visuospatial impairment in LPA and PCA with both scoring systems. Identical analyses were conducted using raw scores corrected for age and sex, to avoid confounds of adjustments in normative data.ResultLPA and PCA groups were comparable on age, sex, and disease duration (LPA Median = 2.7 years, IQR=1.9‐3.5; PCA Median = 3.6 years, IQR=1.5‐4.9); p=.823). Surprisingly, 52‐72% of LPA participants demonstrated impaired performance across scoring systems, relative to 96% of the PCA group identified by both scoring systems. Odds ratios (OR) for the Rey‐O Copy MOANS (OR = 1.59; p=.008) and BQSS Copy Presence and Accuracy index (CPA; OR = 1.13, p=.002) were significant, persisting for age‐ and sex‐ controlled raw scores, suggesting the odds of a PCA diagnosis increased with decrement on Rey‐O Copy. AUROC values ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 across these indices.ConclusionA substantial number of LPA participants showed visuospatial impairment, despite initial primary language complaints. Differentiation of diagnostic groups by the Rey‐O is likely underscored by relatively uniform, profound, visuospatial impairment in PCA with more variability in LPA. However, the degree of visuospatial impairment overlaps remarkably across diagnoses.