Duffy, Joseph R.

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.

AbstractBackgroundGlobular glial tauopathy (GGT) has been associated with frontotemporal dementia syndromes; little is known about the clinical and imaging characteristics of GGT and how they differ from other non‐globular glial 4‐repeat tauopathies (N4GT) such as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) or corticobasal degeneration (CBD).MethodsFor this case–control study the Mayo Clinic brain banks were queried for all cases with an autopsy‐confirmed diagnosis of GGT between 1 January 2011 and 31 October 2021. Fifty patients with N4GT (30 PSP, 20 CBD) were prospectively recruited and followed by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, Minnesota. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to characterize patterns of gray/white matter atrophy, MR‐parkinsonism index, midbrain volume, and white matter hyperintensities.18F‐Fluorodeoxyglucose‐, 11C Pittsburg compound‐, and 18F‐flortaucipir‐positron emission tomography scans were reviewed.ResultsTwelve patients with GGT were identified: 83% were women compared to 42% in NG4T (p = 0.02) with median age at death 76.5 years (range: 55–87). The most frequent clinical features were eye movement abnormalities, parkinsonism, behavioral changes followed by pyramidal tract signs and motor speech abnormalities. Lower motor neuron involvement was present in 17% and distinguished GGT from NG4T (p = 0.035). Primary progressive apraxia of speech was the most frequent initial diagnosis (25%); 50% had a Parkinson‐plus syndrome before death. Most GGT patients had asymmetric frontotemporal atrophy with matching hypometabolism. GGT patients had more gray matter atrophy in temporal lobes, normal MR‐parkinsonism index, and larger midbrain volumes.ConclusionsFemale sex, lower motor neuron involvement in the context of a frontotemporal dementia syndrome, and asymmetric brain atrophy with preserved midbrain might be suggestive of underlying GGT.

Background: The hippocampus and temporal lobe are atrophic in typical amnestic Alzheimer’s disease (tAD) and are used as imaging biomarkers in treatment trials. However, a better understanding of how temporal structures differ across atypical AD phenotypes and relate to cognition is needed. Objective: Our goal was to compare temporal lobe regions between tAD and two atypical AD phenotypes (logopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA)), and assess cognitive associations. Methods: We age and gender-matched 77 tAD participants to 50 LPA and 27 PCA participants, all of which were amyloid-positive. We used linear mixed-effects models to compare FreeSurfer-derived hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness of entorhinal, inferior and middle temporal, and fusiform gyri, and to assess relationships between imaging and memory, naming, and visuospatial function across and within AD phenotype. Results: Hippocampal volume and entorhinal thickness were smaller bilaterally in tAD than LPA and PCA. PCA showed greater right inferior temporal and bilateral fusiform thinning and LPA showed greater left middle and inferior temporal and left fusiform thinning. Atypical AD phenotypes differed with greater right hemisphere thinning in PCA and greater left hemisphere thinning in LPA. Verbal and visual memory related most strongly to hippocampal volume; naming related to left temporal thickness; and visuospatial related to bilateral fusiform thickness. Fewer associations remained when examined within AD group. Conclusion: Atypical AD phenotypes are associated with greater thinning of lateral temporal structures, with relative sparing of medial temporal lobe, compared to tAD. These findings may have implications for future clinical trials in AD.

AbstractA 57‐year‐old man presented with dynamic aphasia with evolving agrammatism and anomia. Additionally, he exhibited emerging atypical parkinsonism and features of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Insights pertinent to this complex clinical presentation are discussed.

Purpose: Functional speech disorders (FSDs), a subtype of functional neurological disorders, are distinguishable from neurogenic motor speech disorders based on their clinical features, clinical course, and response to treatment. However, their differential diagnosis and management can be challenging. FSDs are not well understood, but growing evidence suggests a biopsychosocial basis distinct from structural lesions that cause neurogenic motor speech disorders. Method and Results: Following an overview of FSDs, four patients are described to illustrate the range of clinical manifestations, biopsychosocial contexts, and responses to treatment of FSDs. The path to differential diagnosis is discussed, with particular attention to positive features that led to the FSD diagnosis. Approaches to education, counseling, and management are discussed. Conclusions: This case series demonstrates that FSDs can present with a variety of manifestations including dysfluencies, articulation errors, dysphonia, rate and prosodic abnormalities, and combinations of disruptions in speech subsystems. FSDs may present in the context of known recent or remote physical or psychosocial trauma or, as in many cases, in the absence of an identifiable triggering event. FSDs are recognizable by positive clinical features and should not be considered a diagnosis of exclusion. With appropriate identification, counseling, and treatment, FSDs may resolve, sometimes rapidly; in some cases, treatment may be prolonged or ineffective.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe apolipoprotein ε4 (APOE4) allele is the most common and well established risk factor for typical late‐onset amnestic Alzheimer’s dementia. Less is known about the role of APOE in patients with atypical clinical presentations of AD, with studies often disagreeing on APOE4 frequencies in these cohorts. We aimed to assess relationships between APOE genotype and age, amyloid‐beta (Aβ) deposition and clinical phenotype in Alzheimer’s disease.Method138 atypical AD patients (57 posterior cortical atrophy and 81 logopenic aphasia) were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group at Mayo Clinic, and underwent APOE testing and Pittsburgh Compound B PET. 318 typical AD patients with APOE genotype and known onset age were identified from ADNI (121 had Aβ‐PET). Aβ‐PET was quantified using the centiloid scale. Logistic regression was used to estimate the proportion of APOE4 carriers by onset age and clinical group. Linear regression was used to estimate mean Aβ centiloid by age, APOE4 status, and clinical group in patients who were Aβ‐positive (centiloid≥19).ResultThe overall frequency of APOE4 carriers was lower in atypical AD (52%) compared to typical AD (66%), particularly for ε4ε4 homozygotes (9% vs 20%). APOE4 frequency increased with age in atypical AD, but showed a bell‐shaped curve in typical AD where highest frequencies were observed between 65‐70 years (Figure). Typical AD showed higher APOE4 frequencies than atypical AD only between the ages of 57 and 69 years. Aβ centiloid was higher in atypical AD compared to typical AD by approximately 16 centiloid units, but did not differ according to APOE4 status (Figure). Aβ centiloid stayed relatively flat with increasing age for both carriers and non‐carriers in atypical AD, but declines with increasing age in typical AD. Relationships between APOE4 and age, as well as centiloid, did not differ between the two atypical AD phenotypes.ConclusionAPOE4 frequency differs between atypical and typical AD but is highly dependent upon age, with higher APOE4 frequency in typical AD only observed between 57 and 69 years. The findings highlight the importance of age and clinical phenotype in understanding the effects of APOE genotype in Alzheimer’s disease.