Citations

AbstractBackgroundLittle is known about sleep in those with a history of contact sports, who are at increased risk for neurodegenerative disease(s). Sleep disruption and disorders are increasingly recognized as having a bidirectional relationship with Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology. Here, we investigated self‐reported sleep disruption and disorders in male former college and professional American football players.Method116 former National Football League (NFL) players, 60 former college football players, and 60 asymptomatic men without a history of traumatic brain injury or repetitive head impacts (controls), all between 45‐74 years, completed the Mayo Sleep Questionnaire (MSQ) which includes the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). Former American football players were enrolled across the spectrum of symptom severity (asymptomatic to mild dementia). Using binary logistic regression or analysis of covariance, comparisons (controlling for age, racial identity, body mass index, APOE e4 status) on each of the MSQ items and the ESS were made between each of the study groups.ResultCompared to controls, former NFL players were more likely to restless legs (OR = 7.32, 95% CI = 1.63‐32.97*), sleepwalking (OR = 8.65, 95% CI = 1.08‐69.22*), observed apnea (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.04‐4.85*), lower alertness levels (marginal mean diff. = 0.90**) and had higher ESS (marginal mean diff. = 2.37**). Former college football players reported greater sleep disturbances compared with controls: restless legs (OR = 10.82, 95% CI = 1.86‐62.89**), sleepwalking (OR = 10.45, 95% CI = 1.12‐97.58*), alertness levels (marginal mean diff. = 1.48**) and ESS (marginal mean diff. = 2.76*). There were no college vs control differences for observed apnea. There were no differences between former NFL players and former college football players on any sleep metric. **p<.005, *p<.05.ConclusionSleep disturbances may be an important factor to investigate in those with a history of participation in American football.

AbstractBackgroundRepetitive head impacts from American football have been associated with long‐term cognitive symptoms. The late neuropsychological profiles of this population is not well‐characterized. Research has relied on retrospective informant reports and/or has been small samples of former professional players. We describe objective neuropsychological test performance in former college and professional American football players.MethodsMale (45‐74 years) former National Football League (n=107) and college football players (n=59) from the DIAGNOSE‐CTE Research Project completed a neuropsychological test battery, Functional Activities Questionnaire (FAQ) and Quick Dementia Rating Scale (QDRS). Neuropsychological test scores were converted to T‐scores using age, sex, and/or education‐adjusted normative data. T‐scores<35 defined impairment. Participants were enrolled across the spectrum of symptom severity (asymptomatic to dementia). Individuals without decisional capacity were excluded. Participants with missing data (n=4) and who scored <45 on Test of Memory Malingering Trial 2 (n=10) were excluded.Results108 (65.1%) identified as White and 53 (31.9%) as Black. Mean education years was 16.76 (SD=1.48). Fourteen (8.4%) and 6 (3.6%) reported diagnostic history of ADHD and learning disability, respectively. Average Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 24.96 (SD=3.17); 85 (51.2%) scored <26. Impairment rates were highest for learning and episodic memory. On Neuropsychological Assessment Battery List Learning, 29.5% were impaired on Immediate recall, 36.1% on Short Delay, and 44.0% on Long Delay Recall. Impairment rates for Craft Story Immediate and Delayed Recall (Paraphrase) were 15.7% and 18.7%, respectively. 19.9% and 15.7% were impaired on learning and delayed recall of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test‐Revised. Impairments were frequent on the Multilingual Naming Test (20.5%), Trail Making Test Parts B (19.3%) and A (18.1%), Animal Fluency (15.7%), and Number Span Backward (15.1%). Impairments were less common (<10%) for phonemic fluency, planning, basic attention, and visual‐perceptual abilities, Mean FAQ was 3.11 (SD=5.14); 23 (13.9%) had an FAQ >9. Based on QDRS scores, 66 (39.8%) had mild cognitive impairment, 44 (26.5%) mild dementia, and 6 (3.6%) moderate dementia.ConclusionsIn these former American football players, neuropsychological impairments were most frequent in episodic memory, followed by confrontation naming and executive function. Further research is needed to delineate this population’s unique neuropsychological profile.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough parkinsonism is a core feature of Parkinson’s Disease Dementia (PDD) and Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), its evolution is less delineated. We aimed to assess differences in severity and progression of parkinsonian motor symptoms and signs in a community autopsy cohort with clinicopathologic diagnosis of DLB, PDD or Alzheimer’s Disease (AD).MethodData included were from 194 participants in the Arizona study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders with clinicopathologic diagnosis of DLB (n=48), PDD (n=98) (±AD co‐pathology) or pure AD (n=48), and at least two movement exams performed by movement disorders subspecialists who classified PD and parkinsonism according to MDS‐UPDRS criteria. DLB was subgrouped by presence or absence of parkinsonism at final exam (DLB+Park and DLB–Park). Between group trajectory of UPDRS‐II and UPDRS‐III scores were explored using piecewise‐linear and non‐linear MMRM multivariate analysis.ResultOver 1435 participant‐years of longitudinal data were included in the analyses (Figure 1). Mean±SD age at baseline movement exam and death were 76.0±7.5 and 83.4±6.8 years, respectively. At baseline, most participants did not have dementia or substantial motor abnormalities (except motor abnormalities in PDD). DLB (73.9%) and PDD (69.2%) groups had more males than AD (33.3%). Parkinsonism was present in 65.6% of DLB at last exam. Piecewise‐linear MMRM analysis showed baseline UPDRS‐II and UPDRS‐III scores were highest (p<0.001) for PDD (mean±SE: 14.3±0.78 and 27.4±1.64), followed by DLB+Park (5.0±1.05 and 17.4±3.10), DLB‐Park (3.7±2.54 and 3.8±1.35) and AD (3.2±0.88 and 8.0±1.94). Annual rate of increase in UPDRS‐II was greatest for DLB+Park (1.44±0.20) and PDD (1.04±0.08), followed by DLB‐Park (0.89±0.18) and AD (0.30±0.11). Annual rate of increase in UPDRS‐III was highest for PDD and DLB+Park (2.12±0.20 vs 2.64±0.42), followed by DLB‐Park and AD (1.31 ± 0.38 and 0.64 ± 0.22). Preliminary non‐linear MMRM models (Figure 2) further supported substantial between group/subgroup differences in motor trajectories, and progression in DLB‐Park.ConclusionThese preliminary results in a large, well‐characterized clinicopathological community‐based autopsy cohort support that DLB+Park experience comparable, or greater, parkinsonian motor progression to PDD. Future modeling/sensitivity analyses will better delineate expected trajectories of motor progression to add prognostication value in clinic and design of DLB clinical trials.

AbstractBackground and purposeSeveral clinical and demographic factors relate to anatomic spread of adult‐onset isolated dystonia, but a predictive model is still lacking. The aims of this study were: (i) to develop and validate a predictive model of anatomic spread of adult‐onset isolated dystonia; and (ii) to evaluate whether presence of tremor associated with dystonia influences model predictions of spread.MethodsAdult‐onset isolated dystonia participants with focal onset from the Dystonia Coalition Natural History Project database were included. We developed two prediction models, one with dystonia as sole disease manifestation (“dystonia‐only”) and one accepting dystonia OR tremor in any body part as disease manifestations (“dystonia OR tremor”). Demographic and clinical predictors were selected based on previous evidence, clinical plausibility of association with spread, or both. We used logistic regressions and evaluated model discrimination and calibration. Internal validation was carried out based on bootstrapping.ResultsBoth predictive models showed an area under the curve of 0.65 (95% confidence intervals 0.62–0.70 and 0.62–0.69, respectively) and good calibration after internal validation. In both models, onset of dystonia in body regions other than the neck, older age, depression and history of neck trauma were predictors of spread.ConclusionsThis predictive modeling of spread in adult‐onset isolated dystonia based on accessible predictors (demographic and clinical) can be easily implemented to inform individuals’ risk of spread. Because tremor did not influence prediction of spread, our results support the argument that tremor is a part of the dystonia syndrome, and not an independent or coincidental disorder.

Abstract Background : Non‐motor symptoms are well established phenotypic components of adult‐onset idiopathic, isolated, focal cervical dystonia (AOIFCD). However, improved understanding of their clinical heterogeneity is needed to better target therapeutic intervention. Here, we examine non‐motor phenotypic features to identify possible AOIFCD subgroups. Methods : Participants diagnosed with AOIFCD were recruited via specialist neurology clinics (dystonia wales: n = 114, dystonia coalition: n = 183). Non‐motor assessment included psychiatric symptoms, pain, sleep disturbance, and quality of life, assessed using self‐completed questionnaires or face‐to‐face assessment. Both cohorts were analyzed independently using Cluster, and Bayesian multiple mixed model phenotype analyses to investigate the relationship between non‐motor symptoms and determine evidence of phenotypic subgroups. Results : Independent cluster analysis of the two cohorts suggests two predominant phenotypic subgroups, one consisting of approximately a third of participants in both cohorts, experiencing increased levels of depression, anxiety, sleep impairment, and pain catastrophizing, as well as, decreased quality of life. The Bayesian approach reinforced this with the primary axis, which explained the majority of the variance, in each cohort being associated with psychiatric symptomology, and also sleep impairment and pain catastrophizing in the Dystonia Wales cohort. Conclusions : Non‐motor symptoms accompanying AOIFCD parse into two predominant phenotypic sub‐groups, with differences in psychiatric symptoms, pain catastrophizing, sleep quality, and quality of life. Improved understanding of these symptom groups will enable better targeted pathophysiological investigation and future therapeutic intervention.

Objective: To understand the patient and caregiver experience with the management of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) Background: nOH is a sustained reduction in blood pressure (BP) with postural change associated with autonomic dysfunction. Clinical symptoms may include falls, leading to activity limits and a diminished sense of well-being. Methods: A US-based survey designed by the authors was conducted by Harris Poll. Eligible participants had Parkinson disease (PD), multiple system atrophy, or pure autonomic failure and ≥1 of the following: orthostatic hypotension (OH), nOH, low BP, OH/nOH symptoms, or were caregivers of eligible patients. Descriptive statistics are reported. Results: PD was the most frequent underlying diagnosis (Table 1) . Healthcare provider (HCP) communication with patients was rated as satisfactory by ≥75% of respondents, yet when nOH symptoms were first discussed with the HCP, only 35% of patients and 31% of caregivers reported the patient received guidance on management. The most frequently recommended interventions are listed in Table 1 ; 25% of patients reported that no interventions were recommended. Medication prescribed to treat nOH was reported by 34% of patients and 45% of caregivers. Among patients treated, 79% of patients and 71% of caregivers said that the patient’s symptoms were somewhat to very well managed. Conclusions: Survey findings suggest the need for increased awareness of nOH and engagement with patients and caregivers regarding symptom management. A variety of interventions were recommended; no single treatment approach was noted. Respondents felt nOH symptoms were at least somewhat well managed with treatment.

Objective: To understand the burden and impact of symptoms of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) on patients Background: nOH and its symptoms such as dizziness/lightheadedness are common in patients with Parkinson disease (PD) and other forms of autonomic dysfunction. Methods: An author-designed, US-based survey was conducted by Harris Poll. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years with PD, multiple system atrophy (MSA), or pure autonomic failure and ≥1 of the following: orthostatic hypotension, nOH, low BP, OH/nOH symptoms, or were caregivers of eligible patients. Results: Most patients (90%) had a diagnosis of PD, and most caregivers (88%) cared for a patient with PD (Table 1) . Patients (34%) and caregivers (49%) reported experiencing nOH symptoms before PD or MSA motor symptoms and >40% indicated that nOH symptoms were more troublesome than motor manifestations of PD or MSA. Less than a quarter (22%) of respondents suggested symptoms were most severe in the morning; more (30%) reported a consistent severity throughout the day. Patients (40%) and caregivers (63%) reported trouble managing symptoms during the day. In the past 12 months, a fall due to nOH symptoms was reported by 57% of patients and 80% of caregivers. Conclusions: These findings suggest that nOH symptoms may predate the onset of motor symptoms in neurodegenerative conditions linked to alpha-synuclein pathology. Many respondents report nOH symptoms are the same severity through the day. Patients with nOH may have trouble managing symptoms and note an increased risk for falls.

Objective: To understand the challenges to diagnosis in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) Background: nOH is a sustained reduction in blood pressure (BP) with postural change associated with autonomic dysfunction. Despite symptoms of nOH, many patients struggle to find an accurate diagnosis. Methods: An online, US-based survey designed by the authors was conducted by Harris Poll. Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, or pure autonomic failure and ≥1 of the following: orthostatic hypotension (OH), nOH, low BP, OH/nOH symptoms, or were caregivers of eligible participants. Results: The survey included 363 patients and 128 caregivers. Groups were separate, where caregivers were not the caregivers to patient responders. Respondents indicated that patients experienced nOH symptoms long term (Table 1) . Most patients (69%) and caregivers (59%) reported discussing nOH symptoms with a healthcare provider (HCP) within the first year of symptom onset, but only 36% of patients and 16% of caregivers reported a formal diagnosis of OH or nOH. Of those with a formal diagnosis, the majority of patients (50%) were frustrated by the path to diagnosis and more than 40% of patients and caregivers reported that the patient saw ≥3 HCPs before diagnosis. After diagnosis, most patients (70%) and caregivers (60%) reported improved symptom management. Conclusions: This survey reveals that patients and caregivers may find the path to nOH diagnosis challenging and suggests increased awareness among HCPs is needed. Once a diagnosis is made nOH symptoms are better managed.

Recent reports have suggested a high prevalence of olfactory bulb synucleinopathy in Lewy body disorders but there have been no estimates of the sensitivity or specificity of this as a diagnostic test. We performed α‐synuclein immunostaining on paraffin‐embedded sections of olfactory bulb from a series of neuropathologically‐diagnosed subjects from the Sun Health Research Institute Brain Donation Program/Arizona Parkinson's Disease Consortium. Included in the series were 76 normal elderly individuals, 8 subjects with incidental Lewy body disease (ILBD), 63 with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 79 with dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Sections were stained with a sensitive method employing pretreatment with proteinase K. The ratios of positive to negative olfactory bulb staining for each diagnostic category were: normal 5/71; ILBD 8/0; PD 57/6; DLB 74/5. An α‐synuclein‐positive olfactory bulb has 92% sensitivity and 93% specificity for the diagnosis of PD versus normal while for DLB it is 94% and 93%, respectively. As all 8 cases of ILBD had a positive olfactory bulb it appears that olfactory bulb synucleinopathy may also be a reliable marker of presymptomatic Lewy body disorders. Supported by the AZ Dept. of Health Services, NIA P30 AG19610 and the Prescott Family Initiative of the Michael J. Fox Foundation.