Citations

AbstractBackgroundRapidly progressive dementia (RPD) is variably defined across published cohorts. A standardized definition is needed to support multicenter studies required to inform the causes of RPD and optimize recognition and management of treatment‐responsive causes. An optimal definition will capture the broad spectrum of causes of RPD, adequately differentiate patients with rapid and typically progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease, and be reliably implemented across healthcare settings and centers.MethodThe Clinical Dementia Rating® (CDR) is a validated dementia staging tool that is widely used in clinical trials and observational studies. We applied the CDR to diagnose RPD in patients who developed dementia (CDR ≥1) within 1 year or incapacitation (CDR ≥2) within 2 years of symptom onset. This definition was prospectively applied to patients with suspected RPD at Mayo Clinic in Florida (MCF: Jacksonville, FL; Jan 2020 – Oct 2023) and Washington University in St. Louis (WU: Saint Louis, MO; Jun 2016 – Dec 2019), and retrospectively applied to individuals within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC) dataset. Criteria performance was compared across cohorts.ResultTwo‐hundred twenty‐six patients were referred with suspected RPD at MCF‐WU. Of these, 155/226 (68.6%) met our proposed RPD criteria, including patients with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD; 34/155, 21.9%), Creutzfeldt Jacob disease (CJD; 25/155, 16.1%), autoimmune encephalitis (52/155, 33.5%), vascular pathologies (14/155, 9.0%), toxic/metabolic disruptions (7/155, 4.5%) and primary psychiatric disorders (4/155, 2.6%). A small subset of NACC participants met our proposed RPD criteria (836/20,418; 0.04%), emphasizing the unique nature of RPD. Causes of RPD in NACC included ADRD (676/836, 80.1%), CJD (72/836, 8.6%), and vascular pathologies (24/836, 2.9%). Rates of progression (∆CDR sum‐of‐boxes/year) clearly distinguished patients with RPD from non‐RPD in both cohorts (MCF‐WU, 13.6±5.8 vs 4.7±5.9, p<0.001; NACC, 6.7±3.1 vs. 1.7±1.4, p<0.001).ConclusionOur CDR‐based definition of RPD distinguished patients with a broad spectrum of causes of RPD from those with typically progressive dementia across multiple cohorts. Broad application of this criteria would standardize diagnosis of RPD and support the design and implementation of multicenter studies RPD.

AbstractBackgroundEffect and Safety of Electroconvulsive Therapy plus Usual Care for the Acute Management of Severe Agitation in Dementia (ECT‐AD) is a multi‐site NIA‐funded FDA‐regulated pioneering clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in treating severe and treatment‐refractory agitation and aggression among individuals with advanced dementia, a condition that has a profound negative impact on patient quality of life and caregiver burden. Here we present baseline demographics of the patient population in this ongoing trial.MethodTo date we have enrolled 18 participants, with a mean age of 74.1 years, where majority are male (61.1%). The racial composition is predominantly White (94.4%), with Asian representation (5.6%, 1/18), and with 11.1% (2/18) identifying as Hispanic or Latino. Dementia subtypes in our cohort include Alzheimer’s disease (AD, 77.8%), vascular dementia (VaD, 16.7%, 3/18), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD, 5.6%, 1/18).ResultBaseline assessments reveal severe cognitive and functional impairment, as indicated by a mean Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 4.0, Barthel Index (BI) score of 52.2, and SIB‐8 score of 2.9, all consistent with advanced stages of dementia. High mean total scores on the Cohen‐Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI, 75.8), Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) agitation (15.1) and aggression (9.2) scales, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS, 7.8), reflect the severe levels of agitation and aggression in our participants.ConclusionThese baseline demographic and clinical data underscore the profound impact of advanced dementia, highlighting the need for innovative treatment approaches like ECT. The ECT‐AD trial offers a critical step towards understanding and improving the management of agitation in dementia, with implications that could enhance current clinical care practices.

AbstractBackgroundDiscussion surrounding the nomenclature of the “nonfluent/agrammatic” spectrum of progressive speech‐language disorders has largely focused on the clinical‐pathological and neuroimaging correlations, with some attention paid to the prognostication afforded by differentiating clinical phenotypes. Progressive apraxia of speech (AOS), with or without agrammatic aphasia, is generally associated with an underlying tauopathy; however, patients have offered a unique perspective on the importance of distinguishing between difficulties with speech and language that extends beyond pathological specificity. This study aimed to provide insight into the experience of patients with primary progressive AOS (PPAOS), with particular attention to their diagnostic journey.MethodA qualitative research approach was used. Structured interviews were conducted with three prosodic and one phonetic predominant PPAOS patients, judged representative of our research cohort, who were previously received other diagnoses, including primary progressive aphasia (PPA). A current PPAOS diagnosis and willingness to discuss the details of their diagnostic workup and reflect upon their experience were the inclusion criteria. One patient preferred to provide written responses. Each interview was reviewed, and the collective contents were examined using thematic analysis.ResultThe primary themes were identity, community, and planning. Patients expressed: 1) the importance of the alignment of AOS with their difficulties, specifically that they had no difficulty with thinking of words or with comprehension (i.e., no aphasia); 2) not sharing attributes with PPA patients and their observed clinical presentations; and 3) the desire to capitalize upon their retained skills for treatment, for example “I intend to retain my ‘voice’ even as I lose my speaking ability.”ConclusionUnderstanding the experiences of PPAOS patients may inform future iterations of progressive speech‐language spectrum diagnostic criteria and the consistency of their use, along with intervention recommendations. The specificity of a PPAOS diagnosis is meaningful to patients as it relates to their identity, sense of community, and approach to future planning. Further work will evaluate the experience of patients with a broader spectrum of progressive speech‐language disorders along with their care partners. More work is underway to outline the predictive value of an AOS diagnosis, relative to co‐occurring aphasia severity, to inform better prognostication.

AbstractWith the approval of disease modifying treatments for Alzheimer’s Disease, the practice of dementia care and treatment has changed. Amyloid related imaging changes, are the most common adverse effects of these types of drugs. There is limited guidance across multiple specialties on how to recognize and manage these changes in a dementia patient population. The use of these types of drugs for treatment, impacts multiple stakeholders regarding how they manage and treat dementia patients. ns. Thus the use of these types of drugs, involve multiple stakeholders with different perspectives on how they perceive their role in care and overall treatment plans. In order to optimize collaborative care in the ED setting, recognizing how ARIA may present in a patient who seeks care in the ED, and what types of treatment options are available are needed.

AbstractAging adults worldwide are presenting to the emergency department with acute and subacute illness and injury confounded by often unrecognized cognitive impairment, including dementia and delirium. Conveying medical information and weighing various diagnostic and therapeutic approaches during times of emergency is difficult for all aging adults. In adult ED populations without dementia, communication is imperfect with incomplete recollection of test results, presumptive diagnoses, prescriptions, and follow‐up recommendations. Communication strategies striving to improve ED nurse/physician‐to‐patient information exchange such as TeachBack are ineffective in non‐dementia populations and untested in subsets with dementia or their care partners. Increasingly, healthcare disparities associated with dementia detection and interventions are acknowledged. For example, limited health literacy is one source of disparity, interacts with the severity of dementia, is one communication barrier, and yet is not routinely evaluated in ED settings. Shared Decision Making is an evolving approach to engage patients and families in complex medical conversations, but emergency medicine shared decision making research often excludes individuals with dementia by design. This session will explore theoretical opportunities to improve medical decision‐making during times of emergency for persons living with dementia and their care partners.

AbstractBackgroundSubjective cognitive concerns are common in functionally intact adults, potentially indicating future cognitive decline. Remote smartphone cognitive testing holds promise for objectively tracking cognition in individuals reporting complaints. In our initial exploration of the link between subjective cognitive complaints and digital clinical outcomes, we examined participants' self‐reported cognitive complaints' association with smartphone tests on memory and executive functioning.MethodsParticipants, without self‐reported MCI or dementia, were recruited from the UCSF Brain Healthy Registry (BHR) to complete cognitive tasks on their personal smartphone with the ALLFTD Mobile App. Participants also completed the 12‐item Everyday Cognition Screening Tool (ECog‐12), assessing subjective cognitive impairment, online as part of BHR. Average ECog‐12 scores, including Memory and Executive Functioning subdomains, were calculated. Correlations between scores from online ECog‐12 scores and app‐based smartphone tasks were examined. Regression analyses, adjusting for age, education, and sex, were performed to evaluate the relationship between ECog‐12 and smartphone tasks (Stroop & Flanker) measuring executive function and memory.ResultsOut of 2,283 invited BHR participants, 456 (mean age: 64.6 years (SD = 11.8) and education: 16.3 years (SD = 2.4)) completed smartphone tasks (81.1% completion rate). Age was negatively associated with executive functioning and memory tasks (ß’s = ‐0.51 to ‐0.54, p’s<0.05), while higher education correlated with better performance (ß’s = 0.10‐0.14, p’s<0.05). Sex was not significantly associated with performance on any task (ß’s = ‐0.04 to 0.09, p’s>0.05). Subjective cognitive concerns were linked to tasks of executive functioning (Stroop: ß = ‐0.18, p = 0.002) and memory (ß = ‐0.14, p = 0.02). Endorsement of executive functioning items on ECog‐12 associated with Stroop performance (ß = ‐0.16, p = 0.005), and memory‐specific complaints were related to memory performance (ß = ‐0.1, p = 0.09). The relationship with flanker scores was not significant (ß = ‐0.08, p = 0.17). Similar patterns emerged with the online ECog‐12; online and app‐based scores are strongly correlated (ß = 0.75, p<0.05).ConclusionsIn this cognitively intact sample, subjective cognitive concerns were linked to poorer performance on ALLFTD Mobile App tasks assessing executive functioning and memory. These findings suggest that unsupervised remote smartphone testing merits further consideration to monitor cognition in individuals with subjective cognitive concerns. Subsequent studies in deeply phenotyped cohorts with follow‐up assessments are essential for understanding the clinical relevance of these results.

AbstractBackgroundSelf‐administered cognitive assessments demonstrate usability and ability to detect cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease, but usability in other neurodegenerative diseases is understudied. We investigated whether Mayo Test Drive (MTD), a self‐administered multi‐device compatible cognitive assessment platform, demonstrates usability and correlation with traditional neuropsychological tests in a pilot study of individuals with progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP).MethodEleven individuals with PSP (mean age = 69.6±7.2 years; mean education = 15.3±2.7 years; 72.7% male; 90.9% white; PSP Rating Scale [PSPRS] = 32.4±15.5) enrolled in a Neurodegenerative Research Group study at Mayo Clinic participated. Participants completed neurological evaluation, traditional neuropsychological assessment, in‐person self‐administered MTD comprised of the Stricker Learning Span and Symbols Test, and a MTD usability questionnaire with quantitative and qualitative questions. Participants received diagnoses of PSP clinical variants per Movement Disorders Society‐PSP criteria. Seven participants had PSP‐Richardson, two had PSP‐postural instability, and two had PSP‐parkinsonism. We used descriptive analyses to examine usability questions, qualitative analyses for free text responses, and Spearman correlations to analyze associations between MTD and traditional tests of global cognition and five cognitive domains.ResultTen of eleven patients completed MTD (average completion time [minutes] = 22.2±6.5). Study staff terminated one participant’s session early due to an appointment conflict; we excluded this participant from analyses. Six participants completed MTD with tablets and four used smartphones. Participants reported high ease completing MTD (9.00±1.76 on 0‐10 scale) and comfortability using their devices (9.40±1.58). All participants reported they could complete MTD independently, with one participant indicating need for assistance with hyperlinks and three reporting need for assistance with QR codes. Qualitative data suggested three participants had motoric difficulty using the tablets; these individuals had the greatest PSPRS symptom severity, although MTD performance was not correlated with the PSPRS (rho = ‐.122; p>.05). MTD performance significantly correlated with the MoCA (rho = 0.88) and tests of attention, executive, and visuospatial function (Table).ConclusionIn a MTD usability pilot for participants with PSP, participants reported high ease and comfort completing MTD independently; those with greater motor symptoms had more difficulty navigating technology. Additionally, performances on MTD were correlated with the MoCA and other in‐person assessments, demonstrating convergent validity.

AbstractBackgroundFew normative data for computerized measures administered in unsupervised remote environments are available. We aimed to determine what variables to include in normative models for remote self‐administered assessments, develop normative data for measures administered through Mayo Test Drive (MTD, a multi‐device remote cognitive assessment platform) and evaluate application of norms.Method1240 adults ages 33‐100 (96% White) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and Mayo Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center met normative sample inclusion criteria that included a concordant Cognitively Unimpaired (CU) diagnosis (3 independent raters all diagnosed CU) and CDR = 0 (see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Raw test scores were converted to normalized scaled scores. We derived regression‐based normative data that adjusted for age, age2, sex and education (base model); alternative models are also provided (age+age2+sex; age+ age2). We evaluated whether additional model terms beyond the base model were needed using an a priori cut‐off of 1% variance improvement in adjusted R2 over and above the base model. We examined rates of low test performance defined as performance below ‐1 SD in independent validation samples (n = 167 concordant CU, n = 64 mild cognitive impairment (MCI), n = 14 dementia). Rates are considered significantly different than expected when 95% confidence intervals (CIs) do not include the expected 14.7% base rate frequency.ResultNo additional potential model terms met our a priori cut‐off for inclusion beyond the base model (see Table 2), including other quadratic and cubic terms or interactions, device type, response input type, potential session interference, and national area deprivation index (ADI available in subset; N = 776). Application of norms showed expected rates of low test performance among CU participants (95% CI includes expected base rate) and significantly greater than expected rates of low test performance for all variables in MCI (e.g., 62.5% for composite) and dementia (e.g., 71.4% for composite; see Table 3).ConclusionTypical normative models appear appropriate for remote self‐administered measures and are sensitive to cognitive impairment. Device type and response input did not explain enough variance to warrant inclusion in normative models but are important for individual level interpretation. Future work will improve representation of individuals from under‐represented groups.

Background: The Latarjet and other bony augmentation procedures are commonly used to treat anterior shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Although several fixation strategies have been reported, the biomechanical strength of these techniques remains poorly understood. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of the biomechanical strength of glenoid bony augmentation procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search of the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify biomechanical studies evaluating various fixation strategies for coracoid and other bone transfer procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Biomechanical results included load to failure with both compression and traction forces, stiffness, and cyclic displacement. The quality of included articles was assessed based on the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. Results: A total of 21 biomechanical studies comprising 486 specimens were included. The number of screws used and the addition of washers were found to significantly increase rigidity and load to failure. The comparison of fixation techniques demonstrated mixed results in load to failure between screw and alternative constructs including suture buttons and suture anchors. However, studies that tested graft displacement consistently found more graft displacement in buttons compared with screws. The median and mean of the QUACS scale were both 12, with a range of 10-13. Conclusion: Biomechanical studies consistently demonstrated that when glenoid bone grafts were fixed with screws, the number of screws and use of washers significantly increased construct rigidity and load to failure. Different metal screw materials and sizes did not consistently demonstrate a significant difference in biomechanical strength. There are mixed results when comparing suture buttons to screw fixation. The evaluated studies revealed that all double metal screw constructs and the majority of suture button and anchor constructs were able to withstand the glenohumeral load reflective of activities of daily living using a 150-N threshold.