Citations

Abstract Objective: We investigated differences in cognition between variants of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) including PSP-Richardson (PSP-RS) and subcortical and cortical variants using updated diagnostic criteria and comprehensive neuropsychological assessment. Method: We recruited 140 participants with PSP (age = 71.3 ± 6.9 years; education = 15.0 ± 2.8 years; 49.3% female) who completed neurological and neuropsychological assessment. Participants received diagnoses of PSP clinical variants at their evaluation (or retrospectively if evaluated before 2017) according to the Movement Disorder Society PSP criteria. We grouped variants as PSP-RS (62 participants), PSP-Cortical (25 with PSP-speech/language and 9 with PSP-corticobasal syndrome), and PSP-Subcortical (27 with PSP-parkinsonism, 11 with PSP-progressive gait freezing, and 6 with PSP-postural instability). Analysis of covariance adjusted for age assessed for differences in neuropsychological performance between variants across cognitive domains. Results: PSP-Cortical participants performed worst on measures of visual attention/working memory (Spatial Span Forward/Backward/Total), executive function (Frontal Assessment Battery), and language (Letter Fluency). PSP-RS participants performed worst on verbal memory (Camden Words). There were no significant group differences for the MoCA or indices of visuospatial function. There were no sex or education differences between PSP groups; however, there were differences in age at visit and disease duration. Conclusions: In a large sample of participants with PSP, there were differences in cognition across PSP-RS, PSP-Subcortical, and PSP-Cortical variants, with PSP-Cortical and, to a lesser extent, PSP-RS, performing worse on tests of attention and executive function. These findings suggest cognitive distinctions among PSP clinical variants and highlight the value of neuropsychological assessment in differential diagnosis of PSP subtypes for more accurate and timely clinical classification.

ABSTRACTIndividuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) often develop parkinsonism and dysphagia. To evaluate the clinical correlates and impact of dysphagia in this population, we compared enrollment visit data between individuals with (n = 12) versus individuals without (n = 44) dysphagia symptoms. The group with dysphagia had more motor speech symptoms and parkinsonism. Longitudinal analysis revealed that almost everyone developed dysphagia before dying; the average time to death after developing dysphagia was 5.43 years and complications of dysphagia resulted in mortality for 35% of the individuals for whom data were available. These results emphasize the need for dysphagia management and provide useful prognostic estimates.

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.

Purpose This case series details the clinical progression of patients with primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS) to illustrate, using several methods and supplemental material examples, the changes that occur in speech and language functioning in this patient population. Method Four patients who presented with PPAOS were followed between 5 and 6 years. Two patients had predominant articulatory abnormalities (termed phonetic PPAOS ), 1 had predominant prosodic abnormalities (prosodic PPAOS), and 1 had relatively equal articulatory and prosodic abnormalities (mixed PPAOS). Detailed speech (including acoustics), language, neurologic, and neuropsychological data were collected. Results At initial exam, the patients ranged from 60 to 77 years old, with presenting disease duration of 1.5–10 years. Although all patients presented with an isolated apraxia of speech, all developed varying degrees of aphasia and dysarthria. Patients with phonetic PPAOS developed relatively more severe aphasia than the other 2 patients. All patients eventually had severe functional communication limitations and required alternative or augmentative means of communication, although at varying times postonset of their initial speech problem. Two patients developed dysphagia, 3 showed mild–moderate Parkinsonism, and 2 developed depression. For all patients, simple temporal acoustic measurements documented slowed speech rate over time. Conclusions This case series demonstrates that patients who initially present with PPAOS may develop aphasia and dysarthria, cognitive and behavioral changes, and other neurologic signs. Whether these changes can be predicted by the perceptual characteristics of the apraxia of speech is yet to be determined. The detailed longitudinal profiles provide valuable clinical insight into the progression of disease in people with PPAOS. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7051616

Background: Neuropsychological assessment can add essential information to the characterization of individuals presenting with the logopenic variant of primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA). Objective: This study examined the neuropsychological characteristics of lvPPA patients. We also examined differences in regional and whole brain atrophy based on neuropsychological profiles. Methods: We conducted a hierarchical cluster analysis on memory, executive functioning, and visuospatial neuropsychological test data for 56 individuals with lvPPA. We then compared resultant clusters to left middle temporal, inferior parietal, and superior parietal regions-of-interest using multivariate analysis of covariance. We also performed voxel-level analyses. Results: We identified three clusters characterized as lvPPA with no neurocognitive impairment ( n = 5), lvPPA with mild neurocognitive deficits ( n = 23), and lvPPA with marked cognitive deficits ( n = 28). WAB-AQ was associated with left middle temporal volume. Superior parietal volumes were smaller for the lvPPA group with marked cognitive symptoms compared to the less severe groups. Voxel-level analyses showed greater atrophy in temporal, parietal, lateral occipital, and frontal regions, left worse than right. Age, disease duration, gender, WAB-AQ, and PiB-PET did not account for differences between groups. Conclusions: LvPPA patients without cognitive deficits in other domains were relatively uncommon while 50% of our sample exhibited pronounced neurocognitive deficits outside the language domain. Pronounced cognitive deficits in lvPPA are associated with widespread atrophy, left worse than right. Our study underscores the importance of examining neuropsychological function in addition to language in patients with lvPPA.