Search

Background: Apathy is a common and significant problem in patients with dementia, regardless of its cause. Observations about frontosubcortical circuit syndromes indicate that apathy may have affective, behavioral, or cognitive manifestations. Objectives: To explore whether the apathy manifested in frontotemporal dementia (FTD), with its predominantly anterior brain neuropathologic features, differs from the apathy in dementia ofAlzheimer type (DAT), with its predominantly hippocampal- and temporoparietal- based neuropathologic features, and to determine whether other behavioral disturbances reported in frontosubcortical circuit syndromes correlate with apathy. Design: Analyses included individual items within Neuropsychiatric Inventory subscale items. Items of the apathy/ indifference subscale were designated by consensus as affective(lacking in emotions), behavioral(inactive, chores abandoned), or cognitive(no interest in the activities of others). Proportions of correlated nonapathy Neuropsychiatric Inventory items were calculated. Setting: Several neurology specialty clinics contributed to our data set. Participants: A total of 92 participants with FTD and 457 with DAT. Main Outcome Measures: The Neuropsychiatric Inventory was analyzed. Results: Apathy was more prevalent in patients with FTD than in those with DAT, but when present, the specific apathy symptoms associated with both types of dementia were rarely restricted to 1 of the 3 domains of apathy. Dysphoria concurrentwith apathy was unique to the DAT group and negatively correlated in the FTD group. Participants with affective apathy more frequently copresented with an orbital frontosubcortical syndrome in FTD (impulsivity and compulsions). Affective apathy also copresented with uncooperative agitation, anger, and physical agitation in both types of dementia. Conclusions: Apathy is common in patients with FTD and DAT, although it is more common in those with FTD. When present, it usually involves changes in affect, behavior, and cognition. It is associated with behaviors that have previously been shown to affect patient safety, independence, and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Until recently, frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) was considered a rare neurodegenerative disorder that was difficult to diagnose. The publication of consensus criteria for FTLD, however, prompted systematic studies. The criteria categorize FTLD into 3 subgroups: frontotemporal dementia, semantic dementia, and progressive nonfluent aphasia. Objective To compare demographic characteristics of patients in the 3 FTLD subgroups. Design We compared diagnostic breakdown, age at onset, sex, Mini-Mental State Examination score at first visit, education, and neuropathological diagnoses in a large sample of FTLD patients from 3 different university dementia clinics, including 2 neurologic clinics in the United States and 1 psychiatric clinic in Germany. Results The frontotemporal dementia subgroup represented approximately half of all FTLD diagnoses. Patients diagnosed as having frontotemporal dementia (mean age, 57.5 years) and semantic dementia (mean age, 59.3 years) had an earlier age at onset than patients diagnosed as having progressive nonfluent aphasia (mean age, 63.0 years). There were significantly more men diagnosed as having frontotemporal dementia (63.5%) and semantic dementia (66.7%) when compared with progressive nonfluent aphasia (39.1%) (P = .005 for frontotemporal dementia vs progressive nonfluent aphasia and P = .002 for semantic dementia vs progressive nonfluent aphasia). Generally, the demographic features and diagnostic categories of the patient populations across the 3 sites were comparable. There were 68 deaths and 37 autopsies. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration with ubiquitin-positive τ-negative inclusions (48.5%), dementia lacking distinctive histopathological features (18.2%), and Pick disease (15.2%) were the most common neuropathological diagnoses. Conclusions These findings show that cohorts of patients can be combined using new research criteria for FTLD and demonstrate striking demographic differences among FTLD subgroups. The sex and age-at-onset differences suggest that there may be biological differences among FTLD subgroups. In this sample, FTLD with ubiquitin-positive inclusions accounted for half of all neuropathological diagnoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A subset of familial cases (FTDP-17) of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are caused by mutations in the tau gene. The role of tau gene mutations and haplotypes in sporadic FTD and the functional consequences of tau polymorphisms are unknown. Objectives: To investigate (1) the frequency of known FTDP-17 mutations in familial and sporadic FTD and compare these results with previous studies; (2) whether the tau H1 haplotype is associated with FTD; and (3) the functional effect of intronic tau sequence variations. Patients and Methods: Patients with familial and sporadic FTD were screened for mutations in the microtubule-binding region of tau. The frequencies of tau haplotypes and genotypes were compared between patients with FTD and control subjects. We analyzed the splicing effect of novel intronic polymorphisms associated with FTD. Results: The P301L mutation was detected in 11% of familial FTD cases. The H1 haplotype was not overrepresented in patients with FTD, but the P301L mutation appeared on the background of the H2 tau haplotype. We identified 4 novel single nucleotide polymorphisms in intron 9 and a 9–base pair deletion in intron 4A. A C-to-T transition 177 base pairs upstream from exon 10 was significantly increased in patients with FTD compared with controls. Direct analysis of brain tissue from a patient with this variant showed an increase in exon 10–containing tau transcripts. Conclusions: Sequence variations in intronic or regulatory regions of tau may have previously unrecognized consequences leading to tau dysfunction and neurodegeneration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]