Search

Background: The neuropsychological recognition of early-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) can be difficult because of non-amnestic variants such as logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA).Objective: This study evaluated the similarities and differences between typical amnestic AD (tAD) and lvPPA and PCA on a screening neuropsychological battery.Methods: We enrolled 51 patients meeting NIA-AA criteria for biomarker-supported AD (amnestic or non-amnestic) and having an age of onset of <65 years of age. Based on additional recommended clinical criteria for lvPPA and PCA, the early-onset AD patients were divided into three groups (28 tAD, 9 lvPPA, 14 PCA) of comparable age and dementia severity. We then analyzed their profiles on a focused, screening neuropsychological battery for early-onset AD.Results: In addition to greater variance on the Mini-Mental State Examination, the lvPPA and PCA variants had episodic memory impairment that did not significantly differ from the memory impairment in the tAD patients. Despite differences on language and visuospatial tasks, they did not significantly distinguish the lvPPA and PCA from tAD. The lvPPA group, however, was distinguishable by worse performance on measures reflecting working memory (digit span forward, memory registration).Conclusions: On neuropsychological screening, all clinical early-onset AD subtypes may have memory impairments. Screening batteries for early-onset AD should also include measures of working memory, which is disproportionately decreased in lvPPA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically review the literature on the psychometric properties of the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale among Hispanic-Latinx communities. Data Selection: We searched multiple cross-disciplinary databases from January 1970 until April 2023 for relevant papers written in English and Spanish. We used the following terms: (1) Clinical Dementia Rating, (2) validity, (3) reliability, (4) psychometric, (5) Hispanic, (6) Latinos or Latinx, (7) outcome measures, (8) Spanish language, and (9) Alzheimer's disease. Data Synthesis: We found 609 studies with 56 eligible studies. Only 5 studies examined psychometric properties of the CDR in Hispanic-Latinx communities. Each study implemented divergent study designs. Of the 5 selected studies, one study evaluated the validity of the CDR Sum of Boxes among 1073 Mexican Americans. A second study evaluated the CDR's test–retest reliability and internal consistency among 94 Spanish speaking participants from the United States. The third study examined the validity of the CDR Sum of Boxes among 343 Brazilians living in Brazil. A fourth study assessed the CDR Sum of Boxes sensitivity and specificity among 407 Brazilians living in Brazil, whereas a fifth study evaluated the validity of a Portuguese CDR version on 424 Brazilians living in Brazil. Conclusions: Our systematic review revealed limited studies examining the validation of the CDR in the Hispanic-Latinx communities. The limited number of studies raises concerns about versions of the CDR scale implemented in ad clinical trials, and its implications to study results, interpretation, and generalizability of findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]