Clinical features that differentiate young‐onset AD from young‐onset FTLD: An examination of the NACC UDS 3.0 and FTLD Module
Authors: Dev Sheena Isha , Wong Bonnie , Quimby Megan , Eloyan Ani , Staffaroni Adam M. , Rascovsky Katya , Weintraub Sandra , Fields Julie A. , Rankin Katherine P , Kukull Walter A. , Heuer Hilary W. , Forsberg Leah K. , Brushaber Danielle , Boeve Bradley F. , Rosen Howard J. , Boxer Adam L , Carrillo Maria C. , Rabinovici Gil D. , Apostolova Liana G. , Dickerson Brad C. , Bahl Riley ,   the ALLFTD and LEADS Consortium Studies
Published: December 2021

Background

Clinicopathologic studies reported that the NACC Uniform Dataset (UDS) 2.0 core measures do not adequately differentiate patients who ultimately died of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) from Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FTLD Module (FTLD‐MOD) assesses core features of behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Initial investigations suggest that the FTLD‐MOD improves discrimination between biomarker‐supported bvFTD and typical late‐onset AD, and that clinically diagnosed PPA participants performed worse than bvFTD on all FTLD‐MOD language tasks. However, the utility of these measures in the differential diagnosis of AD vs. major FTLD syndromes in young‐onset cases remains underexplored.

Method

We examined participants with age‐of‐onset < 65 years in the ARTFL‐LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) consortium and the Longitudinal Early Onset AD Study (LEADS). 115 bvFTD, 53 semantic variant PPA (svPPA), 29 non‐fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA) and 124 early‐onset AD (eoAD) cases completed the UDS3 and FLTD‐MOD. Linear regression analyses measured group differences in FLTD‐MOD raw scores and UDS3 neuropsychological z‐scores after accounting for group differences in demographic variables and global severity ratings. Alpha was 0.05 with Bonferroni corrections.

Results

Participants with eoAD demonstrated the most impaired scores on tasks of attention, working memory, and processing speed, including Digit Span Backward (z=‐1.87) and Trails A (z=‐3.82). They also demonstrated difficulty on FTLD‐MOD language tasks with a working memory requirement (sentence repetition raw=3.68/5) and, as expected, memory (story delayed recall z=‐2.4z). svPPA performed the worst on FTLD‐MOD and UDS3 tasks assessing semantic memory, especially naming (all p’s ≤ 0.03). nfvPPA performed worst on sentence reading, sentence repetition, and letter fluency (all p’s ≤ 0.02). Consistent with previous work, these measures differentiate between bvFTD and PPA variants. However, relative to eoAD, bvFTD was equivalent (Trails B: bvFTDz=‐3.8, eoADz=‐3.82; p=0.12) or outperformed (sentence repetition: bvFTD=4.22/5, eoAD=3.68/5; p<0.001) the eoAD group on all tasks.

Conclusions

We undertook this analysis to compare performance of the major young‐onset sporadic AD and FTLD clinical syndromes in the ALLFTD and LEADS studies. Results demonstrate relatively distinct cognitive profiles among eoAD, svPPA, and nfvPPA, but not in bvFTD. Future analyses will include FTLD‐MOD behavioral symptom questionnaires to assess their utility in differentiating bvFTD.