Article Text

PDF
Can progressive and non-progressive behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia be distinguished at presentation?
  1. M Hornberger1,
  2. B P Shelley2,3,
  3. C M Kipps2,4,
  4. O Piguet1,
  5. J R Hodges1,2
  1. 1
    Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  2. 2
    Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, UK
  3. 3
    Department of Neurology, Father Muller Medical College, Mangalore, India
  4. 4
    Wessex Neurological Centre, Southampton University NHS Trust, Southampton, UK
  1. Professor J Hodges, Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, Cnr Barker and Easy Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Sydney, Australia; j.hodges{at}powmri.edu.au

Abstract

Background: Recent findings suggest that patients with behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bv-FTD) differ in their disease progression (progressive vs non-progressive patients). The current study investigates whether the two groups can be discriminated by their clinical features at first presentation.

Methods: Archival clinical data of the Early Onset Dementia Clinic, Cambridge, UK, were analysed for 71 patients with bv-FTD: 45 progressive and 26 non-progressive cases with more than 3 years of follow-up.

Results: The subgroups were largely indistinguishable on the basis of the presenting clinical features but could be distinguished on general cognitive (Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination-revised) and selected supportive diagnostic features (distractibility, stereotypic speech, impaired activities of daily living (ADLs) and current depression).

Conclusions: Progressive and non-progressive patients are difficult to differentiate on the basis of current clinical diagnostic criteria for FTD but a combination of general cognitive, executive dysfunction and impaired ADL measures appear to be the most promising discriminators.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Funding: This research was funded in part by an MRC program grant to JRH. JRH is supported by an Australian Research Council Federation Fellowship (FF0776229). OP is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Clinical Career Development Award Fellowship (#510184).

  • Competing interests: None.

  • Ethics approval: The study was approved by Addenbrooke’s Hospital Local Research Ethics Committee, Cambridge, UK.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.