4.7 Article

Cognitive decline profiles differ in Parkinson disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 94, Issue 20, Pages E2076-E2087

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009434

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH [P30AG062429, R01AG049810, UL1 TR001442]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectiveTo examine whether domain-specific patterns of cognitive impairment and trajectories of decline differed in patients with clinically diagnosed Parkinson disease dementia (PDD) (N = 29) and autopsy-confirmed dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) (N = 58) or Alzheimer disease (AD) (N = 174) and to determine the impact of pooling patients with PDD and DLB in clinical trials targeting cognition.MethodsPatients were matched on demographics and level of global cognitive impairment. Patterns of cross-sectional performance and longitudinal decline were examined in 4 cognitive domains: Visuospatial, Memory, Executive, and Language. Power analyses were performed to determine the numbers of participants needed to adequately power a hypothetical clinical trial to slow cognitive decline in pure PDD, pure DLB, or a mixed PDD/DLB group.ResultsBoth DLB and PDD were more impaired and declined more rapidly than AD in the Visuospatial domain. Patients with PDD exhibited the most impairment and fastest decline in Executive, although patients with DLB also declined faster than AD. Memory was more impaired in AD than DLB and in both compared with PDD; however, all 3 groups declined at comparable rates. In contrast, PDD declined at a slower rate on Language measures than DLB or AD. Power analyses suggest that Visuospatial and Executive outcome measures would be most sensitive in PDD, but Memory and Language in DLB.ConclusionDLB and PDD differ from each other, and from AD, in a cognitive domain-specific manner. As such, different outcome measures may be most sensitive to detecting changes in DLB vs PDD, suggesting that the 2 should be analyzed separately in clinical trials.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available