Atypical Alzheimer’s disease: new insights into an overlapping spectrum between the language and visual variants

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe language and visual variants are two common clinical phenotypes of atypical Alzheimer’s disease (AD). There are reports of overlap between these clinical phenotypes, however, the extent and frequency of overlap, and its neuroanatomical underpinnings remain unclear.MethodEighty‐two patients with biomarker‐confirmed AD who presented with either predominant language (n = 34) or visuospatial/perceptual (n = 48) deficits were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group and underwent neurological and neuropsychological testing, MRI and [18F]flortaucipir‐PET. The clinical examination included testing for simultanagnosia, Gerstmann’s syndrome, ideomotor apraxia, visuospatial‐visuoperceptual function, confrontational naming, sentence repetition and letter and animal fluency. Cut‐points for abnormality were defined for each test and used to classify the following groups: language‐pure (no visual‐function deficit), language‐plus (impaired on one visual‐function), language‐mixed (impaired on two visual‐functions), visual‐pure (no language‐function deficit), visual‐plus (impaired on one language‐function) and visual‐mixed (impaired on two language‐functions). Patterns of relative volume loss and flortaucipir uptake were assessed using SPM12.ResultOf the 82 patients, 11 (13%) were language‐pure, 16 (20%) language‐plus, 7 (8%) language‐mixed, 10 (12%) visual‐pure, 17 (21%) visual‐plus and 21 (26%) visual‐mixed, with no difference in disease duration across groups. Visual deficits in the language‐plus group consisted of mild simultanagnosia in 29%, Gerstmann’s syndrome in 24%, and mild visuospatial deficits. In the language‐mixed group 86% had simultanagnosia and 43% had Gerstmann’s syndrome, with visuospatial‐visuoperceptual deficits comparable to the visual‐pure group. Language deficits in the visual‐plus group consisted of mild anomia and reduced letter and animal fluency. The visual‐mixed group reported naming and repetition deficits, and reduced fluency, comparable to the language‐predominant groups. All three language groups showed left temporal volume loss and flortaucipir uptake, with greater involvement of the parieto‐occipital and frontal lobes in language‐plus and language‐mixed groups. All three visual groups showed occipital volume loss and flortaucipir uptake, with greater involvement of the parieto‐temporal and frontal lobes in visual‐plus and visual‐mixed groups.ConclusionOnly 25% of our cohort showed a pure language or visual presentation, highlighting the high frequency of syndromic overlap in atypical AD and the diagnostic challenge of categorical phenotyping. Syndromic overlap was associated with neuroanatomical overlap and more widespread patterns of atrophy and tau deposition.