RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Language impairment in motor neuron disease phenotypes different from classical amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.01.31.21250860
DO 10.1101/2021.01.31.21250860
A1 Sbrollini, Benedetta
A1 Preti, Alice Naomi
A1 Zago, Stefano
A1 Papagno, Costanza
A1 Appollonio, Ildebrando Marco
A1 Nicolò Aiello, Edoardo
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/01/2021.01.31.21250860.abstract
AB Background Up to 35-40% of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) present with language deficits falling within the spectrum of frontotemporal degeneration (FTD). It is currently debated whether frontotemporal involvement occurs or not in motor neuron disease (MND) phenotypes that differ from classical ALS (i.e., both non-ALS MNDs and non-classical ALS endo-phenotypes) - this stance being supported by the notion of a common pathology underlying MNDs. To investigate whether language dysfunctions also occur in patients with different-from-classical-ALS MNDs can; a) help determine whether the MND-FTD continuum could be broadened at a neuropsychological level; b) convey relevant entailments to cognitive diagnostics in these populations.Aims The present study thus aimed at reviewing evidence regarding language impairment in different-from-classical-ALS MND patients. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were consulted to implement and report the present review. Studies were included if a) language was quantitatively assessed b) in patients diagnosed with different-from-classical-ALS MND phenotypes. Studies assessing demented patients only were excluded. From an original N=1117 contributions, N=20 group studies were finally included. Secondary outcomes were taken into account for qualitatively assessing potential biases in generalizing results.Main contribution Studies were divided into those assessing predominant-upper vs. - lower MND patients (UMND/LMND). Language dysfunctions appeared to be more prevalent and severe in UMND patients. Language screeners were able to detect language deficits in both groups. Lexical-semantic deficits appeared to be highly prevalent in both groups and a selective difficulty in action-vs. object-naming was systematically detected. Morpho-syntactic deficits were seldom reported in both groups. Phonological deficits and central dysgraphic features were found in UMND patients only.Conclusion Patients with different-from-classical-ALS MND phenotypes display language deficits similar to those of classical ALS patients (as far as both prevalence and type are concerned) and thus could be validly included in the MND-FTD continuum at a neuropsychological level. A greater cortical involvement might account for language deficits being more severe in UMND patients. Consistently with guidelines for cognitive assessment in ALS patients, action-naming tasks might represent a valid and sensitive tool for assessing language in UMND/LMND patients too.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any specific funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No Ethical approval was needed for this study to be implemented since it is a systematic review on already published data.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesNo datasets are associated with this manuscript.