ABSTRACT
The primary progressive aphasias (PPA) present complex and diverse challenges of diagnosis, management and prognosis. A clinically-informed, syndromic staging system for PPA would take a substantial step toward meeting these challenges. This study addressed this need using detailed, multi-domain mixed-methods symptom surveys of people with lived experience in a large international PPA cohort.
We administered structured online surveys to caregivers of patients with a canonical PPA syndromic variant (nonfluent/agrammatic (nvPPA), semantic (svPPA) or logopenic (lvPPA)). In an ‘exploratory’ survey, a putative list and ordering of verbal communication and nonverbal functioning (nonverbal thinking, conduct and wellbeing, physical) symptoms was administered to 118 caregiver members of the UK national PPA Support Group. Based on feedback, we expanded the symptom list and created six provisional clinical stages for each PPA subtype. In a ‘consolidation’ survey, these stages were presented to 110 caregiver members of UK and Australian PPA Support Groups, and refined based on quantitative and qualitative feedback. Symptoms were retained if rated as ‘present’ by a majority (at least 50%) of respondents representing that PPA syndrome, and assigned to a consolidated stage based on majority consensus; the confidence of assignment was estimated for each symptom as the proportion of respondents in agreement with the final staging for that symptom. Qualitative responses were analysed using framework analysis.
For each PPA syndrome, six stages ranging from 1 (‘Very mild’) to 6 (‘Profound’) were identified; earliest stages were distinguished by syndromic hallmark symptoms of communication dysfunction, with increasing trans-syndromic convergence and dependency for basic activities of daily living at later stages. Spelling errors, hearing changes and nonverbal behavioural features were reported at early stages in all syndromes. As the illness evolved, swallowing and mobility problems were reported earlier in nfvPPA than other syndromes, while difficulty recognising familiar people and household items characterised svPPA and visuospatial symptoms were more prominent in lvPPA. Overall confidence of symptom staging was higher for svPPA than other syndromes. Across syndromes, functional milestones were identified as key deficits that predict the sequence of major daily life impacts and associated management needs. Qualitatively, we identified five major themes encompassing 15 subthemes capturing respondents’ experiences of PPA and suggestions for staging implementation.
This work introduces a prototypical, symptom-led staging scheme for canonical PPA syndromes: the PPA Progression Planning Aid (PPA2). Our findings have implications for diagnostic and care pathway guidelines, trial design and personalised prognosis and treatment for people living with these diseases.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer's Research UK, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the Alzheimer's Society, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, and the University College London Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre (grant PR/ylr/18575). JJ is supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentship in Memory of David Blechner (funded through The National Brain Appeal). SJC was supported by grants from ESRC-NIHR (ES/L001810/1), EPSRC (EP/M006093/1) and Wellcome Trust (200783). CJDH was supported by a Royal National Institute for Deaf People-Dunhill Medical Trust Pauline Ashley Fellowship (grant PA23Hardy) and a Wellcome Institutional Strategic Support Fund Award (204841/Z/16/Z). This research was funded in part by UKRI and Wellcome Trust (Grant 204841/Z/16/Z). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. NK is supported by Alzheimer's Society Junior Fellowship grant funding (Grant Award number: 399 AS-JF-17b-016). NPO is a UKRI Future Leaders Fellow (MR/S03546X/1). KY is an Etherington PCA Senior Research Fellow and is funded by the Alzheimer's Society, grant number 453 (ASJF18003) and a USA NIH grant R01EY027964. BT is supported by the ESRC-funded UCL, Bloomsbury and East London Doctoral Training Partnership (UBEL-DTP) (ES/P000592/1). AV is funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR302240).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was granted by the University College London Research Ethics Committee (8545/004: Rare Dementia Support (RDS) Impact study). Additional local site approval for Support Group members in Sydney was granted by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District HREC (2020/ETH02530). All survey respondents gave informed consent, in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki guidelines.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I 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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
0
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
1
Blogs/Media
Author Videos