The dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) Consortium has revised criteria for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB incorporating new information about the core clinical features and suggesting improved methods to assess them. REM sleep behavior disorder, severe neuroleptic sensitivity, and reduced striatal dopamine transporter activity on functional neuroimaging are given greater diagnostic weighting as features suggestive of a DLB diagnosis. The 1-year rule distinguishing between DLB and Parkinson disease with dementia may be difficult to apply in clinical settings and in such cases the term most appropriate to each individual patient should be used. Generic terms such as Lewy body (LB) disease are often helpful. The authors propose a new scheme for the pathologic assessment of LBs and Lewy neurites (LN) using alpha-synuclein immunohistochemistry and semiquantitative grading of lesion density, with the pattern of regional involvement being more important than total LB count. The new criteria take into account both Lewy-related and Alzheimer disease (AD)-type pathology to allocate a probability that these are associated with the clinical DLB syndrome. Finally, the authors suggest patient management guidelines including the need for accurate diagnosis, a target symptom approach, and use of appropriate outcome measures. There is limited evidence about specific interventions but available data suggest only a partial response of motor symptoms to levodopa: severe sensitivity to typical and atypical antipsychotics in approximately 50%, and improvements in attention, visual hallucinations, and sleep disorders with cholinesterase inhibitors.

To improve the specificity and sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP, Steele-Richardson-Olszewski syndrome), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the Society for PSP, Inc. (SPSP) sponsored an international workshop to develop an accurate and universally accepted set of criteria for this disorder. The NINDS-SPSP criteria, which were formulated from an extensive review of the literature, comparison with other previously published sets of criteria, and the consensus of experts, were validated on a clinical data set from autopsy-confirmed cases of PSP. The criteria specify three degrees of diagnostic certainty: possible PSP, probable PSP, and definite PSP. Possible PSP requires the presence of a gradually progressive disorder with onset at age 40 or later, either vertical supranuclear gaze palsy or both slowing of vertical saccades and prominent postural instability with falls in the first year of onset, as well as no evidence of other diseases that could explain these features. Probable PSP requires vertical supranuclear gaze palsy, prominent postural instability, and falls in the first year of onset, as well as the other features of possible PSP. Definite PSP requires a history of probable or possible PSP and histopathologic evidence of typical PSP. Criteria that support the diagnosis of PSP, and that exclude diseases often confused with PSP, are presented. The criteria for probable PSP are highly specific, making them suitable for therapeutic, analytic epidemiologic, and biologic studies, but not very sensitive. The criteria for possible PSP are substantially sensitive, making them suitable for descriptive epidemiologic studies, but less specific. An appendix provides guidelines for diagnosing and monitoring clinical disability in PSP.

A preceding article described the clinical features of Parkinson's disease dementia (PD‐D) and proposed clinical diagnostic criteria for “probable” and “possible” PD‐D. The main focus of this article is to operationalize the diagnosis of PD‐D and to propose pratical guidelines based on a two level process depending upon the clinical scenario and the expertise of the evaluator involved in the assessment. Level I is aimed primarily at the clinician with no particular expertise in neuropsychological methods, but who requires a simple, pragmatic set of tests that are not excessively time‐consuming. Level I can be used alone or in concert with Level II, which is more suitable when there is the need to specify the pattern and the severity on the dementia of PD‐D for clinical monitoring, research studies or pharmacological trials. Level II tests can also be proposed when the diagnosis of PD‐D remains uncertain or equivocal at the end of a Level I evaluation. Given the lack of evidence‐based standards for some tests when applied in this clinical context, we have tried to make practical and unambiguous recommendations, based upon the available literature and the collective experience of the Task Force. We accept, however, that further validation of certain tests and modifications in the recommended cut off values will be required through future studies. © 2007 Movement Disorder Society

No abstract