No abstract

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of amyloid positivity, defined by positron emission tomography (PET)/cerebro-spinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers and/or neuropathological examination, in primary progressive aphasia (PPA) variants. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis with individual participant data from 1,251 patients diagnosed with PPA (including logopenic [lvPPA, n = 443], nonfluent [nfvPPA, n = 333], semantic [svPPA, n = 401], and mixed/unclassifiable [n = 74] variants of PPA) from 36 centers, with a measure of amyloid-β pathology (CSF [n = 600], PET [n = 366], and/or autopsy [n = 378]) available. The estimated prevalence of amyloid positivity according to PPA variant, age, and apolipoprotein E (ApoE) ε4 status was determined using generalized estimating equation models. Results: Amyloid-β positivity was more prevalent in lvPPA (86%) than in nfvPPA (20%) or svPPA (16%; p < 0.001). Prevalence of amyloid-β positivity increased with age in nfvPPA (from 10% at age 50 years to 27% at age 80 years, p < 0.01) and svPPA (from 6% at age 50 years to 32% at age 80 years, p < 0.001), but not in lvPPA (p = 0.94). Across PPA variants, ApoE ε4 carriers were more often amyloid-β positive (58.0%) than noncarriers (35.0%, p < 0.001). Autopsy data revealed Alzheimer disease pathology as the most common pathologic diagnosis in lvPPA (76%), frontotemporal lobar degeneration–TDP-43 in svPPA (80%), and frontotemporal lobar degeneration–TDP-43/tau in nfvPPA (64%). Interpretation: This study shows that the current PPA classification system helps to predict underlying pathology across different cohorts and clinical settings, and suggests that age and ApoE genotype should be considered when interpreting amyloid-β biomarkers in PPA patients.

MD; for the TACIP InvestigatorsBackground and Purpose-The efficacy of the antiplatelet agent triflusal for prevention of vascular events after stroke has been reported in a pilot study. However, there is a need to confirm those results in a larger study. Methods-We performed a randomized, double-blind, multicenter study to test the efficacy of triflusal (600 mg/d) versus aspirin (325 mg/d) for prevention of vascular events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (Triflusal versus Aspirin in Cerebral Infarction Prevention [TACIP]). We assessed a combined end point (incidence of nonfatal ischemic stroke, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or vascular death) as well as the incidence of these events separately and the incidence of major hemorrhage. Results-Of 2113 patients, 1058 received triflusal and 1055 aspirin. The mean follow-up period was 30.1 months. The incidence of combined end point (13.1% for triflusal, 12.4% for aspirin) as well the survival analysis (hazard ratio [HR] for triflusal versus aspirin, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.38) showed no differences between groups. The incidence of nonfatal stroke (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.44), nonfatal acute myocardial infarction (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.46 to 1.98,) and vascular death (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.96) was also similar. A significantly higher incidence of major hemorrhages in the aspirin group was recorded (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.82). The overall incidence of hemorrhage was significantly lower in the triflusal group (16.7% versus 25.2%) (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.86; PϽ0.001). Conclusions-This study failed to show significantly superior efficacy of triflusal over aspirin in the long-term prevention of vascular events after stroke, but triflusal was associated with a significantly lower rate of hemorrhagic complications.