No abstract

Background Due to heterogeneous clinical presentation, difficult differential diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and psychiatric disorders, and evolving clinical criteria, the epidemiology and natural history of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTD) remain elusive. In order to better characterize FTD patients, we relied on the database of a regional memory clinic network with standardized diagnostic procedures and chose AD patients as a comparator. Methods Patients that were first referred to our network between January 2010 and December 2016 and whose last clinical diagnosis was degenerative or vascular dementia were included. Comparisons were conducted between FTD and AD as well as between the different FTD syndromes, divided into language variants (lvFTD), behavioral variant (bvFTD), and FTD with primarily motor symptoms (mFTD). Cognitive progression was estimated with the yearly decline in Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Results Among the patients that were referred to our network in the 6-year time span, 690 were ultimately diagnosed with FTD and 18,831 with AD. Patients with FTD syndromes represented 2.6% of all-cause dementias. The age-standardized incidence was 2.90 per 100,000 person-year and incidence peaked between 75 and 79 years. Compared to AD, patients with FTD syndromes had a longer referral delay and delay to diagnosis. Patients with FTD syndromes had a higher MMSE score than AD at first referral while their progression was similar. mFTD patients had the shortest survival while survival in bvFTD, lvFTD, and AD did not significantly differ. FTD patients, especially those with the behavioral variant, received more antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychotics than AD patients. Conclusions FTD syndromes differ with AD in characteristics at baseline, progression rate, and treatment. Despite a broad use of the new diagnostic criteria in an organized memory clinic network, FTD syndromes are longer to diagnose and account for a low proportion of dementia cases, suggesting persistent underdiagnosis. Congruent with recent publications, the late peak of incidence warns against considering FTD as being exclusively a young-onset dementia.

Aim To assess reasons that prevent Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients from being included in clinical trials. Methods In 2009, we reviewed the Lille Memory Clinic's case database to identify patients suitable for inclusion in four AD clinical trials. An initial selection was made on the basis of four criteria: (i) a diagnosis of AD (with or without white matter lesions [WML]), (ii) age, (iii) mini mental state examination (MMSE) score and (iv) symptomatic treatment of AD (cholinesterase inhibitors/memantine). Next, data on patients fulfilling these criteria were reviewed against all the inclusion/exclusion criteria for four clinical trials performed in 2009 at the Memory Clinic. Reasons for non‐inclusion were analyzed. Results Two hundred and five patients were selected according to the four initial criteria. Reasons for subsequently not including some of patients in clinical trials were abnormalities on MRI (56.9%, 88.9% of which were WML), unauthorized medication (37.3%), the lack of a study partner/informant (37.1%), the presence of a non‐authorized disease (24.4%), contraindication to MRI (9%), a change in diagnosis over time (3.9%), visual/auditory impairments (2.9%), alcohol abuse (2%) and an insufficient educational level (1%). Conclusion A high proportion of AD patients presented with vascular abnormalities on MRI. This was not unexpected, since the patients were selected from the database and, as shown in epidemiologic studies, cerebrovascular diseases are frequently associated with AD. The presence of a study partner is essential for enabling a patient to participate in clinical trials because of the need to record reliably primary and secondary outcomes.