Primary progressive aphasia: a tale of two syndromes and the rest

Abstract

Objective: Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) has been proposed to comprise 3 discrete clinical subtypes: semantic, agrammatic/nonfluent, and logopenic. Recent consensus recommendations suggest a diagnostic framework based primarily on clinical and neuropsychological findings to classify these variants. Our objective was to evaluate the extent to which patients with PPA would conform to the proposed tripartite system and whether the clustering pattern of elements of the linguistic profile suggests discrete clinical syndromes.

Methods: A total of 46 patients with PPA were prospectively recruited to the Cambridge Longitudinal Study of PPA. Sufficient data were collected to assess all consensus-proposed diagnostic domains. By comparing patients' performances against those of 30 age- and education-matched healthy volunteers, z scores were calculated, and values of 1.5 SDs outside control participants' means were considered abnormal. Raw test scores were used to undertake a principal factor analysis to identify the clustering pattern of individual measures.

Results: Of the patients, 28.3%, 26.1%, and 4.3% fitted semantic, nonfluent/agrammatic, and logopenic categories respectively, and 41.3% did not fulfill the diagnostic recommendations for any of the 3 proposed variants. There was no significant between-group difference in age, education, or disease duration. Furthermore, the outcome of the factor analysis was in keeping with discrete semantic and nonfluent/agrammatic syndromes but did not support a logopenic variant.

Conclusion: Taken together, the results of this prospective data-driven study suggest that although a substantial proportion of patients with PPA have neither the semantic nor the nonfluent variants, they do not necessarily conform to a discrete logopenic variant.

Figure. Scree plot showing the relative significance of different factors

Note the significant reduction in eigenvalue from factor 2 to factor 3.