Differences and similarities between familial and sporadic frontotemporal dementia: An Italian single‐center cohort study

Introduction The possibility to generalize our understandings on treatments and assessments to both familial frontotemporal dementia (f‐FTD) and sporadic FTD (s‐FTD) is a fundamental perspective for the near future, considering the constant advancement in potential disease‐modifying therapies that t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Alzheimer's & dementia : translational research & clinical interventions 2022, Vol.8 (1), p.e12326-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Benussi, Alberto, Libri, Ilenia, Premi, Enrico, Alberici, Antonella, Cantoni, Valentina, Gadola, Yasmine, Rivolta, Jasmine, Pengo, Marta, Gazzina, Stefano, Calhoun, Vince D., Gasparotti, Roberto, Zetterberg, Henrik, Ashton, Nicholas J., Blennow, Kaj, Padovani, Alessandro, Borroni, Barbara
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction The possibility to generalize our understandings on treatments and assessments to both familial frontotemporal dementia (f‐FTD) and sporadic FTD (s‐FTD) is a fundamental perspective for the near future, considering the constant advancement in potential disease‐modifying therapies that target particular genetic forms of FTD. We aimed to investigate differences in clinical features, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and blood‐based biomarkers between f‐FTD and s‐FTD. Methods In this longitudinal cohort study, we evaluated a consecutive sample of symptomatic FTD patients, classified as f‐FTD and s‐FTD according to Goldman scores (GS). All patients underwent clinical, behavioral, and neuropsychiatric symptom assessment, CSF biomarkers and serum neurofilament light (NfL) analysis, and brain atrophy evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging. Results Of 570 patients with FTD, 123 were classified as f‐FTD, and 447 as s‐FTD. In the f‐FTD group, 95 had a pathogenic FTD mutation while 28 were classified as GS = 1 or 2; of the s‐FTD group, 133 were classified as GS = 3 and 314 with GS = 4. f‐FTD and s‐FTD cases showed comparable demographic features, except for younger age at disease onset, age at diagnosis, and higher years of education in the f‐FTD group (all P 
ISSN:2352-8737
2352-8737
DOI:10.1002/trc2.12326