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 ∼50%, and improvements in attention, visual hallucinations, and sleep disorders with cholinesterase inhibitors.
Objective: To devise a short bedside cognitive and behavioral battery to assess frontal lobe functions. Methods: The designed battery consists of six subtests exploring the following: conceptualization, mental flexibility, motor programming, sensitivity to interference, inhibitory control, and environmental autonomy. It takes approximately 10 minutes to administer. The authors studied 42 normal subjects and 121 patients with various degrees of frontal lobe dysfunction (PD, n = 24; multiple system atrophy, n = 6; corticobasal degeneration, n = 21; progressive supranuclear palsy, n = 47; frontotemporal dementia, n = 23). Results: The Frontal Assessment Battery scores correlated with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale scores (rho = 0.82, p < 0.01) and with the number of criteria (rho = 0.77, p < 0.01) and perseverative errors (rho = 0.68, p < 0.01) of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. These variables accounted for 79% of the variance in a stepwise multiple regression, whereas age or Mini-Mental State Examination scores had no significant influence. There was good interrater reliability (κ = 0.87, p < 0.001), internal consistency (Cronbach’s coefficient alpha = 0.78), and discriminant validity (89.1% of cases correctly identified in a discriminant analysis of patients and controls). Conclusion: The Frontal Assessment Battery is easy to administer at bedside and is sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction.