Cardiovascular conditions are among the most frequent causes of impairment to drive, because they might induce unpredictable mental state alterations via diverse mechanisms like myocardial ischemia, cardiac arrhythmias, and vascular dysfunction. Accordingly, health professionals are often asked to assess patients\' fitness to drive (FTD). The Canadian Cardiovascular Society previously published FTD guidelines in 2003-2004; herein, we present updated FTD guidelines. Because there are no randomized trials on FTD, observational studies were used to estimate the risk of driving impairment in each situation, and recommendations made on the basis of Canadian Cardiovascular Society Risk of Harm formula. More restrictive recommendations were made for commercial drivers, who spend longer average times behind the wheel, use larger vehicles, and might transport a larger number of passengers. We provide guidance for individuals with: (1) active coronary artery disease; (2) various forms of valvular heart disease; (3) heart failure, heart transplant, and left ventricular assist device situations; (4) arrhythmia syndromes; (5) implantable devices; (6) syncope history; and (7) congenital heart disease. We suggest appropriate waiting times after cardiac interventions or acute illnesses before driving resumption. When short-term driving cessation is recommended, recommendations are on the basis of expert consensus rather than the Risk of Harm formula because risk elevation is expected to be transient. These recommendations, although not a substitute for clinical judgement or governmental regulations, provide specialists, primary care providers, and allied health professionals with a comprehensive list of a wide range of cardiac conditions, with guidance provided on the basis of the level of risk of impairment, along with recommendations about ability to drive and the suggested duration of restrictions.

Evidence-based recommendations on the optimal evaluation approach for dementia diagnostics are limited. This impedes a harmonized workup across clinics and nations.
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of a multidisciplinary consensus conference compared to a single clinician approach.
In this prospective study, we enrolled 457 patients with suspected cognitive decline, from two European memory clinics. A diagnostic evaluation was performed at baseline independently in two ways: 1) by a single clinician and 2) at a multidisciplinary consensus conference. A syndrome diagnosis and an etiological diagnosis was made. The confidence in the diagnosis was recorded using a visual analogue scale. An expert panel re-evaluation diagnosis served as reference for the baseline syndrome diagnosis and a 12-24-month follow-up diagnosis for the etiological diagnosis.
439 patients completed the study. We observed 12.5%discrepancy (k = 0.81) comparing the baseline syndrome diagnoses of the single clinician to the consensus conference, and 22.3%discrepancy (k = 0.68) for the baseline etiological diagnosis. The accuracy of the baseline etiological diagnosis was significantly higher at the consensus conference and was driven mainly by increased accuracy in the MCI group. Confidence in the etiological diagnosis at baseline was significantly higher at the consensus conference (p < 0.005), especially for the frontotemporal dementia diagnosis.
The multidisciplinary consensus conference performed better on diagnostic accuracy of disease etiology and increased clinicians\' confidence. This highlights the importance of a multidisciplinary diagnostic evaluation approach for dementia diagnostics, especially when evaluating patients in the MCI stage.

The behavioral variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is the second most common cause of dementia for individuals <65 years old, but accurate diagnosis is often delayed for several years. While previous criteria have increased the ability of diagnosticians to distinguish between bvFTD and other neurocognitive disorders such as Alzheimer\'s disease, distinguishing bvFTD from a primary psychiatric disorder (PPD) has been more challenging. In early 2020, the Neuropsychiatric International Consortium for Frontotemporal Dementia published the first consensus recommendations to help clinicians distinguish between bvFTD and PPD. These recommendations were produced by a consortium of 45 scientists and clinicians from more than 15 different countries, who explored aspects of history taking, neuropsychological assessments, clinical scales, neuroimaging, CSF and serum biomarkers, and genetics. A multidisciplinary approach is encouraged throughout. In this article, the authors also review those consensus recommendations and highlight use of novel tests and techniques. Additionally, they indicate where further research is needed, including methods to assess the dissemination and implementation of these recommendations. In this way, future efforts by clinicians and researchers alike to improve accurate recognition of bvFTD are encouraged, thereby expanding opportunities for improved guidance and management.

A consensus protocol for genetic counselling and testing of familial dementia, the Italian Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer\'s and Frontotemporal Network (IT-DIAfN) protocol, has been developed in Italy by a network of expert dementia centres. The aim of this study is to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of the genetic counselling and testing process, as undertaken according to the IT-DIAfN protocol in one of the IT-DIAfN dementia research centres.
The protocol was tested by a multidisciplinary team at the IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy, on affected individuals with suspected inherited forms of Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), and to healthy at-risk relatives. The genetic counselling and testing process consisted of (i) pre-test consultation and psychological assessment (ii) genetic testing, (iii) genetic test result disclosure and (iv) follow-up consultation and psychological assessment.
Twenty affected individuals from 17 families fulfilled the family history criteria of the IT-DIAfN protocol for suspected inherited dementia (17 for AD, 2 for FTD, 1 for inclusion body myopathy with Paget disease of bone and frontotemporal dementia) and were included in the protocol. Nineteen out of 20 affected individuals received the genetic test result (one left after the pre-test consultation being not ready to cope with an unfavourable outcome). A pathogenic mutation was found in 6 affected individuals (1 in PSEN1, 2 in PSEN2, 1 in GRN, 1 in MAPT, 1 in VCP). Eleven healthy at-risk relatives asked to undergo predictive testing and were included in the protocol. Three completed the protocol, including follow-up; one did not ask for the genetic test result after genetic testing; and eight withdrew before the genetic testing, mainly due to an increased awareness about the possible consequences of an unfavourable test result. To date, no catastrophic reactions were reported at the follow-up.
Our case series shows that a structured genetic counselling and testing protocol for inherited dementia can be implemented in both affected individuals and at-risk relatives in a research setting. The procedure was shown to be safe in terms of occurrence of catastrophic events. A formal validation in larger cohorts is needed.

We describe a recently recognized disease entity, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE). LATE neuropathological change (LATE-NC) is defined by a stereotypical TDP-43 proteinopathy in older adults, with or without coexisting hippocampal sclerosis pathology. LATE-NC is a common TDP-43 proteinopathy, associated with an amnestic dementia syndrome that mimicked Alzheimer\'s-type dementia in retrospective autopsy studies. LATE is distinguished from frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 pathology based on its epidemiology (LATE generally affects older subjects), and relatively restricted neuroanatomical distribution of TDP-43 proteinopathy. In community-based autopsy cohorts, ∼25% of brains had sufficient burden of LATE-NC to be associated with discernible cognitive impairment. Many subjects with LATE-NC have comorbid brain pathologies, often including amyloid-β plaques and tauopathy. Given that the \'oldest-old\' are at greatest risk for LATE-NC, and subjects of advanced age constitute a rapidly growing demographic group in many countries, LATE has an expanding but under-recognized impact on public health. For these reasons, a working group was convened to develop diagnostic criteria for LATE, aiming both to stimulate research and to promote awareness of this pathway to dementia. We report consensus-based recommendations including guidelines for diagnosis and staging of LATE-NC. For routine autopsy workup of LATE-NC, an anatomically-based preliminary staging scheme is proposed with TDP-43 immunohistochemistry on tissue from three brain areas, reflecting a hierarchical pattern of brain involvement: amygdala, hippocampus, and middle frontal gyrus. LATE-NC appears to affect the medial temporal lobe structures preferentially, but other areas also are impacted. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated that subjects with LATE-NC also had atrophy in the medial temporal lobes, frontal cortex, and other brain regions. Genetic studies have thus far indicated five genes with risk alleles for LATE-NC: GRN, TMEM106B, ABCC9, KCNMB2, and APOE. The discovery of these genetic risk variants indicate that LATE shares pathogenetic mechanisms with both frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer\'s disease, but also suggests disease-specific underlying mechanisms. Large gaps remain in our understanding of LATE. For advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, there is an urgent need for research focused on LATE, including in vitro and animal models. An obstacle to clinical progress is lack of diagnostic tools, such as biofluid or neuroimaging biomarkers, for ante-mortem detection of LATE. Development of a disease biomarker would augment observational studies seeking to further define the risk factors, natural history, and clinical features of LATE, as well as eventual subject recruitment for targeted therapies in clinical trials.

Recommendations for using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) to support the diagnosis of dementing neurodegenerative disorders are sparse and poorly structured.
Twenty-one questions on diagnostic issues and on semi-automated analysis to assist visual reading were defined. Literature was reviewed to assess study design, risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision, indirectness and effect size. Critical outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive/negative predictive value, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and positive/negative likelihood ratio of FDG-PET in detecting the target conditions. Using the Delphi method, an expert panel voted for/against the use of FDG-PET based on published evidence and expert opinion.
Of the 1435 papers, 58 papers provided proper quantitative assessment of test performance. The panel agreed on recommending FDG-PET for 14 questions: diagnosing mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer\'s disease (AD), frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) or dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB); diagnosing atypical AD and pseudo-dementia; differentiating between AD and DLB, FTLD or vascular dementia, between DLB and FTLD, and between Parkinson\'s disease and progressive supranuclear palsy; suggesting underlying pathophysiology in corticobasal degeneration and progressive primary aphasia, and cortical dysfunction in Parkinson\'s disease; using semi-automated assessment to assist visual reading. Panellists did not support FDG-PET use for pre-clinical stages of neurodegenerative disorders, for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Huntington disease diagnoses, and for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Huntington-disease-related cognitive decline.
Despite limited formal evidence, panellists deemed FDG-PET useful in the early and differential diagnosis of the main neurodegenerative disorders, and semi-automated assessment helpful to assist visual reading. These decisions are proposed as interim recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to gain consensus regarding the clinical priorities and tasks required in supporting communication needs in those living with semantic dementia and their families, by specialist speech and language therapists (SLTs), working in clinical practice within dementia care settings in the UK.
METHODS: A nominal group technique was used, followed by further exploration and refinement of issues using a modified Delphi technique with a group of six SLTs who specialised in dementia care and who had experience of working with individuals with semantic dementia and their families.
RESULTS: The findings in the study demonstrate a broader scope of practice than is evident within the research literature with this client group. Therapists identified a range of psychosocial issues for both the person with semantic dementia and their family, in particular finding ways to support activity and participation in conversation and explore barriers and facilitators within the communication environment.
CONCLUSIONS: This represents the first study to explore everyday practice in this rarer dementia and the information gathered here will be of use to a variety of health and social care professions interested in supporting those with semantic dementia and their families.

We aimed to prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) among subjects presenting with a frontal lobe syndrome in middle-late adulthood.
Patients were included based on a predominant behavioural clinical presentation, a Frontal Behavioural Inventory (FBI) score of ≥11 and/or a Stereotypy Rating Inventory (SRI) score of ≥10. At baseline, the fulfilment of the international consensus criteria for behavioural variant FTD (FTDC) was systematically recorded. The 2-year follow-up consensus diagnosis was used as the gold standard to calculate sensitivity and specificity of the FTDC criteria for possible and probable bvFTD.
Two-year follow-up data were available for 116 patients (85%). Two-year follow-up consensus diagnoses consisted of probable/definite bvFTD (n = 27), other dementia (n = 30), psychiatric disorders (n = 46) and other neurological disorders (n = 13). Sensitivity for possible bvFTD was 85% (95% CI 70-95%) at a specificity of 27% (95% CI 19-37%). Sensitivity for probable bvFTD was 85% (95% CI 69-95%), whereas their specificity was 82% (95% CI 73-89%).
We found a good diagnostic accuracy for FTDC probable bvFTD. However, the specificity for FTDC possible bvFTD was low. Our results reflect the symptomatic overlap between bvFTD, other neurological conditions and psychiatric disorders, and the relevance of adding neuroimaging to the diagnostic process.

Dementia encompasses a variety of underlying conditions among which Alzheimer\'s disease represents the most common cause and in addition, vascular and Parkinson\'s disease dementia, dementia with Lewy bodies and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. All the current guidelines specify a two-step procedure for the diagnostics of dementia. The first step entails performing a comprehensive description, diagnosis and confirmation of the syndrome. The presented article focuses on the second step: diagnosis of the etiology. This review gives an overview of the current diagnostic approaches including the new proposals of the biomarker in cerebrospinal fluid.

BACKGROUND: The clinical diagnosis of dementing diseases largely depends on the subjective interpretation of patient symptoms. Consensus panels are frequently used in research to determine diagnoses when definitive pathologic findings are unavailable. Nevertheless, research on group decision making indicates that many factors can adversely affect panel performance.
OBJECTIVE: To determine conditions that improve consensus panel diagnosis.
METHODS: Comparison of neuropathologic diagnoses with individual and consensus panel diagnoses based on clinical scenarios only, fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography images only, and scenarios plus images.
METHODS: Expert and trainee individual and consensus panel deliberations using a modified Delphi method in a pilot research study of the diagnostic utility of fludeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography.
METHODS: Forty-five patients with pathologically confirmed Alzheimer disease or frontotemporal dementia.
METHODS: Statistical measures of diagnostic accuracy, agreement, and confidence for individual raters and panelists before and after consensus deliberations.
RESULTS: The consensus protocol using trainees and experts surpassed the accuracy of individual expert diagnoses when clinical information elicited diverse judgments. In these situations, consensus was 3.5 times more likely to produce positive rather than negative changes in the accuracy and diagnostic certainty of individual panelists. A rule that forced group consensus was at least as accurate as majority and unanimity rules.
CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified Delphi protocol to arrive at a consensus diagnosis is a reasonable substitute for pathologic information. This protocol improves diagnostic accuracy and certainty when panelist judgments differ and is easily adapted to other research and clinical settings while avoiding the potential pitfalls of group decision making.