Forty-one bvFTD patients and 75 probable AD patients, all diagnosed using accepted criteria, were seen by a neurologist and a neuropsychologist. Information regarding ED behaviour was obtained from the caregiver’s history, observations for spontaneous behaviour and induction of the behaviour in the clinic. All ED behaviours were significantly more frequent in bvFTD compared with AD. UB (78 %; 66 % incidental) and
IB (59 %) occurred exclusively in bvFTD. Multi-pronged and focused clinical assessment contributed to the high frequency of ED behaviours. Nearly two-thirds BMN 673 solubility dmso of bvFTD patients, but none with AD, showed three or more ED behaviours. We concluded that ED behaviours are more common in bvFTD than is currently recognized. UB, IB or three ED behaviours, if present, could clearly differentiate bvFTD from AD. A focused search should consistently uncover ED behaviours in bvFTD patients.”
“STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial.\n\nOBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of cervical versus thoracic thrust manipulation in patients with bilateral chronic mechanical neck
pain on pressure pain sensitivity, neck pain, and cervical range of motion (CROM).\n\nBACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that spinal interventions can stimulate descending inhibitory pain pathways. Navitoclax nmr To our knowledge, no study has investigated the neurophysiological effects HM781-36B of thoracic thrust manipulation in individuals with bilateral chronic mechanical neck pain, including widespread changes on pressure sensitivity.\n\nMETHODS: Ninety patients (51% female) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups:
cervical thrust manipulation on the right, cervical thrust manipulation on the left, or thoracic thrust manipulation. Pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) over the C5-6 zygapophyseal joint, lateral epicondyle, and tibialis anterior muscle, neck pain (11-point numeric pain rating scale), and cervical spine range of motion (CROM) were collected at baseline and 10 minutes after the intervention by an assessor blinded to the treatment allocation of the patients. Mixed-model analyses of covariance were used to examine the effects of the treatment on each outcome variable, with group as the between-subjects variable, time and side as the within-subject variables, and gender as the covariate. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction.\n\nRESULTS: No significant interactions were found with the mixed-model analyses of covariance for PPT level (C5-6, P>.210; lateral epicondyle, P>.186; tibialis anterior muscle, P>.268), neck pain intensity (P=.923), or CROM (flexion, P=.700; extension, P=.387; lateral flexion, P>.672; rotation, P>.192) as dependent variables. All groups exhibited similar changes in PPT, neck pain, and CROM (all, P<.001).