Kukull, Walter A.

AbstractBackgroundWe examined neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and psychotropic medication use at the midway point of data collection of the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS). We compared amyloid‐positive early‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) participants and amyloid‐negative early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s disease [EOnonAD]) participants across NPS domains and psychotropic medication categories.Method282 participants enrolled in LEADS were compared across diagnostic groups – amyloid‐positive EOAD (n = 212) and amyloid‐negative EOnonAD (n = 70). All participants were between ages 40 and 64 at baseline. NPS were measured with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) and Geriatric Depression Scale – Short Form (GDS‐SF). Medications were categorized into psychotropic category (e.g., antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines). Groups were compared on NPI‐Q using binary logistic regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, on GDS‐SF using linear regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, and on psychotropic medication use using Chi square or Fisher’s exact test.ResultDemographic data are presented in Table 1. Average total NPI‐Q score was higher in EOnonAD than EOAD (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). Regardless of diagnostic group, informants endorsed Affective behaviors most frequently (76.2%). EOAD informants endorsed fewer Distress‐Tension behaviors (p = .02, OR = .498) and Impulse Control behaviors (p = .01, OR = .438). EOAD informants also endorsed apathy (p < .001, OR = .316), irritability (p = .02, OR = .498), and disinhibition (p = .04, OR = .476) at lower frequency than EOnonAD. GDS‐SF showed that the EOnonAD participants self‐reported more symptoms of depression than the EOAD group (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). (Table 2A). A minority of participants, regardless of diagnostic group, reported psychotropic medication use (35%). There was higher use in EOnonAD (38%) than EOAD (24%) (p = .03, Cohen W = .14) (Table 2B).ConclusionNPS burden and psychotropic medication use were higher in EOnonAD than EOAD participants, despite EOnonAD being less severely impaired. LEADS continues to collect data. Future studies will examine etiologies that may be larger drivers of NPS than AD neuropathology, mediators (e.g., race, ethnicity) in the association between NPS and diagnostic group classication, compare NPS in EOAD vs. LOAD, and examine longitudinal changes in neuropsychiatric profiles.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10‐25% of amnestic early‐onset dementia are negative for amyloid (Early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s Disease, EOnonAD). EOnonAD is a heterogenous group with various etiologies. In order to better understand the traits of EOnonAD, we clustered amnestic EOnonAD individuals according to cognitive patterns.MethodCognitive data of 62 EOnonAD individuals from the Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) were Z‐normalized to 91 intact individuals after adjusting for age, sex, and education. This led to domain‐averaged composite Z‐scores for memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the residuals for the five composites was performed. We used Scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared to determine the optimal number of clusters. We compared demographics, imaging biomarkers (amyloid and tau PET SUVR, hippocampal volume), plasma (pTau231, Aß40, Aß42, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light chain (NfL)), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aß42/40, NfL, Neurogranin, Visinin‐like protein, YKL‐40, and Synaptosome Associated Protein 25) across the clusters after adjusting for age, sex, and education. We compared gray matter density of each EOnonAD cluster to controls (n = 84) using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions in SPM12, adjusting for age, sex, education, and intracranial volume.ResultScree plot using the pseudo‐T‐squared suggested three clusters. Cluster 1 (38/62, 61.3%) was characterized by having the mildest cognitive impairment in all domains. Cluster 2 (19/62, 30.6%) was characterized by more severe memory and language impairment. Cluster 3 (5/62, 8.1%) was characterized by more severe impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function (Table 1). Cluster 3 showed significantly higher NfL for both plasma (Cluster 1 vs 3, p<0.001; Cluster 2 vs 3, p < 0.004) and CSF (Cluster 1 vs 3, p = 0.001). Other biomarkers did not show significant difference (Table 1). Only Cluster 3 showed significant atrophy in the bilateral fronto‐parietal areas at p<0.01, uncorrected (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among amnestic EOnonAD individuals. Cluster 1 had mildest cognitive impairment; Cluster 2 had predominant impairment in memory and language; and Cluster 3 had predominant impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function, with significant fronto‐parietal atrophy and high NfL indicating active neurodegeneration.

AbstractBackgroundThe Standardized Centralized Alzheimer’s & related dementias Neuroimaging (SCAN) project harmonizes processing of prospectively acquired PET and MRI scans from Alzheimer’s disease research centers (ADRCs) across the USA. SCAN data will be integrated with other ADRC data streams within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC), including the Uniform Data Set which includes rich longitudinal demographic, cognitive, and neuropathological data, resulting in a large, potentially representative cohort. The project has sought to accommodate site‐to‐site variation in image acquisition while permitting harmonization of imaging data, necessitating new analytic approaches for different PET tracers and PET scans without MRIs.MethodPET scans underwent preprocessing for quality control and smoothing to a uniform resolution. MRI‐free processing pipelines and positivity thresholds were developed for each beta‐amyloid (Aβ)‐PET tracer: [11C]PiB, [18F]florbetaben (FBB), [18F]florbetapir (FBP) and [18F]flutafuranol (NAV). A generic Aβ‐PET template was used for spatial normalization and cortical summary SUVRs were calculated in template space. Aβ‐positivity thresholds were determined by examining both MRI‐dependent thresholds transformed into MRI‐free units and a young control mean+2SD. Centiloid (CL) conversions were completed for each Aβ‐PET tracer. Tau‐PET tracers ([18F]flortaucipir (FTP) and [18F]MK‐6240) required tracer‐specific warping templates for best performance relative to gold‐standard MRI‐dependent processing. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from NACC.Result15 ADRCs have contributed data to SCAN as of January 2023. 477 participants had preprocessed, SCAN‐compliant (https://scan.naccdata.org/) Aβ‐PET scans and NACC data; 219 of these participants (46%) also had tau‐PET scans (Table 1). This cohort included 18% of individuals from underrepresented groups. Clinical diagnostic groups ranged from cognitively unimpaired to MCI and dementia (74% of whom had AD dementia). Using pooled Aβ‐PET data across 4 tracers in CLs, there were expected differences in Aβ burden by diagnosis group (Fig. 1) and positive associations with tau (Fig. 2).ConclusionSCAN has successfully harmonized PET data from more than a dozen US ADRCs yielding a large, clinically heterogeneous cohort of deeply phenotyped research participants. SCAN data will be compatible with ADNI data allowing for further pooling of data and greater statistical power to drive critical questions in AD and related dementias research.

AbstractBackgroundThe Standardized Centralized Alzheimer’s & related dementias Neuroimaging (SCAN) project harmonizes processing of prospectively acquired PET and MRI scans from Alzheimer’s disease research centers (ADRCs) across the USA. SCAN data will be integrated with other ADRC data streams within the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC), including the Uniform Data Set which includes rich longitudinal demographic, cognitive, and neuropathological data, resulting in a large, potentially representative cohort. The project has sought to accommodate site‐to‐site variation in image acquisition while permitting harmonization of imaging data, necessitating new analytic approaches for different PET tracers and PET scans without MRIs.MethodPET scans underwent preprocessing for quality control and smoothing to a uniform resolution. MRI‐free processing pipelines and positivity thresholds were developed for each beta‐amyloid (Aß)‐PET tracer: [11C]PiB, [18F]florbetaben (FBB), [18F]florbetapir (FBP) and [18F]flutafuranol (NAV). A generic Aß‐PET template was used for spatial normalization and cortical summary SUVRs were calculated in template space. Aß‐positivity thresholds were determined by examining both MRI‐dependent thresholds transformed into MRI‐free units and a young control mean+2SD. Centiloid (CL) conversions were completed for each Aß‐PET tracer. Tau‐PET tracers ([18F]flortaucipir (FTP) and [18F]MK‐6240) required tracer‐specific warping templates for best performance relative to gold‐standard MRI‐dependent processing. Demographic and clinical data were obtained from NACC.Result15 ADRCs have contributed data to SCAN as of January 2023. 477 participants had preprocessed, SCAN‐compliant (https://scan.naccdata.org/) Aß‐PET scans and NACC data; 219 of these participants (46%) also had tau‐PET scans (Table 1). This cohort included 18% of individuals from underrepresented groups. Clinical diagnostic groups ranged from cognitively unimpaired to MCI and dementia (74% of whom had AD dementia). Using pooled Aß‐PET data across 4 tracers in CLs, there were expected differences in Aß burden by diagnosis group (Fig. 1) and positive associations with tau (Fig. 2).ConclusionSCAN has successfully harmonized PET data from more than a dozen US ADRCs yielding a large, clinically heterogeneous cohort of deeply phenotyped research participants. SCAN data will be compatible with ADNI data allowing for further pooling of data and greater statistical power to drive critical questions in AD and related dementias research.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) research has advanced our understanding of neurodegeneration in sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) but studies include small samples, mostly amnestic EOAD, and have not focused on developing an MRI biomarker. METHODS We analyzed MRI scans to define the sporadic EOAD‐signature atrophy in a small sample (n = 25) of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) EOAD patients, investigated its reproducibility in the large longitudinal early‐onset Alzheimer's disease study (LEADS) sample (n = 211), and investigated the relationship of the magnitude of atrophy with cognitive impairment. RESULTS The EOAD‐signature atrophy was replicated across the two cohorts, with prominent atrophy in the caudal lateral temporal cortex, inferior parietal lobule, and posterior cingulate and precuneus cortices, and with relative sparing of the medial temporal lobe. The magnitude of EOAD‐signature atrophy was associated with the severity of cognitive impairment. DISCUSSION The EOAD‐signature atrophy is a reliable and clinically valid biomarker of AD‐related neurodegeneration that could be used in clinical trials for EOAD. Highlights We developed an early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD)–signature of atrophy based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. EOAD signature was robustly reproducible across two independent patient cohorts. EOAD signature included prominent atrophy in parietal and posterior temporal cortex. The EOAD‐signature atrophy was associated with the severity of cognitive impairment. EOAD signature is a reliable and clinically valid biomarker of neurodegeneration.