Aisen, Paul

Importance Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarker and genetic testing results are increasingly disclosed to cognitively unimpaired adults in research and could in the future inform clinical treatment decisions in this population. Objectives To assess psychological outcomes after returning 3 categories of amyloid biomarker results as well as apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) genotypes. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of screening for the multisite AHEAD preclinical AD trial. Participants were individuals aged 55 to 80 years undergoing screening from July 14, 2020, to October 15, 2024. Exposure Participants were informed whether they had not-detected, intermediate, or elevated amyloid positron emission tomography levels, as well as their APOE genotype, which were categorized as noncarrier, ε4 heterozygote, or ε4 homozygote. Main outcomes and measures Impact of Events Scale (IES; 15 items to assess intrusive thoughts and avoidance; each item is scored as not at all [0], rarely [1], sometimes [3], or often [5]; total range, 0-75), collected 24 to 72 hours after disclosure, and change in a scale measuring concerns about AD dementia (adapted scale using 6 items in which participants indicated their level of agreement with statements related to their perceived probability of developing AD dementia; items scored as strongly disagree [1] through strongly agree [5]; total range, 6-30), calculated by subtracting the score collected before biomarker testing from 1 collected after biomarker and genetic test results disclosure. Results Among 3414 included individuals, the mean (SD) age was 68.8 (6.0) years and 2116 (62%) were female. Group mean IES scores were below clinically significant thresholds. Nevertheless, across genetic groups, learning an elevated amyloid result (1184 participants) was associated with higher IES (mean [SD], 10.5 [10.9]) than intermediate amyloid (482 participants; mean [SD] IES, 8.8 [9.8]), and intermediate amyloid was associated with higher scores than not-detected amyloid (1748 participants; mean [SD] IES, 6.5 [8.4]). Across amyloid groups, learning APOE ε4 homozygosity (337 participants) was associated with higher mean (SD) IES (12.7 [11.6]) than heterozygosity (1609 participants; 9.1 [10.2]), and heterozygosity was associated with higher IES than noncarrier status (1468 participants; mean [SD] IES, 6.2 [8.1]). Both types of information were significant in an analysis of covariance model; no interaction effect was observed. In contrast, only biomarker disclosure was associated with differential change in concerns about AD dementia. Those with elevated amyloid showed a mean (SD) increase in concern (0.8 [3.5]), those with intermediate amyloid showed a smaller increase (0.4 [3.7]), and those with not-detected amyloid showed decreased concerns (−1.1 [4.2]). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of cognitively unimpaired adults, associations with intrusive thoughts were observed to differ among genetic and biomarker subgroups; such associations were limited to biomarker subgroups for measures of perceived dementia risk.

INTRODUCTION Recent work has identified unique cognitive profiles for early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) relative to late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), however, examination has been limited in determining whether the association between age and cognitive severity at presentation also differs across conditions. METHODS A series of linear spline regression models was conducted across baseline cognitive data from 325 EOAD and 314 LOAD participants, after accounting for education, sex, and apolipoprotein ε4 status. RESULTS Significant differences existed in the relationship between baseline age and cognitive performance between EOAD and LOAD samples for Processing Speed/Attention, Executive Functioning, and Episodic Immediate Memory. Younger participants from both EOAD and LOAD groups performed disproportionately worse on non‐amnestic cognitive domains, with this occurring to a greater extent in EOAD than LOAD. DISCUSSION In the age of disease‐modifying treatments, results highlight the importance of assessing for cognitive declines in individuals starting much earlier than age 65. Highlights Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants each displayed cognitive impairments relative to same‐aged peers across most domains. Both groups displayed positive relationships between impairment among non‐amnestic cognitive domains and baseline age. This relationship displayed a significantly greater effect in EOAD than LOAD, with domains of Processing Speed/Attention and Executive Functioning skills being the most pronounced. Of those participants developing AD, age displayed a disproportionate impact on their symptom onset.

Abstract Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) and Late-onset AD (LOAD) differ in clinical presentations and rates of progression. We aimed to compare baseline and longitudinal tau PET burden, and their relationship with clinical variables in amyloid-PET positive, cognitively impaired participants from the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (EOAD; n=390) and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (LOAD; n=211). Patients with EOAD showed higher baseline tau PET retention, broader neuroanatomical involvement and faster accumulation rates over time compared to LOAD, after adjusting for amyloid load and clinical stage. Tau PET showed stronger correlations with baseline amyloid burden and clinical measures of global cognition and function in EOAD than LOAD. We conclude that earlier age of onset in AD is linked to a more aggressive tauopathy, which in turn is a primary driver of clinical decline. These findings suggest that optimal therapeutic targets and strategies may differ between EOAD and LOAD. One Sentence Summary Younger patients with Alzheimer’s disease show more aggressive tau spread, suggesting age of onset defines distinct disease pathways with key clinical implications.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The genetic basis of sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) remains largely unknown, prompting evaluation of late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) polygenic risk in EOAD. METHODS A LOAD polygenic score (PGS) was calculated in the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS) and Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study and tested for associations with AD risk, cognitive performance, and imaging and fluid biomarkers. RESULTS Though PGS was elevated in LOAD and EOAD, it was not a significant predictor of EOAD adjusting for APOE ε4 carrier status and was not associated with age of EOAD onset ( p = 0.106) or with cognitive performance ( p = 0.417). In LEADS, greater LOAD PGS was associated with differences in neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers, including elevated synaptosomal‐associated protein 25 (SNAP‐25) ( p = 2.3 × 10 −5 ). DISCUSSION While LOAD polygenic risk contributed minimally to EOAD onset and cognitive dysfunction, PGS association with fluid biomarkers in LEADS suggests a role for LOAD polygenic risk in EOAD pathophysiology. Highlights LOAD PGSs were elevated in both LOAD and EOAD compared to controls; however, LOAD PGS did not significantly predict EOAD risk, age at onset, or cognitive performance independent of APOE ε4 in the LEADS. Higher LOAD PGS was associated with lower amyloid PET Centiloids (less brain amyloid deposition) as well as lower CSF biomarker Aβ42 in LEADS (proxy marker suggesting higher brain amyloid deposition) in LEADS; these contradictory findings support the need for larger studies to further investigate whether LOAD PGS is associated with increased amyloid deposition in EOAD. Higher LOAD PGS was also associated with higher levels of CSF synaptosomal‐associated protein 25 (SNAP‐25), a key component of the SNARE complex, suggesting that LOAD genetic factors may contribute to dysregulation of synaptic transmission and/or pathological protein aggregation in EOAD.

Abstract Background Prior studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker disclosure have answered important questions about individuals’ experiences learning amyloid results. In comparison, the experiences of individuals performing AD biomarker disclosure have been under characterized. The present study examines the clinician experience disclosing amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative's ADNI‐4 study. Methods The ADNI‐4 longitudinal cohort study includes a pragmatic process for amyloid PET disclosure for participants across the cognitive spectrum. Disclosing clinicians complete a short questionnaire after each disclosure session, reporting on the visit length, the clinician's rating of participant and study partner understanding and emotional reactions, topics discussed, challenges, assessment of the visit overall, and any feedback about the process. Results Across the first 100 disclosures (48 cognitively normal, 35 Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), 17 dementia) in ADNI‐4, visits lasted an average of 29.4 minutes (SD 13.9, range 10‐90). Most cognitively impaired participants had a loved one present at the disclosure visit (dementia 94%, MCI 80%) but the majority of cognitively normal participants (73%) did not. Clinicians rated understanding of the result as adequate for all study partners and the vast majority (94%) of participants. Clinicians reported feeling “very confident” in their ability to assess readiness to receive result (70%), disclose (73%), and answer questions (77%). Clinicians rated all visits as “good” or better, with two‐thirds (65%) rated as “excellent.” Frequently discussed topics included meaning of result (99%), other risk factors (72%), and emotional impact of result (49%). Stigma and discrimination were rarely discussed, coming up in 12% and 3% of disclosure sessions, respectively. Challenges were infrequent (7%) and primarily included desire for additional information and challenges related to the participant's impairment. Clinicians provided the study team feedback about the disclosure process for 25% of disclosure visits. Comments included the desire for additional information or resources, positive feedback, and the importance of the study partner. Conclusions Clinicians disclosing amyloid PET results in ADNI‐4 report high confidence, adequate participant and study partner understanding, and few challenges. These data from clinicians, in combination with participant data, will inform future disclosure practices in both research and care.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Brief digital cognitive measures may be a valuable and scalable alternative to traditional tests for improving early detection and disease monitoring in patients with early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD). METHODS We examined the convergent, diagnostic, and neuroanatomical validity of Tablet‐based Cognitive Assessment Tool (TabCAT) tests in the multisite Longitudinal Early‐Onset Alzheimer's Disease Study. Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 sites (83 cognitively unimpaired participants, 146 individuals diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 246 with mild dementia) underwent TabCAT testing, including two executive/attentional tasks (Match and Flanker) and two visuospatial tasks (Line Length and Line Orientation). RESULTS TabCAT tests showed good convergent validity with traditional pen‐and‐paper tests. Match was the most accurate TabCAT test in differentiating among clinical groups (controls vs. MCI vs. dementia) and predicting amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity in clinically impaired participants. TabCAT tests were associated with regional tau PET patterns. DISCUSSION TabCAT digital measures have promise for frontline identification of patients with EOAD. Highlights Four hundred seventy‐five participants from 16 US sites underwent tablet‐based cognitive assessment. Digital tests assessed executive function and visuospatial abilities. Digital tests correlated with traditional pen‐and‐paper cognitive tests. Match (test of executive function) differentiated clinical groups. Digital tests were associated with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) status and regional tau PET patterns.

Importance Advances in Alzheimer disease (AD) have shifted research focus to earlier disease stages, necessitating more scalable approaches to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. Objective To assess the utility of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) for classifying Aβ status in cognitively unimpaired individuals, both as a stand-alone test and in a 2-step approach where positive plasma results were confirmed using a second modality (Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] or cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional cohort study used data collected between June 2009 and March 2024. We included 2916 cognitively unimpaired participants from 12 international independent observational cohorts in the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada with available plasma p-tau217 levels and CSF or PET Aβ biomarkers. Performance comparisons between mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based p-tau217 measurements were also performed (n = 964). Exposures Plasma p-tau217 levels measured by immunoassay. Main Outcome and Measures Aβ status, determined by CSF or Aβ PET biomarkers. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. As a stand-alone test, plasma p-tau217 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79% (95% CI, 74-84) and an overall accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 80-82). In a 2-step workflow, the PPV and accuracy significantly increased to 91% (95% CI, 86-95). While this approach required screening of 677 individuals with plasma p-tau217 to identify 100 Aβ-positive individuals, compared to 536 participants when using PET alone, it reduced the need for PET testing to 124. Immunoassays demonstrated comparable PPVs to mass spectrometry (80% [95% CI, 74-86] vs 85% [95% CI, 81-90]; P = .12) but significantly lower overall accuracy (82% [95% CI, 79-84]% vs 88 [95% CI, 86-90]; P < .001) and true Aβ-positive detection rate (49% [95% CI, 43-55] vs 69% [95% CI, 64-75]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings highlight the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a stand-alone test—or when used in a sequential 2-step approach alongside PET or CSF testing—as a cost-effective, scalable, and minimally burdensome strategy for identifying preclinical AD. Tailored screening workflows that incorporate p-tau217 can improve efficiency in participant selection for preclinical AD trials and, in the future, help guide access to disease-modifying treatments.

Abstract BACKGROUND First held in 2020, the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) is a program to train the next generation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (AD/ADRD) clinical trialists. METHODS IMPACT‐AD includes didactic, workshop, and small group components. RESULTS IMPACT‐AD has trained 18 alumni–scholars (accepted from 424 applicants), of whom 67% were female. Forty‐eight (26%) were the first in their family to attend college. Scholars included individuals from all racial and ethnic groups. Each year, participants demonstrated increased learning about AD/ADRD clinical trials through a pre/post‐test model of knowledge assessments. Among those completing annual follow‐up surveys, >84% remain in AD/ADRD trials careers, and 80% have experienced career advances or milestones. In the latter group, > 90% indicated that participating in IMPACT‐AD contributed to this career growth. DISCUSSION IMPACT‐AD is a novel educational program that is achieving its goals. Highlights Over 5 years, the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) has trained 188 scholars. The course has been accessible to a broad range of trainees who were diverse in professional and demographic backgrounds. Objective assessments indicate that participants gain knowledge through participation. Eighty‐four percent of trainees have remained in Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) trials careers. Eighty percent of alumni have experienced career advances; nearly all indicated that participating in the course contributed to their success.

AbstractBackgroundThe Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in Alzheimer’s Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) (IMPACT‐AD) is a novel multi‐disciplinary training program funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer’s Association for individuals seeking expertise in designing and conducting AD/ADRD trials. IMPACT‐AD offers a Professionals Track for investigators in a variety of trial roles and a Fellowship Track for future AD/ADRD clinical trial principal investigators.MethodTo evaluate long‐term training outcomes, alumni‐scholars from the 2020‐2022 courses (n = 109) were surveyed via REDCap in January 2024. Measured constructs encompassed alumni‐scholar retention in AD/ADRD trials, promotions received, project funding, and the status of the protocol developed during the course, including whether it had been funded, conducted, and published (Fellowship Track). Alumni‐scholars rated the extent to which the course facilitated their achievements (not at all, somewhat, very much).ResultOf the 63 (58%) of alumni‐scholars who responded (48% Professional Track, 69% Fellowship Track), 44 (70%) were female. 21 (33%) identified as African American/Black, Asian, Multiracial or of another race; 7 (11%) self‐identified as Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. 5 (8%) identified as LGBTQ+. 12 (19%) indicated being first in their families to attend college.Since program completion, 87% of survey participants maintained a career in ADRD clinical trials. A majority (63%) experienced a promotion or career advancement, with all indicating that IMPACT‐AD “somewhat” or “very much” contributed. Less than half of scholars (43%) had received project funding since IMPACT‐AD, but 74% of those had credited IMPACT‐AD at least somewhat for this achievement. Among the 34 Fellowship Track respondents, 15 (44%) indicated that the trial proposed at IMPACT‐AD had received funding, 14 (41%) reported its completion, and 5 (15%) had published its results. Nearly all respondents (%) reported assuming additional roles and responsibilities within their current title. In total, 92% of surveyed participants reported at least one positive change across all measured categories.ConclusionIMPACT‐AD is effectively fulfilling its goals of training, nurturing, and diversifying a next generation of AD/ADRD trialists.

AbstractBackgroundScalable, efficient methods are needed to enroll diverse populations of older adults into AD observational studies and clinical trials. We evaluated preliminary feasibility of a novel, digital, culturally informed approach to recruit and screen participants for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI4).MethodsDigital advertising tailored towards Black/African American and Latinx older adults residing near six clinical ADNI sites directed potential participants to a recruitment website (Figure 1). They completed digital surveys of demographics, ADNI exclusion criteria, memory concerns and changes, self‐report cognitive impairment, and the Everyday Cognition Scale (ECog)‐12 item. Participants also completed Novoic Storyteller, a self‐administered speech‐based cognitive test. Digital assessment results were used to prioritize those from minoritized ethnocultural groups, with low educational attainment, and possible Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) for remote blood draw at local Quest phlebotomy centers to obtain AD plasma biomarkers. Completion rates and digital assessment performance were compared between minoritized and non‐minoritized groups.ResultsOf 989 participants recruited from digital advertising efforts who provided contact information, 230 (23%) signed consent, and 183 (19%) completed at least one remote assessment (Table 1). 45% were from minoritized ethnocultural groups, 4% had ≤12 years of education, and 53% had evidence of possible MCI from digital assessments. 34 (19%) were referred to the plasma biomarker study, of which 21% completed blood draw. Compared to non‐minoritized participants, minoritized participants were less likely to report a diagnosed cognitive impairment or a family history of AD, less likely to have ECog scores indicative of MCI, and less likely to have a study partner. Minoritized participants had lower ECog and Novoic Storyteller completion rates.ConclusionRecruitment and assessment of a diverse cohort of older adults, including those with possible cognitive impairment, is feasible using culturally informed digital advertising. Improving study engagement and achieving educational diversity are key challenges. This approach is now being scaled up to facilitate recruitment into in‐clinic ADNI4, with the goal of enrolling 500 new participants: >50% from minoritized groups, 40% with MCI, and 80% amyloid positive across diagnostic groups. This approach can be adapted to facilitate recruitment and longitudinal assessment in other AD studies and trials.