Apostolova, Liana G.

Abstract Limbic predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is highly prevalent in late life and a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC). LATE‐NC is a slowly progressive, amnestic clinical syndrome. Alternatively, when present with ADNC, LATE‐NC is associated with a more rapid course. With the emergence of anti‐amyloid therapeutics, discrimination of LATE‐NC from ADNC is critical and will lead to greater clinical recognition of amnestic patients without ADNC. Furthermore, co‐pathology with LATE‐NC may influence outcomes of these therapeutics. Thus there is a need to identify patients during life with likely LATE‐NC. We propose criteria for clinical diagnosis of LATE as an initial framework for further validation. In the context of progressive memory loss and substantial hippocampal atrophy, criteria are laid out for probable (amyloid negative) or possible LATE (amyloid biomarkers are unavailable or when amyloid is present, but hippocampal neurodegeneration is out of proportion to expected pure ADNC). Highlights Limbic‐predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy (LATE) is a highly prevalent driver of neuropathologic memory loss in late life. LATE neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) and may influence outcomes with emerging disease‐modifying medicines. We provide initial clinical criteria for diagnosing LATE during life either when LATE‐NC is the likely primary driver of symptoms or when observed in conjunction with AD. Definitions of possible and probable LATE are provided.

AbstractBackgroundEarly‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) occurs before age 65 and has more diverse disease presentations than late‐onset AD. To improve our understanding of phenotypic heterogeneity among EOAD individuals, we analyzed cognitive scores using data‐driven statistical analysis.MethodBaseline cognitive data from 286 sporadic EOAD individuals from the Longitudinal EOAD study (LEADS) were transformed to z‐scores using data from 95 cognitively normal (CN) individuals. Cognitive composites were generated for domains of memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Residuals from linear regression models on Z‐scores adjusted for age, sex, and education were obtained. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the cognitive domain residuals was performed and scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared determined the optimal number of clusters for the EOAD sample. We also compared gray matter density (GMD) of each EOAD cluster to CN participants using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions.ResultsThree clusters of cognitive performance were identified from the EOAD sample. Disease duration was not significantly different across clusters. Using a z‐score of ‐1.5 SD as the impairment threshold, all clusters were impaired across most domains (Table 1). Cluster‐3 was more impaired than cluster‐2 in all domains (Table 2; all p<.0001), and in all domains except episodic memory compared to cluster‐1 (all p<.01). Cluster‐1 (n = 71; 85.9% amnestic) was most impaired in executive function, visuospatial, and speed/attention. Cluster‐2 (n = 133; 88.7% amnestic) was most impaired in episodic memory. Cluster‐3 (n = 82; 69.5% amnestic) was most impaired in executive function, visuospatial, and speed/attention (Table 1). 3D‐comparisons showed all EOAD clusters had reduced GMD compared to CN. Cluster‐1 and cluster‐3 both showed widespread atrophy, with cluster‐3 being more severe. Cluster‐2 showed the most atrophy in the temporal and parietal lobes (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among sporadic EOAD individuals. Cluster‐3 appeared to reflect widespread impairment, and cluster‐2 represented an amnestic‐only presentation. Despite comparable disease duration, some EOAD patients progress faster, while some are more resilient. 3D‐comparisons showed neurodegenerative changes affecting brain regions responsible for respective impaired cognitive functions in each cluster (e.g., cluster‐2 is primarily amnestic‐impaired and has temporoparietal atrophy). Future work should explore amyloid‐PET and tau‐PET burden.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age‐at‐onset<65) is challenging: in the multi‐center Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study, ∼25% of patients with clinically diagnosed EOAD are amyloid‐PET‐negative. Here we used FDG‐PET to characterize the heterogeneity of hypometabolic profiles in these patients and better identify underlying etiologies.MethodSeventy‐four amyloid‐PET‐negative patients with clinical diagnosis of sporadic EOAD (MCI or mild dementia stage) underwent FDG‐PET. Patients were classified as having normal or hypometabolic FDG‐PET based on a data‐driven approach that compared each patient to a group of 61 age‐matched amyloid‐PET‐negative controls using 12 methodological combinations (3 reference regions, 2 voxel‐level thresholds, 2 outlier detection methods). We then assessed clinical and demographic differences between patients with normal versus hypometabolic FDG‐PET, and further compared groups using independent biomarkers of neurodegeneration (structural MRI and fluid biomarkers). Finally, we applied hierarchical clustering to hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans to identify patterns of hypometabolism.ResultThirty‐six amyloid‐negative patients (49%) had hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans. They were older and more severely impaired across most cognitive domains than patients with normal FDG‐PET (Table 1). They also had reduced hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness (Figure 1A), higher plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and elevated plasma GFAP compared to patients with normal FDG‐PET (Figure 1B). In contrast, the latter, who had intermediate cognitive scores between hypometabolic patients and controls, had MRI and fluid biomarker levels in the range of controls (Figure 1). In hypometabolic patients, hierarchical clustering identified four profiles: i) anterior temporal extending to temporo‐parietal and frontal regions (n=5), ii) anterior temporal and orbitofrontal (n=11), iii) occipito‐parietal (n=6), and iv) lateral frontal and parietal (n=14) (Figure 2). Genetic testing identified two patients with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD)‐associated pathogenic variants, both considered hypometabolic and assigned to the first (MAPT) and second (c9orf72) metabolic profiles.ConclusionFifty‐one percent of amyloid‐negative patients had normal FDG‐PET: they had milder clinical impairment, normal MRI measures, and normal NfL values, suggesting non‐neurodegenerative etiologies. Patients with abnormal FDG showed heterogeneous hypometabolic patterns suggestive of multiple etiologies including Lewy body disease, FTLD or corticobasal degeneration. Longitudinal follow‐up to autopsy will ultimately clarify the amyloid‐negative clinical mimics of sporadic EOAD.

AbstractBackgroundLarge‐scale studies comparing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age<65) and late‐onset AD (LOAD, age≥65) are lacking. We compared amyloid‐PET outcomes (positivity rate and amyloid burden) between patients clinically diagnosed with sporadic EOAD vs LOAD, leveraging data from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset AD Study (LEADS) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3 (ADNI3).Method731 patients meeting the 2011 NIA‐AA criteria for AD dementia or MCI were included (505 early‐onset from LEADS, 226 late‐onset from ADNI3, Table 1). All participants underwent amyloid‐PET with [18F]Florbetaben or [18F]Florbetapir. Amyloid positivity was centrally determined by a process involving a visual read by a trained expert and PET‐only quantification; in case of a discrepancy, a read from an independent physician acted as a tiebreaker. Logistic regressions in each cohort examined relations between amyloid positivity and age, sex, MMSE and APOE4 genotype. Amyloid burden was independently quantified in Centiloids using an MRI‐based pipeline. Mean Centiloids in LEADS and ADNI were compared with two‐way ANOVA, for visually positive and visually negative scans.ResultAmyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (76%) than ADNI (64%, p<0.001, Figure 1A). Lower MMSE and APOE4 genotype increased odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts, although the APOE4 effect was stronger in ADNI than LEADS (OR=10.1 versus 2.4, p=0.007, Table 2). Amyloid positivity was more common in females across cohorts, but this effect was only statistically significant in LEADS (Table 2). Centiloids were bimodally distributed in both cohorts, although the separation between positive and negative scans was more prominent in LEADS (Figure 1B). Visually positive scans had significantly higher Centiloids in LEADS than in ADNI, whereas no cohort difference was observed for visually negative scans (Figure 1C). Sensitivity analyses showed that this effect was driven by patients with MCI (CDR≤0.5; Figure 1D‐E).ConclusionThe lower amyloid positivity rate in ADNI might be due to AD‐mimicking pathologies being more common at an older age. The higher amyloid burden in early‐onset, amyloid‐positive patients could reflect younger patients being diagnosed later in the disease course compared to typical, late‐onset patients. Alternatively, younger patients might tolerate higher neuropathology burden due to higher brain reserve or fewer co‐pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundLarge‐scale studies comparing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age<65) and late‐onset AD (LOAD, age = 65) are lacking. We compared amyloid‐PET outcomes (positivity rate and amyloid burden) between patients clinically diagnosed with sporadic EOAD vs LOAD, leveraging data from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset AD Study (LEADS) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3 (ADNI3).Method731 patients meeting the 2011 NIA‐AA criteria for AD dementia or MCI were included (505 early‐onset from LEADS, 226 late‐onset from ADNI3, Table 1). All participants underwent amyloid‐PET with [18F]Florbetaben or [18F]Florbetapir. Amyloid positivity was centrally determined by a process involving a visual read by a trained expert and PET‐only quantification; in case of a discrepancy, a read from an independent physician acted as a tiebreaker. Logistic regressions in each cohort examined relations between amyloid positivity and age, sex, MMSE and APOE4 genotype. Amyloid burden was independently quantified in Centiloids using an MRI‐based pipeline. Mean Centiloids in LEADS and ADNI were compared with two‐way ANOVA, for visually positive and visually negative scans.ResultAmyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (76%) than ADNI (64%, p<0.001, Figure 1A). Lower MMSE and APOE4 genotype increased odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts, although the APOE4 effect was stronger in ADNI than LEADS (OR = 10.1 versus 2.4, p = 0.007, Table 2). Amyloid positivity was more common in females across cohorts, but this effect was only statistically significant in LEADS (Table 2). Centiloids were bimodally distributed in both cohorts, although the separation between positive and negative scans was more prominent in LEADS (Figure 1B). Visually positive scans had significantly higher Centiloids in LEADS than in ADNI, whereas no cohort difference was observed for visually negative scans (Figure 1C). Sensitivity analyses showed that this effect was driven by patients with MCI (CDR = 0.5; Figure 1D‐E).ConclusionThe lower amyloid positivity rate in ADNI might be due to AD‐mimicking pathologies being more common at an older age. The higher amyloid burden in early‐onset, amyloid‐positive patients could reflect younger patients being diagnosed later in the disease course compared to typical, late‐onset patients. Alternatively, younger patients might tolerate higher neuropathology burden due to higher brain reserve or fewer co‐pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age‐at‐onset<65) is challenging: in the multi‐center Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study, ∼25% of patients with clinically diagnosed EOAD are amyloid‐PET‐negative. Here we used FDG‐PET to characterize the heterogeneity of hypometabolic profiles in these patients and better identify underlying etiologies.MethodSeventy‐four amyloid‐PET‐negative patients with clinical diagnosis of sporadic EOAD (MCI or mild dementia stage) underwent FDG‐PET. Patients were classified as having normal or hypometabolic FDG‐PET based on a data‐driven approach that compared each patient to a group of 61 age‐matched amyloid‐PET‐negative controls using 12 methodological combinations (3 reference regions, 2 voxel‐level thresholds, 2 outlier detection methods). We then assessed clinical and demographic differences between patients with normal versus hypometabolic FDG‐PET, and further compared groups using independent biomarkers of neurodegeneration (structural MRI and fluid biomarkers). Finally, we applied hierarchical clustering to hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans to identify patterns of hypometabolism.ResultThirty‐six amyloid‐negative patients (49%) had hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans. They were older and more severely impaired across most cognitive domains than patients with normal FDG‐PET (Table 1). They also had reduced hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness (Figure 1A), higher plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and elevated plasma GFAP compared to patients with normal FDG‐PET (Figure 1B). In contrast, the latter, who had intermediate cognitive scores between hypometabolic patients and controls, had MRI and fluid biomarker levels in the range of controls (Figure 1). In hypometabolic patients, hierarchical clustering identified four profiles: i) anterior temporal extending to temporo‐parietal and frontal regions (n = 5), ii) anterior temporal and orbitofrontal (n = 11), iii) occipito‐parietal (n = 6), and iv) lateral frontal and parietal (n = 14) (Figure 2). Genetic testing identified two patients with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD)‐associated pathogenic variants, both considered hypometabolic and assigned to the first (MAPT) and second (c9orf72) metabolic profiles.ConclusionFifty‐one percent of amyloid‐negative patients had normal FDG‐PET: they had milder clinical impairment, normal MRI measures, and normal NfL values, suggesting non‐neurodegenerative etiologies. Patients with abnormal FDG showed heterogeneous hypometabolic patterns suggestive of multiple etiologies including Lewy body disease, FTLD or corticobasal degeneration. Longitudinal follow‐up to autopsy will ultimately clarify the amyloid‐negative clinical mimics of sporadic EOAD.

AbstractBackgroundThe Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological battery, administered across Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADC), includes memory tests but lacks a list‐learning paradigm. ADCs often supplement the UDS with their own preferred list‐learning task. Given the importance of list‐learning for characterizing memory, we aimed to develop a harmonized memory score that incorporates UDS memory tests while allowing centers to contribute differing list‐learning tasks.MethodWe applied item‐banking confirmatory factor analysis to develop a composite memory score in 5,287 participants (mean age 67.1; SD = 12.2) recruited through 18 ADCs and four consortia (DiverseVCID, MarkVCID, ALLFTD, LEADS) who completed UDS memory tasks (used as linking‐items) and one of five list‐learning tasks. All analyses used linear regression. We tested whether memory scores were affected by which list‐learning task was administered. To assess construct validity, we tested associations of memory scores with demographics, disease severity (CDR Box Score), an independent memory task (TabCAT Favorites, n = 675), and hippocampal volume (n = 811). We compared performances between cognitively unimpaired (n = 279), AD‐biomarker+ MCI (n = 26), and AD‐biomarker+ dementia (n = 98). In a subsample with amyloid‐ and tau‐PET (n = 49), we compared memory scores from participants with positive vs negative scans determined using established quantitative cutoffs.ResultModel fit indices were excellent (e.g., CFI = 0.998) and factor loadings were strong (0.43‐0.93). Differences in list‐learning task had a negligible effect on scores (average Cohen’s d = 0.11). Higher memory scores were significantly (p’s<.001) correlated with younger age (β = ‐0.18), lower CDR Box Scores (β = ‐0.63), female sex (β = 0.12), higher education (β = 0.19), larger hippocampal volume (β = 0.42), and an independent memory task (β = 0.71, p<0.001). The memory composite declined in a stepwise fashion by diagnosis (cognitively unimpaired>MCI>AD dementia, p<0.001). On average, amyloid‐PET positivity was associated with lower composite scores, but was not statistically significant (β = ‐0.34; p = 0.25; d = 0.40). Tau‐PET positivity was associated with worse performance, demonstrating a large effect size (β = ‐0.75; p<0.002; d = 0.91).ConclusionThe harmonized memory score developed in a large national sample was stable regardless of contributing list‐learning task and its validity for cross‐cohort ADRD research is supported by expected associations with demographics, clinical measures, and Alzheimer’s biomarkers. A processing script will be made available to enhance cross‐cohort ADRD research.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) manifests prior to the age of 65, and affects 4%–8% of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The current analyses sought to examine longitudinal cognitive trajectories of participants with early‐onset dementia. METHODS Data from 307 cognitively normal (CN) volunteer participants and those with amyloid‐positive EOAD or amyloid‐negative cognitive impairment (EOnonAD) were compared. Cognitive trajectories across a comprehensive cognitive battery spanning 42 months were examined using mixed‐effects modeling. RESULTS The EOAD group displayed worse cognition at baseline relative to EOnonAD and CN groups, and more aggressive declines in cognition over time. The largest effects were observed on measures of executive functioning domains, while memory declines were blunted in EOAD. DISCUSSION EOAD declined 2–4× faster than EOnonAD, and EOAD pathology is not restricted to memory networks. Early identification of deficits is critical to ensure that individuals with sporadic EOAD can be considered for treatment using disease‐modifying medications. Highlights Represents the most comprehensive longitudinal characterization of sporadic EOAD to date. The trajectory of cognitive declines was steep for EOAD participants and worse than for other groups. Executive functioning measures exhibited the greatest declines over time in EOAD.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) share similar amyloid etiology, but evidence from smaller‐scale studies suggests that they manifest differently clinically. Current analyses sought to contrast the cognitive profiles of EOAD and LOAD. METHODS Z‐ score cognitive‐domain composites for 311 amyloid‐positive sporadic EOAD and 314 amyloid‐positive LOAD participants were calculated from baseline data from age‐appropriate control cohorts. Z‐ score composites were compared between AD groups for each domain. RESULTS After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD displayed worse visuospatial, executive functioning, and processing speed/attention skills relative to LOAD, and LOAD displayed worse language, episodic immediate memory, and episodic delayed memory. DISCUSSION Sporadic EOAD possesses distinct cognitive profiles relative to LOAD. Clinicians should be alert for non‐amnestic impairments in younger patients to ensure proper identification and intervention using disease‐modifying treatments. Highlights Both early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants displayed widespread cognitive impairments relative to their same‐aged peers. Cognitive impairments were more severe for EOAD than for LOAD participants in visuospatial and executive domains. Memory and language impairments were more severe for LOAD than for EOAD participants Results were comparable after removing clinical phenotypes of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), primary progressive aphasia (lv‐PPA), and frontal‐variant AD.

Behavioral neurology & neuropsychiatry (BNNP) is a field that seeks to understand brain–behavior relationships, including fundamental brain organization principles and the many ways that brain structures and connectivity can be disrupted, leading to abnormalities of behavior, cognition, emotion, perception, and social cognition. In North America, BNNP has existed as an integrated subspecialty through the United Council for Neurologic Subspecialties since 2006. Nonetheless, the number of behavioral neurologists across academic medical centers and community settings is not keeping pace with increasing clinical and research demand. In this commentary, we provide a brief history of BNNP followed by an outline of the current challenges and opportunities for BNNP from the behavioral neurologist’s perspective across clinical, research, and educational spheres. We provide a practical guide for promoting BNNP and addressing the shortage of behavioral neurologists to facilitate the continued growth and development of the subspecialty. We also urge a greater commitment to recruit trainees from diverse backgrounds so as to dismantle persistent obstacles that hinder inclusivity in BNNP—efforts that will further enhance the growth and impact of the subspecialty. With rapidly expanding diagnostic and therapeutic approaches across a range of conditions at the intersection of neurology and psychiatry, BNNP is well positioned to attract new trainees and expand its reach across clinical, research, and educational activities.