Back to Authors

Price, Julie C.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7131-4865

Mayo Clinic

Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative

Citations 10

Frequency and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Tau Positron Emission Tomography Positivity
Raghavan, Sheelakumari, Costoya‐Sánchez, Alejandro , Mainta, Ismini , Rodríguez-Fonseca, Omar Darío, Perissinotti, Andrés , Gu, Yuna , Yun, Jihwan, Peretti, Débora Elisa , Aguiar, Pablo , Bischof, Gérard N. , Seo, Sang Won , Villeneuve, Sylvia , O’Brien, John T. , Jagust, William, Frisoni, Giovanni B. , Soleimani‐Meigooni, David N. , Carrillo, Marı́a C., Joie, Renaud La , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Apostolova, Liana G. , Pontecorvo, Michael J. , Johnson, Keith A. , Weiner, Michael W. , Petersen, Ronald C., Jack, Clifford R. , Schöll, Michael , Labonté, Anne , Faubert, Anne‐Marie, Mathieu, Axel, Madjar, Cécile , Carrier, Charles Edouard, Kazazian, Christina, Lepage, Claude, Maillet, David , Michaud, Diane, Couture, Doris, Dea, Doris, Courcot, Blandine, Debacker, Clément , Fontaine, David, Knopman, David S. , Multhaup, Gerhard, Maltais, Jean‐Robert, Breitner, John C.S. , Poirier, Judes, Cheewakriengkrai, Laksanun, Sager, Mark A., Dauar‐Tedeschi, Marina, Rajah, Natasha, Aisen, Paul, Toussaint, Paule‐Joanne , Pierre, Bellec, Kostopoulos, Penelope, Étienne, Pierre , Tariot, Pierre N. , Orban, Pierre , Hoge, Rick, Thomas, Ronald J. , Gauthier, Serge , Craft, Suzanne , Montine, Thomas J. , Nair, Vasavan, Bohbot, Véronique D. , Venugopalan, Vinod, Ituria‐Medina, Yasser, Khachaturian, Zaven S., Teigner, Eduard, Anthal, Elena, Yu, Elsa, Ferdinand, Fabiola, Pogossova, Galina, Mayrand, Ginette, Duclair, Guerda, Gagné, Guylaine, Newbold‐Fox, Holly, Leppert, Illana, Tremblay‐Mercier, Jennifer , Frenette, Joanne, Frappier, Josée, Kat, Justin, Miron, Justin , Wan, Karen, Mahar, Laura, Carmo, Leopoldina, Théroux, Louise, Dufour, Marianne, Lafaille‐Magnan, Marie‐Élyse, Savard, Mélissa, Tuwaig, Miranda, Petkova, Mirela, Rioux, Pierre, Meyer, P.T., El‐Khoury, Rana, Gordon, Renee, Giles, Renuka, Das, Samir, Wang, Seqian, Tabrizi, Shirin , Mathotaarachchi, Sulantha , Dubuc, Sylvie, Lee, Tanya , Beaudry, Thomas, Gervais, Valérie, Pagé, Véronique, Desautels, René, Benbouhoud, Fatiha, Saint‐Fort, Eunice Farah, Verfaillie, Sander C.J. , Farzin, Sarah , Salaciak, Alyssa , Tullo, Stéphanie , Daoust, Leslie‐Ann, Köbe, Theresa , McSweeney, Melissa, Nilsson, Nathalie , Pishnamazi, Morteza, Bedetti, Christophe , Hudon, Louise, Greco, Claudia, Chapleau, Marianne , St‐Onge, Frédéric , Boutin, Sophie , Geddes, Maiya R. , Ducharme, Simon , Jean, Gabriel, Sylvain, Elisabeth, Élie, Marie‐Josee, Leblond‐Baccichet, Gloria, Soucy, Jean‐Paul , Ozlen, Hazal , Bailly, Julie, Mohammediyan, Béry, Chen, Yalin , Remz, Jordana, Rentz, Dorene M., Amariglio, Rebecca E. , Blacker, Deborah , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Dickerson, Brad C., Donovan, Nancy J. , Farrell, Michelle E. , Gómez, Cristina Lois, Marshall, Gad A. , Oaoo, Kate, Price, Julie, Prokopiou, Prokopis C. , Reynolds, Gretchen , Skylar-Scott, Irina A., Vila‐Castelar, Clara , Yang, Hyun‐Sik , Trojanowki, John Q., Green, Robert C, Perrin, Richard J. , Shaw, Leslie M. , Potter, William Z. , Bernard, Marie , Jackson, Jonathan, Masliah, Eliezer , Masterman, Donna, Okonkwo, Ozioma, Ryan, Laurie, Silverberg, Nina, Fleisher, Adam , Fockler, Juliet , Conti, Cat, Jin, Chengshi , Nosheny, Rachel L. , Ashford, Mariam, Flenniken, Derek , Kormos, Adrienne, Montine, Tom, Rafii, Michael, Raman, Rema , Gessert, Devon, Salazar, Jennifer, Zimmerman, Caileigh, Cabrera, Yuliana, Walter, Sarah , Miller, Garrett, Coker, Godfrey, Clanton, Taylor, Hergesheimer, Lindsey, Smith, Stephanie , Adegoke, Olusegun, Mahboubi, Payam, Moore, Shelley, Pizzola, Jeremy, Shaffer, Elizabeth , Harvey, Danielle, Forghanian-Arani, Arvin, Borowski, Bret, Ward, Chad, Gunter, Jeff, Kantarci, Kejal, Thompson, Paul , Jahanshad, Neda , DeCarli, Charles , Knaack, Alexander , Fletcher, Evan, Chen, Stephanie R, Choe, Mark, Crawford, Karen , Yuschkevich, Paul A, Reiman, Eric M. , Mathis, Chet, Landau, Susan , Cairns, Nigel J. , Householder, Erin, Franklin, Erin , Bernhardt, Haley, Taylor‐Reinwald, Lisa, Korecka, Magdalena , Figurski, Michal, Neu, Scott, Nho, Kwangsik, Foroud, Tatiana M., Faber, Kelley , Wilmes, Kristi, Thal, Leon J., Dage, Jeffrey L. , Eloyan, Ani , Hammers, Dustin B. , Kirby, Kala, Kramer, Joel, Legarde, Julien, Murray, Melissa E., Newell, Kathy L. , Taurone, Alexander, Thangarajah, Maryanne, Touroutoglou, Alexandra , Clark, David , Day, Gregory S, Duara, Ranjan , Graff-Radford, Neill R, Grant, Ian , Masdeu, Joseph C. , Mendez, Mario F. , Onyike, Chiadi U. , Riddle, Meghan , Rogalskı, Emily , Salloway, Steven, Sha, Sharon J. , Carrillo, María C. , O'Brien, John Tiernan , Jack, Clifford R , Schöll, Michael , La Joie, Renaud , Rabinovici, Gil D , Dage, Jeffrey L , Rial, Alexis Moscoso , Heeman, Fiona , Raghavan, Sheelakumari , Essen, Martijn van , Camacho, Valle , Silva‐Rodríguez, Jesús , Ribaldi, Federica , Coomans, Emma M. , Brum, Wagner Scheeren , Grothe, Michel J. , Drzezga, Alexander E. , Malpetti, Maura , Rowe, James B. , Giessen, Elsmarieke van de , Ossenkoppele, Rik , Smith, Ruben , Hansson, Oskar , Garibotto, Valentina , Dickerson, Bradford Clark , LaMontagne, Pamela , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Tam, Angela , Binette, Alexa Pichet , Dansereau, Christian , Picard, Cynthia , Michaud, Diane, Couture, Doris, Cuello, A. Claudio , Barkun, Alan , Evans, Alan Charles , Tardif, Christine Lucas , Knopman, David S. , Near, Jamie , Leoutsakos, Jeannie‐Marie , Brandt, Jason , Pruessner, Jens C. , Morris, John C. , Collins, D. Louis , Chakravarty, M. Mallar , Eisenberg, Mark Jeffrey , Rajah, Maria Natasha , Rosa-Neto, Pedro , Bellec, Pierre , Thomas, Ronald, Fonov, Vladimir , Vallee, Isabelle, Vogel, Jacob W. , Dadar, Mahsa , Appleby, Melissa , Meyer, Pierre‐François, Gonneaud, Julie , Pascoal, Tharick Ali , Vachon‐Presseau, Étienne , Spreng, R. Nathan , Rentz, Dorene M. , Buckley, Rachel F. , Gagliardi, Geoffroy Pierre , Gatchel, Jennifer R. , Guzmán‐Vélez, Edmarie , Jacobs, Heidi I.L. , Jutten, Roos J. , Pardilla‐Delgado, Enmanuelle , Price, Julie C. , Quiroz, Yakeel T. , Schultz, Aaron P. , Schultz, Stephanie A. , Sepulcre, Jorge , Vannini, Patrizia , Toga, Arthur W. , Beckett, Laurel , Saykin, Andrew J. , Potter, William, Barnes, Lisa L. , Gonzalez, Hector, Ho, Carole , Hsiao, John , Jackson, Jonathan , Veitch, Dallas P. , Neuhaus, John M , Rafii, Michael S. , Jimenez‐Maggiora, Gustavo Adolfo , Donohue, Michael , Arani, Arvin , Schwarz, Christopher G. , Jones, David T. , Kantarci, Kejal , Senjem, Matthew L. , Reid, Robert I. , Fox, Nick C. , Malone, Ian B. , Thomopoulos, Sophia I. , Nir, Talia M. , Tosun, Duygu , Das, Sandhitsu R. , Koeppe, Robert A. , Chen, Kewei , Risacher, Shannon L. , Shen, Li , Nudelman, Kelly , Ghetti, Bernardino , Grinberg, Lea T. , Hammers, Dustin B , Kirby, Kala, Kukull, Walter A. , Murray, Melissa E. , Polsinelli, Angelina J. , Atri, Alireza , Duara, Ranjan , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Honig, Lawrence S. , Johnson, Erik C. B. , Masdeu, Joseph C , Musiek, Erik , Salloway, Steve , Turner, Raymond Scott , Wingo, Thomas S , Wolk, S. J. , Womack, Kyle

JAMA | June 16, 2025 | Volume: 334 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 229

10.1001/jama.2025.7817 Get It

Importance Tau positron emission tomography (PET) allows in vivo detection of neurofibrillary tangles, a core neuropathologic feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective To provide estimates of the frequency of tau PET positivity and its associated risk of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal study using data pooled from 21 cohorts, comprising a convenience sample of 6514 participants from 13 countries, collected between January 2013 and June 2024. Cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD dementia, or other neurodegenerative disorders were included. Exposures Tau PET with flortaucipir F 18, amyloid-β (Aβ) PET, and clinical examinations. Tau PET scans were visually rated as positive according to a US Food and Drug Administration– and European Medicines Agency–approved method, designed to indicate the presence of advanced neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stages V-VI). Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency of tau PET positivity and absolute risk of clinical progression (eg, progression to MCI or dementia). Results Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. Of 3487 cognitively unimpaired participants, 349 (9.8%) were tau PET positive; the estimated frequency of tau PET positivity was less than 1% in those aged younger than 50 years, and increased from 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) at 60 years to 19% (95% CI, 16%-24%) at 90 years. Tau PET positivity frequency estimates increased across MCI and AD dementia clinical diagnoses (43% [95% CI, 41%-46%] and 79% [95% CI, 77%-82%] at 75 years, respectively). Most tau PET–positive individuals (92%) were also Aβ PET positive. Cognitively unimpaired participants who were positive for both Aβ PET and tau PET had a higher absolute risk of progression to MCI or dementia over the following 5 years (57% [95% CI, 45%-71%]) compared with both Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–negative (17% [95% CI, 13%-22%]) and Aβ PET–negative/tau PET–negative (6% [95% CI, 5%-8%]) individuals. Among participants with MCI at the time of the tau PET scan, an Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–positive profile was associated with a 5-year absolute risk of progression to dementia of 70% (95% CI, 59%-81%). Conclusions and Relevance In a large convenience sample, a positive tau PET scan occurred at a nonnegligible rate among cognitively unimpaired individuals, and the combination of Aβ PET positivity and tau PET positivity was associated with a high risk of clinical progression in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of AD. These findings underscore the potential of tau PET as a biomarker for staging AD pathology.
Rethinking the residual approach for estimating cognitive resilience and resistance to AD pathology
Cuppels, Madison, Klinger, Hannah M , Langford, Oliver , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Price, Julie C. , Properzi, Michael J , Amariglio, Rebecca E. , Johnson, Keith A. , Mukherjee, Shubhabrata , Resnick, Susan M. , Tunali, Ilke, Landau, Susan , Lockhart, Samuel N. , Birkenbihl, Colin J. , Boyle, Rory , Coughlan, Gillian , Schultz, Aaron P. , Rentz, Dorene M. , Gottesman, Rebecca F. , Maruff, Paul , Lim, Yen Ying , Masters, Colin L. , Beiser, Alexa , Burnham, Samantha C. , Cohen, Ann D. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Betthauser, Tobey J. , Seshadri, Sudha , Lockhart, Samuel N. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Vemuri, Prashanthi , Sperling, Reisa Anne , Hohman, Timothy J. , Donohue, Michael , Buckley, Rachel F.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 9, 2025 | Volume: 20 | Issue: S8 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.094824 Get It

AbstractBackgroundThe residual approach has found wide application in researching cognitive resilience, a phenomenon conceptually understood as cognitive performance being better‐than‐typical for an individual, despite apparent AD pathology. The standard residual approach extracts information about an individual’s resilience from the residuals of a linear model predicting cognition. This approach is subject to several limiting assumptions. Here, we explore the implications of these assumptions and propose an alternative predictive modeling approach which circumvents them.MethodsOur alternative approach relies on training a machine learning model on a sample of participants who follow a “typical” clinical progression (Fig. 1A). Residuals are then extracted for a heterogeneous dataset that potentially includes resilient participants by comparing observed cognitive outcomes to those predicted by the “typical” model (Fig. 1B). Additionally, our estimate can be refined by effectively estimating and removing model error from the extracted residual by leveraging a second predictive model (Fig. 1C). Using simulated data, we explore the assumptions made by the standard approach and the consequences of their violation. We then contrast this against our approach.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated that the standard residual approach only extracted accurate resilience estimates if the predictors used in the model explained cognition sufficiently well, while being unrelated to resilience itself. That is, as the predictors explain more of the resilience, the residuals became increasingly determined by model error (Fig. 2). We found that residuals achieved with our approach are more precise and provide individualized estimates that are unaffected by the aforementioned trade‐off (Fig. 3).ConclusionsOur approach holds several advantages over the standard approach: The definition of resilience can be freely adjusted and enforced via different definitions of “typical”, it allows for incorporating complex, non‐linear models without removing relevant information from the residual, the error component of the residual can be estimated through cross‐validation, and all predictors that potentially explain cognition can be included into the model without losing resilience information from the residual. Our approach can be used to measure any phenomenon that can be operationalized as a deviation from a typical outcome and, thus, is also applicable for researching resistance to pathology.
Brain Volumetric Trajectories in Down Syndrome and Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer Disease
Kennedy, James Tyler, Boerwinkle, Anna H. , Price, Julie C. , Sathishkumar, Mithra , McMillan, Liv , Laymon, Charles M. , Krinsky‐McHale, Sharon J. , Lai, Florence , Rosas, H. Diana , Lott, Ira T. , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Chui, Helena C., Farlow, Martin R. , Mori, Hiroshi , Perrin, Richard J. , Salloway, Stephen , Xiong, Chengjie , Schupf, Nicole , Mapstone, Mark , Christian, Bradley T. , Wisch, Julie K. , Gordon, Brian A. , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Klunk, William E. , Rafii, Michael S. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Yassa, Michael A. , Brickman, Adam M. , Lao, Patrick , Hartley, Sigan L. , Zaman, Shahid H. , Lee, Joseph H. , Allegri, Ricardo , Berman, Sarah , Chui, Helena C. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Day, Gregory S. , Lee, Jae‐Hong , Xiong, Chengjie , Martins, Ralph N. , Sánchez‐Valle, Raquel , Schofield, Peter William , Hassenstab, Jason , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Handen, Benjamin L. , Head, Elizabeth , Ances, Beau M.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 9, 2025 | Volume: 20 | Issue: S2 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.089313 Get It

AbstractBackgroundAlzheimer disease (AD) related cognitive decline occurs at relatively young ages in individuals with Down syndrome (DS, early‐mid 50s) and in those with autosomal dominant mutations (ADAD, 40‐50s). Both groups show similar patterns of amyloid accumulation. We examined if brain volumes are similarly affected by AD pathology in individuals with DS and ADAD.MethodData for cognitively stable and declining participants was obtained from the Alzheimer Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN). Stability/decline was identified based on cognitive testing and interview of individuals and caregivers by trained assessors. Cognitively stable family members without DS/ADAD mutations were recruited as controls from both studies. Participants underwent MRI and amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans from which brain volumes and amyloid (centiloids) were derived, respectively. Participants from DIAN had Pittsburgh Compound‐B (PIB) scans, ABC‐DS had PIB or florbetapir. Nonlinear cross‐sectional associations between regional brain volumes and estimated years to onset of cognitive decline (EYO, negative values before onset, positive after) and centiloid were evaluated using generalized additive models while controlling for sex and random effects of family. EYO was set to 52 for all participants with DS and based on parental decline/mutation type for participants with ADAD. EYO for controls was based on the EYO of their family member.ResultData from 239 participants with DS (47 declining), and 340 participants with ADAD (122 declining), and 263 familial controls were included. Higher EYO and centiloid values were associated with lower brain volumes in almost all regions. At earlier EYOs, individuals with DS typically had smaller regional volumes than ADAD or sibling controls, with volume declining linearly across the EYO range. By contrast, ADAD mutation carriers had similar volumes to non‐carriers at early EYOs, with volumes diverging as early as 10 years before decline. Brain volumes and centiloid values were inversely related in ADAD and DSAD. Volume in key cortical regions were similar by the expected year of onset in both groups.ConclusionADAD and DSAD demonstrated different temporal patterns of regional neurodegeneration prior to cognitive change despite being similarly affected by early onset amyloid.
Updated appropriate use criteria for amyloid and tau PET: A report from the Alzheimer's Association and Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Workgroup
Rabinovici, Gil D. , Knopman, David S., Donohoe, Kevin, Herscovitch, Peter, Kuo, Phillip H. , Lingler, Jennifer H. , Price, Julie C. , Salloway, Stephen P., Weber, Christopher J., Carrillo, María C. , Johnson, Keith A. , Rabinovici, Gil D , Arbizu, Javier , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Hansson, Oskar , Minoshima, Satoshi , Murray, Melissa E.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | January 8, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.14338 Get It

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to update appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. METHODS The workgroup identified key research questions that guided a systematic literature review on clinical amyloid/tau PET. Building on this review, the workgroup developed 17 clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered. A modified Delphi approach was used to rate each scenario by consensus as “rarely appropriate,” “uncertain,” or “appropriate.” Ratings were performed separately for amyloid and tau PET as stand‐alone modalities. RESULTS For amyloid PET, seven scenarios were rated as appropriate, two as uncertain, and eight as rarely appropriate. For tau PET, five scenarios were rated as appropriate, six as uncertain, and six as rarely appropriate. DISCUSSION AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. Highlights A multidisciplinary workgroup convened by the Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging updated the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. The goal of these updated AUC is to assist clinicians in identifying clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be useful for guiding the diagnosis and management of patients who have, or are at risk for, cognitive decline These updated AUC are intended for dementia specialists who spend a significant proportion of their clinical effort caring for patients with cognitive complaints, as well as serve as a general reference for a broader audience interested in implementation of amyloid and tau PET in clinical practice.
Changes in cortical thickness along the Alzheimer disease continuum in people with Down syndrome
Kennedy, James Tyler, Dincer, Aylin , Thippabhotla, Sharmila, Roman, June, Boerwinkle, Anna H. , Chen, Charles D., Price, Julie C. , Sathishkumar, Mithra , McMillan, Liv , Laymon, Charles M. , Krinsky‐McHale, Sharon J. , Lai, Florence , Rosas, H. Diana , Lott, Ira T. , Silverman, Wayne , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Chui, Helena C., Farlow, Martin R. , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Mori, Hiroshi , Perrin, Richard J. , Salloway, Stephen , Xiong, Chengjie , Mapstone, Mark , Christian, Bradley T. , Network, Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer, Wisch, Julie K. , Gordon, Brian A. , Flores, Shaney , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Klunk, William E. , Rafii, Michael S. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Yassa, Michael A. , Brickman, Adam M. , Lao, Patrick , Hartley, Sigan L. , Zaman, Shahid H. , Lee, Joseph H. , Allegri, Ricardo , Berman, Sarah , Chui, Helena C. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Goate, Alison , Day, Gregory S. , Jucker, Mathias , Lee, Jae‐Hong , Xiong, Chengjie , Martins, Ralph N. , Sánchez‐Valle, Raquel , Karch, Celeste M. , Hassenstab, Jason , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Handen, Benjamin L. , Head, Elizabeth , Ances, Beau M. , Schofield, Peter R.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 25, 2023 | Volume: 19 | Issue: S17 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.079932 Get It

AbstractBackgroundTriplication of the APP allele in Down syndrome (DS) leads to excess amyloid production and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) related cognitive decline. Key biomarkers (amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration) can identify pathological processes that occur before clinical symptoms and more precisely stage adults with DS along the AD continuum. Previous research has used changes in cortical thickness (CT) as an indicator of neurodegeneration in autosomal‐dominant AD1, but not DS‐related AD. It is unclear when and where cortical thinning occurs along the AD continuum in DS and if these differences are associated with increasing AD pathology.MethodCross‐sectional analysis compared DS participants from the Alzheimer Biomarkers Consortium‐Down Syndrome (106 amyloid‐/cognitively unimpaired, nonclinical, 20% reserved for receiver‐operating characteristic, ROC, analyses; 45 amyloid+/cognitively unimpaired, preclinical; 27 amyloid+/cognitively impaired, clinical) who had amyloid positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Amyloid positivity was defined using standardized uptake value ratio (partial volume corrected) cortical mean values (1.42/1.19 for PIB/AV452) and impairment was based on consensus diagnosis. CT differences between nonclinical and clinical groups were calculated in FreeSurfer v5.3 for multiple thresholds (p<.05/.01/.005/.001/.0005/.0001) using a cluster‐wise false discovery rate of .001, corrected across hemispheres, after controlling for age and sex. CT values were extracted for each threshold and used in ROC analyses (nonclinical reserved participants compared against preclinical and preclinical compared against clinical) to identify key cortical regions that best discriminated amyloid positivity and between unimpaired and impaired.ResultSignificant decreases in parietal and inferior temporal CT were observed between nonclinical and clinical (Figures 1 and 2). ROC analyses identified regions in the left (threshold .05) and right (threshold .005) hemispheres that best differentiated nonclinical from preclinical. Observed area under the curves (AUCs) of .772 and .830 exceeded those previously reported for autosomal‐dominant AD (.547/.540)1. Analyses differentiating preclinical from clinical observed AUCs of .786 for left (threshold .0005) and .770 for right (threshold .0005) hemispheres.ConclusionCT differences primarily within posterior cortical regions differentiated adults with DS by amyloid status and cognitive impairment. CT differences were more diffuse for amyloid positivity but more focal for impairment.1. Dincer (2020). NeuroImage: Clinical, 28, 102491.2. Su (2019). Alzheimer’s Dement, 11, 180‐190.
Cross‐sectional comparison of the role of tau burden among Down Syndrome Alzheimer disease and autosomal‐dominant Alzheimer disease
Boerwinkle, Anna H. , Henson, Rachel L. , Thippabhotla, Sharmila, Kennedy, James Tyler, Butt, Omar H. , Chen, Charles D., Christian, Bradley T. , Mapstone, Mark , Tudorascu, Dana , Cohen, Annie , Fagan, Anne M. , Price, Julie C. , Schupf, Nicole , Laymon, Charles M. , Krinsky‐McHale, Sharon J. , Lai, Florence , Rosas, H. Diana , Lott, Ira T. , Silverman, Wayne , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Chui, Helena C., Farlow, Martin R. , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Mori, Hiroshi , Perrin, Richard J. , Salloway, Stephen , Xiong, Chengjie , Wisch, Julie K. , Gordon, Brian A. , Flores, Shaney , McKay, Nicole S. , Handen, Benjamin L. , Head, Elizabeth , Zammit, Matthew D. , Johnson, Sterling C. , Klunk, William E. , Rafii, Michael S. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Yassa, Michael A. , Keator, David B. , Hartley, Sigan L. , Zaman, Shahid H. , Lao, Patrick , Brickman, Adam M. , Lee, Joseph H. , Allegri, Ricardo , Berman, Sarah , Chui, Helena C. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Fox, Nick C. , Goate, Alison , Day, Gregory S. , Jucker, Mathias , Lee, Jae‐Hong , Xiong, Chengjie , Martins, Ralph N. , Sánchez‐Valle, Raquel , Schofield, Peter William , Xiong, Chengjie , Schindler, Suzanne E. , Morris, John C. , Karch, Celeste M. , Hassenstab, Jason , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Ances, Beau M.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 25, 2023 | Volume: 19 | Issue: S14 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.079102 Get It

AbstractBackgroundAdults with Down Syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia as they age. This is attributed to triplication of the amyloid precursor protein gene. Recent work demonstrated that amyloid is elevated in DS and accumulates in a similar topography to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD). Tau accumulation is the second hallmark of AD and may be measured using tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. The pattern of tau accumulation remains unknown in DS.MethodIn a cross‐sectional analysis we evaluated amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) in 124 participants with DS (109 cognitively stable, 8 symptomatic, 7 no consensus), 29 ADAD mutation carriers (26 asymptomatic, 3 symptomatic), and 201 cognitively normal non‐mutation carriers (CN). Regional cortical standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) for tau imaging were obtained and compared by cognitive status. Similarly, regional cortical amyloid SUVR were obtained and converted to centiloids. We then compared the magnitude of tau burden as well as spatial spread of tau across groups relative to amyloid burden.ResultCompared to CN, tau PET binding was elevated in participants with (µDS = 2.12 ± 0.22 SUVR, µADAD = 2.52 ± 0.37 SUVR) and without (µDS = 1.24 ± 0.15 SUVR, µADAD = 1.16 ± 0.19 SUVR) cognitive changes. For both groups, tau increased with increasing amyloid (centiloids). In some regions, DS had greater tau burden for a given amyloid level (centiloids) (Figure 1). There was increased spatial distribution of tau throughout the brain for participants with DS compared to CN. In contrast, tau burden was more focal in participants with ADAD with tau primarily elevated in posterior regions (Figure 2).ConclusionWhile tau burden was higher with symptomatic disease for both groups, significant differences existed in the overall amount and spatial spread. Tau spread was greatest in participants with DS and more diffuse compared to ADAD. These results indicate a substantial tau burden is present in DS, and suggest not only anti‐amyloid but also tau‐reducing agents should be considered for treating cognitive decline in adults with DS.
Updated Appropriate Use Criteria for Amyloid and Tau PET
Donohoe, Kevin, Herscovitch, Peter, Kuo, Phillip H. , Lingler, Jennifer H. , Price, Julie C. , Salloway, Stephen , Weber, Christopher J., Johnson, Keith A. , Rabinovici, Gil D. , Knopman, David S. , Arbizu, Javier , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Hansson, Oskar , Minoshima, Satoshi , Murray, Melissa E. , Carrillo, María C.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 25, 2023 | Volume: 19 | Issue: S14 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.078912 Get It

AbstractBackgroundThe Alzheimer’s Association and Society for Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a Workgroup to update previous Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for amyloid PET (Johnson 2013) and develop the first AUC for tau PET. The AUC represent general guidelines and should not be considered a substitute for clinical judgment exercised in the care of individual patients.MethodThe Workgroup included 14 researchers with multidisciplinary expertise. Meetings were held between June 2020 and August 2021. Key research questions were identified using the PICOTS framework, triggering an independent systematic literature review. Using established methods (Fitch 2001), the Workgroup identified 17 clinical scenarios in which amyloid/tau PET may be considered. Appropriateness of amyloid and tau PET as independent, stand‐alone modalities were ranked for each scenario using a 9‐point scale (Table 1). Consensus was achieved using a modified Delphi process. Online surveys were completed iteratively by Workgroup members, followed by discussion, until all votes for each scenario fell within one of the following categories: Appropriate/Uncertain/Rarely Appropriate.ResultAs an over‐arching principle, amyloid/tau PET should be considered in patients who: (1) have undergone a comprehensive assessment by a dementia expert; (2) Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a diagnostic possibility but uncertainty remains; and (3) knowledge of amyloid/tau PET results is expected to help establish diagnosis and guide patient management. Consensus ratings for clinical scenarios are shown in Table 2. More evidence was available to inform recommendations for amyloid than tau PET. Amyloid PET was considered “Appropriate” to inform diagnosis of MCI or dementia due to suspected AD; clarify diagnosis when CSF biomarkers are equivocal; to inform prognosis in MCI; and to determine eligibility for amyloid‐targeting therapies. Tau PET was considered “Appropriate” to clarify diagnosis in patients with MCI/dementia under age 65 or those with atypical presentations; and to inform prognosis in MCI or dementia due to suspected AD.ConclusionThe updated AUC highlight a growing role for amyloid PET and an emerging role for tau PET in the clinical evaluation of cognitively impaired patients. AUC are expected to further evolve based on data from ongoing studies of clinical utility and a rapidly developing therapeutic landscape.
Comparison of amyloid accumulation between Down syndrome and autosomal‐dominant Alzheimer disease
Boerwinkle, Anna H. , Henson, Rachel L. , Butt, Omar H. , Chen, Charles D., Fagan, Anne M. , Christian, Bradley T. , Mapstone, Mark , Price, Julie C. , Schupf, Nicole , Laymon, Charles M. , Krinsky‐McHale, Sharon J. , Lai, Florence , Rosas, H. Diana , Lott, Ira T. , Silverman, Wayne , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Chui, Helena C., Farlow, Martin R. , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Mori, Hiroshi , Perrin, Richard J. , Salloway, Stephen , Xiong, Chengjie , Gordon, Brian A. , Wisch, Julie K. , Flores, Shaney , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Handen, Benjamin L. , Head, Elizabeth , Klunk, William E. , Rafii, Michael S. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Hartley, Sigan L. , Zaman, Shahid H. , Brickman, Adam M. , Lee, Joseph H. , Allegri, Ricardo , Berman, Sarah , Chui, Helena C. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Fox, Nick C. , Goate, Alison , Day, Gregory S. , Jucker, Mathias , Lee, Jae‐Hong , Xiong, Chengjie , Martins, Ralph N. , Sánchez‐Valle, Raquel , Schofield, Peter R. , Karch, Celeste M. , Hassenstab, Jason , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Ances, Beau M.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 20, 2022 | Volume: 18 | Issue: S6 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.064684 Get It

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.
Comparison of amyloid accumulation between Down syndrome and autosomal‐dominant Alzheimer disease
Boerwinkle, Anna H. , Henson, Rachel L. , Butt, Omar H. , Chen, Charles D., Fagan, Anne M. , Christian, Bradley T. , Mapstone, Mark , Price, Julie C. , Schupf, Nicole , Laymon, Charles M. , Krinsky‐McHale, Sharon J. , Lai, Florence , Rosas, H. Diana , Lott, Ira T. , Silverman, Wayne , Chhatwal, Jasmeer P. , Chui, Helena C., Farlow, Martin R. , Graff‐Radford, Neill R. , Mori, Hiroshi , Perrin, Richard J. , Salloway, Stephen , Gordon, Brian A. , Wisch, Julie K. , Flores, Shaney , Benzinger, Tammie L.S. , Handen, Benjamin L. , Head, Elizabeth , Klunk, William E. , Rafii, Michael S. , O’Bryant, Sid E. , Hartley, Sigan L. , Zaman, Shahid H. , Brickman, Adam M. , Lee, Joseph H. , Allegri, Ricardo , Berman, Sarah , Chui, Helena C. , Cruchaga, Carlos , Fox, Nick C. , Goate, Alison , Day, Gregory S. , Jucker, Mathias , Lee, Jae‐Hong , Xiong, Chengjie , Martins, Ralph N. , Sánchez‐Valle, Raquel , Schofield, Peter R. , Xiong, Chengjie , Karch, Celeste M. , Hassenstab, Jason , McDade, Eric , Bateman, Randall J. , Ances, Beau M.

Alzheimer's & Dementia | December 20, 2022 | Volume: 18 | Issue: S1 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/alz.063959 Get It

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.
Fibrillar amyloid-β burden in cognitively normal people at 3 levels of genetic risk for Alzheimer's disease
Reiman, Eric M. , Chen, Kewei , Bandy, Daniel, Yu, Meixiang , Lee, Wendy , Ayutyanont, Napatkamon , Keppler, Jennifer, Reeder, Stephanie, Alexander, Gene E. , Klunk, William E. , Mathis, Chester A. , Price, Julie C. , Aizenstein, Howard , DeKosky, Steven T. , Caselli, Richard J. , Liu, Xiaofen , Reeder, Stephanie, Langbaum, Jessica B. S.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | April 3, 2009 | Volume: 106 | Issue: 16 | Pages: 6820-6825

10.1073/pnas.0900345106 Get It

Fibrillar amyloid-beta (Aβ) is found in the brains of many cognitively normal older people. Whether or not this reflects a predisposition to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is unknown. We used Pittsburgh Compound B (PiB) PET to characterize the relationship between fibrillar Aβ burden and this predisposition in cognitively normal older people at 3 mean levels of genetic risk for AD. Dynamic PiB PET scans, the Logan method, statistical parametric mapping, and automatically labeled regions of interest (ROIs) were used to characterize and compare cerebral-to-cerebellar PIB distribution volume ratios, reflecting fibrillar Aβ burden, in 28 cognitively normal persons (mean age, 64 years) with a reported family history of AD and 2 copies, 1 copy, and no copies of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele. The 8 ε4 homozygotes, 8 heterozygotes, and 12 noncarriers did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, or cognitive scores. Fibrillar Aβ was significantly associated with APOE ε4 carrier status and ε4 gene dose in AD-affected mean cortical, frontal, temporal, posterior cingulate-precuneus, parietal, and basal ganglia ROIs, and was highest in an additional homozygote who had recently developed mild cognitive impairment. These findings suggest that fibrillar Aβ burden in cognitively normal older people is associated with APOE ε4 gene dose, the major genetic risk factor for AD. Additional studies are needed to track fibrillar Aβ accumulation in persons with different kinds and levels of AD risk; to determine the extent to which fibrillar Aβ, alone or in combination with other biomarkers and risk factors, predicts rates of cognitive decline and conversion to clinical AD; and to establish the role of fibrillar Aβ imaging in primary prevention trials.