Iaccarino, Leo

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.