Carrillo, María C.

Abstract The design of clinical trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD) must consider the development of new plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and imaging biomarkers. They must also define clinically meaningful outcomes for patients and set endpoints that measure these outcomes accurately. With the accelerated United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the first anti‐amyloid, disease‐modifying treatment for AD, a monoclonal antibody called aducanumab, the landscape of clinical trial design is evolving. Enrolment in clinical trials may be impacted by the availability of this and other treatments, and trial design must take into consideration that patients may desire a disease‐modifying treatment rather than potentially being randomized to the placebo arm. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) Fall 2021 meeting discussed the consideration of well‐defined AD staging criteria in protocol design and how they influence more standardized inclusion/exclusion criteria for trials, as well as what constitutes meaningful differentiation between the stages. Discussion explored the current state of knowledge regarding biomarkers and how they can inform AD staging criteria, as many trials are now designed based on specific biomarker features, further underscoring the importance of coordinating AD staging criteria and biomarkers. The relationship between cognition and biomarkers has been studied and this must continue as trials move forward. Researchers, patients, clinicians, regulatory scientists, and payers discussed the state of the field as well as the future of symptomatic Alzheimer's disease clinical trials. Highlights The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) convened leaders from academia and industry as well as patients, care partners, clinicians, regulators, and payers to discuss the topic of operationalizing selection criteria for clinical trials and the role of biomarkers. Well‐defined Alzheimer's disease (AD) staging criteria are an important consideration in study protocol design. Staging criteria and biomarkers must be coordinated to yield high‐quality clinical trial results that have meaning for patients with AD by selecting a population most likely to benefit from a specific treatment.

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.

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.

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.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. Through a modified‐Delphi approach and guideline‐development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or a related dementia (ADRD) are two decades old. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. An expert workgroup conducted a review of 7374 publications (133 met inclusion criteria) and developed recommendations as steps in an evaluation process. This summary briefly reviews core recommendations and details specialist recommendations of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use the recommendations in this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations appropriate for specialty practice settings, forming key elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.