Carrillo, María C.

AbstractBackgroundWe developed the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) to address the shortage of qualified investigators with adequate training and expertise to conduct Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and AD Related Dementias (ADRD) clinical trials.MethodWe describe the experience of the first two years of funding of the IMPACT‐AD course, specifically the rates of applications to the course, descriptive summaries of the accepted trainees, and the measures of participant satisfaction and learning.ResultOver the first two years of the course, we received 195 eligible applications to the course. Most (n = 121, 62%) applicants were female and nearly half self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and/or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Forty‐one applicants (21%) indicated that they were the first in their family to attend collegeOf 69 total trainees accepted to the course (36% acceptance rate), a majority (n = 44, 64%) were female. Twenty‐eight (41%) self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and eleven (16%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. Fourteen trainees (20%) identified as being the first person in their family to attend college. Among trainees, 24 (35%) were MDs, 30 (43%) were PhDs, and 9 (13%) held master’s degrees.Course lecture topics were rated, on average, as “essential” or “valuable” by 98% of trainees. Across lecture topics, on average, 48% of trainees rated their prior knowledge of topics as “very strong” or “strong,” and 11% of trainees rated their prior knowledge as “weak.” Overall, 52% of trainees evaluated their change in knowledge based on the lectures as “very much increased,” 46% as “somewhat” or “slightly” increased, and 2% as “no change.” Results were similar for the two tracks. Based on pre‐ and post‐course assessments, trainees improved their knowledge of covered content (from 62% to 79% correct responses on knowledge assessments).ConclusionThe IMPACT‐AD course is achieving its mission of educating and diversifying the next generation of ADRD trialists.We thank Dr. Laurie Ryan and Dr. Kristina McLinden from the National Institute on Aging for their key contributions in leadership and scientific guidance of IMPACT‐AD.

AbstractThe extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of ‘sporadic’ late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease.We compared brain MRI and amyloid PET data, as well as CSF concentrations of amyloid-β42, amyloid-β40, tau and tau phosphorylated at position 181, in 292 carriers of pathogenic variants for Alzheimer's disease from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network, with corresponding data from 559 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Imaging data and CSF samples were reprocessed as appropriate to guarantee uniform pipelines and assays. Data analyses yielded rates of change before and after symptomatic onset of Alzheimer's disease, allowing the alignment of the ∼30-year age difference between the cohorts on a clinically meaningful anchor point, namely the participant age at symptomatic onset.Biomarker profiles were similar for both autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease and late onset Alzheimer's disease. Both groups demonstrated accelerated rates of decline in cognitive performance and in regional brain volume loss after symptomatic onset. Although amyloid burden accumulation as determined by PET was greater after symptomatic onset in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease than in late onset Alzheimer's disease participants, CSF assays of amyloid-β42, amyloid-β40, tau and p-tau181 were largely overlapping in both groups. Rates of change in cognitive performance and hippocampal volume loss after symptomatic onset were more aggressive for autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease participants.These findings suggest a similar pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease and late onset Alzheimer's disease, supporting a shared pathobiological construct.

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the meeting was held online over 2 days, with virtual presentations, discussions, mentoring sessions, and posters. The Latino population in the United States is projected to have the steepest increase in Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the next 40 years, compared to other ethnic groups. Latinos have increased risk for AD and other dementias, limited access to quality care, and are severely underrepresented in AD and dementia research and clinical trials. The symposium highlighted developments in AD research with Latino populations, including advances in AD biomarkers, and novel cognitive assessments for Spanish‐speaking populations, as well as the need to effectively recruit and retain Latinos in clinical research, and how best to deliver health‐care services and to aid caregivers of Latinos living with AD.

AbstractBackgroundThe U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) is a 2‐year randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of lifestyle interventions in older adults (60‐79 years) who are cognitively unimpaired but at increased risk for cognitive decline/dementia due to factors such as cardiovascular disease and family history. The POINTER Imaging ancillary study is collecting PET and MRI data to evaluate neuroimaging biomarkers of AD and cerebrovascular pathophysiology in this at‐risk sample.MethodPOINTER Imaging is actively enrolling 1250 participants, 23% from under‐represented racial/ethnic groups (URG), recruited from five U.S. POINTER clinical sites. Participants have undergone PET imaging with [18F]Florbetaben (FBB) to measure Aβ and [18F]MK‐6240 to measure tau burden, as well as MRI to measure brain morphometry, white matter hyperintensities and cerebral blood flow. FBB and MK‐6240 data were quality checked, pre‐processed, and quantified using previously validated methods. PET images were coregistered to a structural MRI, which was also used to create FreeSurfer‐defined reference regions and regions of interest. We examined PET imaging measures (global Aβ, regional tau) and basic demographic (age, sex, race/ethnicity) characteristics of the sample.Result96 participants (mean age 69.3±5.0) have been enrolled in POINTER Imaging. Of these, 59 (61%) are women and 22 (23%) are URG, which is similar to rates of women (75%) and URG (22%) in the main trial. This dataset is <10% of targeted enrollment, was predominantly recruited from 2/5 clinical sites and may not represent the final imaging cohort. FBB quantification (N=20) revealed a mean cortical summary SUVR of 1.09±0.12 (19.6±18.4 centiloids) (whole cerebellum normalization; previously validated positivity threshold=1.08), and 8/20 (40%) of these participants were Aβ+ (Fig. 1A). MK‐6240 quantification (N=23) showed predominantly no/minimal binding with a few exceptions in medial and lateral temporal lobes (Fig. 1B&C).ConclusionThe POINTER imaging study is meeting the target URG enrollment and representative of the main U.S. POINTER trial. Higher frequency of Aβ positivity than published in population cohorts coupled with greater cardiovascular risk factors among POINTER participants highlights our success in recruiting individuals at increased risk of cognitive decline.

AbstractBackgroundThe overarching goal of the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer Disease study (LEADS) is to optimally characterize early‐onset AD (EOAD) and establish an EOAD clinical trials network. Here we report the baseline demographic and imaging biomarker comparisons of the LEADS cohort to late‐onset AD (LOAD) subjects from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI3).Method123 amyloid‐positive EOAD, 47 amyloid‐negative EOnonAD, 60 cognitively normal young controls were compared to 130 amyloid‐positive LOAD, 110 amyloid‐negative LOnonAD and 286 amyloid‐negative cognitively normal older controls. To account for the effect of cognitive aging between EO and LO populations, each cognitive measure was Z‐transformed. Cortical and hippocampal atrophy were quantified using W‐scores adjusted for age, sex and total intracranial volume. Z‐scores and W‐scores were compared using t‐test or Wilcoxson rank test as appropriate. All p‐values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate correction.ResultEOAD showed greater pathology burden and greater cortical atrophy (AD signature) relative to LOAD. EOAD also showed greater cognitive impairment across all cognitive tests. EOAD showed greater functional impairment, more depression but less neuropsychiatric behaviors overall compared to LOAD (Table 1 and Figure 1, all ps<0.05). Repeating the analyses stratified by cognitive stage (MCI/dementia) or CDR global rating (0.5/1) did not result in any major differences.EOnonAD differed from LOnonAD by also showing greater impairment on all cognitive and functional measures There were no significant differences in amyloid and tau burden, or atrophy W‐scores between these groups. EOnonAD were more depressed and showed more functional impairment compared to LOnonAD (Table 2 and Figure 2, all ps<0.05). Repeating the analyses split by cognitive stage (MCI/dementia) or CDR global rating (0.5/1) did not result in any major differences.ConclusionConsistent with our preexisting hypotheses, EOAD and EOnonAD perform much worse relative to their LO counterparts. EOAD also show greater pathological burden as expected. The reported analyses were done in chronological rather than disease time (time since disease onset). Benchmarking individuals along the disease spectrum might prove to be a better strategy especially when conducting analyses on rate of disease progression.

AbstractBackgroundClinicopathologic studies reported that the NACC Uniform Dataset (UDS) 2.0 core measures do not adequately differentiate patients who ultimately died of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) from Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FTLD Module (FTLD‐MOD) assesses core features of behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Initial investigations suggest that the FTLD‐MOD improves discrimination between biomarker‐supported bvFTD and typical late‐onset AD, and that clinically diagnosed PPA participants performed worse than bvFTD on all FTLD‐MOD language tasks. However, the utility of these measures in the differential diagnosis of AD vs. major FTLD syndromes in young‐onset cases remains underexplored.MethodWe examined participants with age‐of‐onset < 65 years in the ARTFL‐LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) consortium and the Longitudinal Early Onset AD Study (LEADS). 115 bvFTD, 53 semantic variant PPA (svPPA), 29 non‐fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA) and 124 early‐onset AD (eoAD) cases completed the UDS3 and FLTD‐MOD. Linear regression analyses measured group differences in FLTD‐MOD raw scores and UDS3 neuropsychological z‐scores after accounting for group differences in demographic variables and global severity ratings. Alpha was 0.05 with Bonferroni corrections.ResultsParticipants with eoAD demonstrated the most impaired scores on tasks of attention, working memory, and processing speed, including Digit Span Backward (z=‐1.87) and Trails A (z=‐3.82). They also demonstrated difficulty on FTLD‐MOD language tasks with a working memory requirement (sentence repetition raw=3.68/5) and, as expected, memory (story delayed recall z=‐2.4z). svPPA performed the worst on FTLD‐MOD and UDS3 tasks assessing semantic memory, especially naming (all p’s ≤ 0.03). nfvPPA performed worst on sentence reading, sentence repetition, and letter fluency (all p’s ≤ 0.02). Consistent with previous work, these measures differentiate between bvFTD and PPA variants. However, relative to eoAD, bvFTD was equivalent (Trails B: bvFTDz=‐3.8, eoADz=‐3.82; p=0.12) or outperformed (sentence repetition: bvFTD=4.22/5, eoAD=3.68/5; p<0.001) the eoAD group on all tasks.ConclusionsWe undertook this analysis to compare performance of the major young‐onset sporadic AD and FTLD clinical syndromes in the ALLFTD and LEADS studies. Results demonstrate relatively distinct cognitive profiles among eoAD, svPPA, and nfvPPA, but not in bvFTD. Future analyses will include FTLD‐MOD behavioral symptom questionnaires to assess their utility in differentiating bvFTD.

Abstract The Worldwide Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (WW‐ADNI) is a collaborative effort to investigate imaging and biofluid markers that can inform Alzheimer's disease treatment trials. It is a public‐private partnership that spans North America, Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Taiwan. In 2004, ADNI researchers began a naturalistic, longitudinal study that continues today around the globe. Through several successive phases (ADNI‐1, ADNI‐GO, ADNI‐2, and ADNI‐3), the study has fueled amyloid and tau phenotyping and refined neuroimaging methodologies. WW‐ADNI researchers have successfully standardized analyses and openly share data without embargo, providing a rich data set for other investigators. On August 26, 2020, the Alzheimer's Association convened WW‐ADNI researchers who shared updates from ADNI‐3 and their vision for ADNI‐4.

AbstractStudies supporting a strong association between tau deposition and neuronal loss, neurodegeneration, and cognitive decline have heightened the allure of tau and tau‐related mechanisms as therapeutic targets. In February 2020, leading tau experts from around the world convened for the first‐ever Tau2020 Global Conference in Washington, DC, co‐organized and cosponsored by the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, the Alzheimer's Association, and CurePSP. Representing academia, industry, government, and the philanthropic sector, presenters and attendees discussed recent advances and current directions in tau research. The meeting provided a unique opportunity to move tau research forward by fostering global partnerships among academia, industry, and other stakeholders and by providing support for new drug discovery programs, groundbreaking research, and emerging tau researchers. The meeting also provided an opportunity for experts to present critical research‐advancing tools and insights that are now rapidly accelerating the pace of tau research.