Rocha, Salma

Abstract The growing availability of large-scale biomarker datasets has allowed data-driven methods to characterize Alzheimer’s disease biological heterogeneity. However, most prior studies have focused on cohorts of late-onset amnestic cases, leaving early-onset Alzheimer’s disease underexplored. We aimed to characterize tau-PET-based subtypes through a robust data-driven approach in the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study. Baseline [18F]Flortaucipir PET scans from 365 amyloid-PET-positive participants with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease were quantified in the left and right medial temporal, lateral temporal, occipital, parietal, and frontal cortices. Tau PET values were z-scored against 85 amyloid-PET-negative cognitively normal age-matched participants and fitted into Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn)—an unsupervised clustering algorithm that simultaneously models subtypes and progression from cross-sectional data. The derived subtypes were subsequently characterized by baseline and longitudinal clinical, cognitive, MRI, tau and amyloid PET features. We identified three tau-PET-based subtypes: on average, Subtype 1/Typical (n = 144, 40%) showed a predominant bilateral temporoparietal pattern typical of Alzheimer’s disease. Subtype 2/Left temporal (n = 111, 31%) showed predominant left temporal binding. Subtype 3/Posterior (n = 104, 29%) showed early and permeating occipitoparietal involvement. Subtypes did not differ in demographics or global amyloid burden, but were relatively more enriched for specific clinical presentations: S1/Typical for amnestic presentations, S2/Left Temporal for primary progressive aphasia, and S3/Posterior for posterior cortical atrophy. Baseline tau PET subtypes aligned with cortical atrophy patterns and domain-specific cognitive impairment. When follow-up tau PET scans were fitted to SuStaIn trained on baseline data, 85.6% (n = 172/201) of participants retained the same subtype classification, indicating subtype temporal stability, and progressed within subtypes by 0.56 ± 0.70 SuStaIn stage/year. Longitudinal voxel-wise linear mixed-effects modelling revealed tau accumulation patterns for each subtype in regions relatively spared at baseline: occipital lobe accumulation predominated in S1/Typical, bilateral frontal and right temporal in S2/Left Temporal, and bilateral frontotemporal lobes in S3/Posterior. All subtypes showed longitudinal increases in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, but with slower worsening in S3/Posterior compared with the other subtypes. Our findings reveal robust subtypes in sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease characterized by distinct spatiotemporal tau patterns that parallel differences in clinical presentations and trajectories of neurodegeneration. These subtypes extend beyond traditional clinical syndromes and support a more nuanced framework for individualized prognosis and care. Incorporating tau PET subtyping into clinical trial design could enable more targeted therapeutic approaches for this younger population.

Abstract Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) and Late-onset AD (LOAD) differ in clinical presentations and rates of progression. We aimed to compare baseline and longitudinal tau PET burden, and their relationship with clinical variables in amyloid-PET positive, cognitively impaired participants from the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (EOAD; n=390) and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (LOAD; n=211). Patients with EOAD showed higher baseline tau PET retention, broader neuroanatomical involvement and faster accumulation rates over time compared to LOAD, after adjusting for amyloid load and clinical stage. Tau PET showed stronger correlations with baseline amyloid burden and clinical measures of global cognition and function in EOAD than LOAD. We conclude that earlier age of onset in AD is linked to a more aggressive tauopathy, which in turn is a primary driver of clinical decline. These findings suggest that optimal therapeutic targets and strategies may differ between EOAD and LOAD. One Sentence Summary Younger patients with Alzheimer’s disease show more aggressive tau spread, suggesting age of onset defines distinct disease pathways with key clinical implications.

Objective Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) differ in many respects. Here, we address the issue of possible differences in fibrillar amyloid pathology as measured by positron emission tomography (PET), which remains unresolved due to the lack of large‐scale comparative studies. Methods Three hundred ninety‐nine cognitively impaired participants younger than 65 years of age from the multicenter Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer's Disease Study (LEADS) and 450 cognitively impaired participants older than 65 years from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) underwent clinical assessment, brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and amyloid PET and were included in this study. We compared amyloid PET outcomes (positivity rate based on visual read and quantified tracer uptake expressed as Centiloids [CLs]) between the 2 cohorts and studied their association with age, sex, APOE genotype, and cognition. Results The amyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (78%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 74–82) than in ADNI (71%, 95% CI = 67–75, p = 0.02). Lower Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) and APOE4 genotype increased the odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts. Visually positive scans had higher CLs in LEADS (EOAD, mean = 95.3 ± 26.1) than in ADNI (LOAD, mean = 80.9 ± 36.8, p < 0.0001), predominantly in parietal cortex/precuneus, superior temporal, and frontal cortices. In amyloid‐positive patients, (1) CLs were higher in female patients in both cohorts; (2) APOE4 carriership was associated with lower CLs in EOAD, which was not observed in LOAD; and (3) correlations between CLs and MMSE scores were significantly stronger in EOAD than in LOAD. Interpretation Differences in the burden of amyloid pathology may contribute to differences in clinical and anatomic patterns in sporadic EOAD and LOAD, and have implications for optimizing therapeutic strategies in each group. ANN NEUROL 2025;98:236–248