Graff‐Radford, Neill R.

Abstract Background Disparities in structural and social determinants of health in Latino and Black communities may increase the burden of Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). Identifying dementia risk factors, which may account for up to 45% of ADRD risk, is crucial to implement effective risk‐reduction strategies. This study aimed to assess ADRD risk factors in community‐dwelling, cognitively normal, Latino and Black Americans by measuring the frequency of modifiable dementia risk factors through subjective and objective measures. Method Community‐dwelling, cognitively normal, Latino and Black adults (≥45‐years‐old) were enrolled in a longitudinal study of memory and aging at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. Baseline assessments conducted between Mach 2022 and November 2024 included demographics, self‐reported race/ethnicity, and history of dementia risk factors. Socioeconomic deprivation [Area Deprivation Index (ADI) State scores] and modifiable dementia risk factors were reported by participants and directly measured, including hypertension (BP >130/80 mmHg), obesity (BMI≥30), hyperlipidemia (LDL>100 mg/dL), hyperglycemia (HbA1C >5.6%), low vitamin B12 (B12<350 pg/mL), hearing loss (bedside assessment), vision loss (bedside assessment), and depression (Geriatric Depression Scale ≥5). Result 105 participants (47 Latino, 55 Black), 64.7 (±8.8) years‐old, female 66 (63%), with 16 (±2.3) years of education were assessed. Black participants experienced higher socioeconomic deprivation than Latino participants (median ADI 7 vs 3; p <0.001). Dementia risk factors were common in Latino and Black participants. These included, hypertension (55.3%, 70.3%; p = 0.291), hyperlipidemia (58.7%, 55.8%; p = 0.908), obesity (29.8%, 45.5%; p = 0.263), hyperglycemia (51.1%, 49.1%; p = 0.834), low vitamin B12 (23.9%, 28.0%; p = 0.270), hearing loss (19.1%, 7.3%; p = 0.111), vision loss (85.1%, 85.2%; p = 0.771), and depression (6.4%, 5.5%; p = 0.168). Objective measures revealed a higher frequency of risk factors compared with participant‐provided history, highlighting a substantial proportion of unrecognized or inadequately treated risk factors: hypertension (62.3%, 45.1%; p = 0.067), hyperlipidemia (57.6%, 47.5%; p = 0.004), hyperglycemia (49%, 20%; p = <0.001), vitamin B12 deficiency (27.8%, 9.3%; p = 0.170), and depression (6.9%, 11.9%; p = 0.009). Conclusion Modifiable dementia risk factors were detected in most cognitively normal Latino and Black adults engaged in a longitudinal study of memory and aging. Objective measures highlighted unrecognized and undertreated risk factors. Active surveillance programs are needed to detect and treat modifiable ADRD risk factors in underrepresented populations.

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) has been overlooked or misdiagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia due to its frequent concomitant AD pathology with Lewy Body Disease (LBD) pathology. Although autopsy confirmation has been the gold standard for the precise diagnosis of DLB, time‐course 123 I‐FP‐CIT SPECT (DaT‐SPECT) findings in autopsy‐confirmed DLB are not well characterized. We previously reported that the DaTQUANT z‐score of the more affected side of the putamen has the best discriminatory power in detecting LBD pathology and nigrostriatal degeneration in dementia patients and demonstrated z‐score of −1 as the cutoff value. We sought to examine how DaT‐SPECT findings change over time in autopsy confirmed LBD patients in preparation for its use in LBD targeted clinical trials. Method Eight autopsy confirmed neocortical or limbic LBD patients who underwent two or more DaT‐SPECT were included. Nigrostriatal dopamine transporter (DaT) binding and age‐adjusted z‐scores were analyzed using the DaTQUANT 2.0 software (GE Healthcare). Result Six patients (75%) were male. The patients had 2.5±0.7 longitudinal DaT‐SPECT scans. Clinical diagnosis at initial scan was: DLB (75%), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) with REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) (13%), and isolated RBD (iRBD) (13%). Clinical diagnosis at last scan was: DLB (88%) and iRBD (12%). All patients developed dementia during life. Mean age at initial scan/last scan/autopsy were 71.1±7.0/73.4±6.9/75.1±7.3 years old. Time from initial and last scan to autopsy were 4.0±1.9 and 1.8±1.9 years respectively. Seven patients (88%) had neocortical LBD and one (12%) had limbic LBD. Concomitant AD pathology was observed in four patients (two males (33%), two females (100%)). All patients had DaTQUANT putamen z‐score <‐1.0 at their initial scan including in MCI+RBD (‐1.76) and iRBD (‐1.53) patients. In the DLB patients at their initial scans, five (83%) had DaTQUANT putamen z‐score <‐2.0 and one (17%) had z‐score of ‐1.55. All patients (100%) showed DaTQUANT putamen z‐score <‐2.0 at their last scans. Conclusion DaTQUANT using cut‐off putamen z‐score of ‐1 was associated with underlying LBD pathology including at their iRBD and MCI stages. Nigrostriatal DaT binding tends to decline over time with DaTQUANT z‐score <‐2 at their last scans.

Abstract Background Cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), characterized by the accumulation of amyloid‐beta in the cerebrovasculature, affects blood vessel integrity leading to brain hemorrhages and an accelerated cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) patients. Our previous genome‐wide association study (GWAS) identified a LINC‐PINT splice variant associated with lower CAA levels in individuals without the APOE e4 allele and higher levels of LINC‐PINT expression in the brain of AD donors. In this study, we expand our GWAS to include additional donors with AD and those lacking significant AD neuropathology (non‐AD), with available CAA scores. Method In our prior study we assessed 853 AD donors. We expanded this by addition of genetic data from 550 AD and 502 non‐AD donors from the Mayo Clinic Brain Bank, scored for CAA. We performed QC and imputation (TOPMED) of all datasets. We conducted GWAS in AD only ( N = 1,363), non‐AD only, and all donors ( N = 1,865) by testing imputed variant dosages for association with square root transformed CAA using linear regression, adjusting for relevant covariates. To assess associations in the context of major CAA risk factors, we performed interaction analysis with APOEe4 presence and sex; and pursued stratified analyses. Result Variants at the APOE locus were identified as the most significant in our study. In addition, several other variants approached genome‐wide significance after adjusting for AD neuropathology (Braak stage and Thal phase). T he LINC‐PINT splice variant remained associated with lower CAA scores in AD donors without the APOEe4 risk allele. To enhance the robustness of our findings, we are pursuing further expansion of our study cohort to include other available datasets. To explore putative functional consequences of key variants we are collecting peripheral gene expression measures in participants from Mayo Clinic with neuroimaging measures including microhemorrhages. Conclusion We expect this study will provide further insights into the genetic architecture underlying risk for CAA, both in the context of significant AD pathology, and without. Characterization of genetic variants and their functional outcomes may lead to new avenues of research aimed at identifying biomarkers and therapies to treat CAA, a common co‐pathology in those with and without AD.