Gordon, Brian A.

Abstract Background The Alzheimer's Association workgroup criteria (AA‐2024) suggest four biological stages based on PET imaging. However, the application of this framework may vary depending on the tau PET tracer used, and the distribution of clinical stages by biological stage may differ. Here, we aim to compare the diagnostic performance of the biological staging of Alzheimer Disease using two different tau PET tracers. Method We analyzed 446 individuals and further stratified 167 Aβ‐positive participants from the HEAD study (Longitudinal multicenter head‐to‐head harmonization of tau PET tracers) that underwent both MK‐6240 and Flortaucipir (FTP) tau PET. Four clinical stages (normal, transitional, MCI, and dementia) were defined based on the AA‐2024 criteria. Within stage‐2 we assessed subgroups: subjective cognitive decline (SCD), subtle objective cognitive decline (SOCD), and mild behavioral impairment (MBI). Logistic and linear models corrected by age and sex tested association of groups with amyloid and tau pathology. The biological staging was performed using tracer‐specific thresholds for regional SUVR and testing two regions of interest schemes: (i) proposed by AA‐2024 and (ii) Braak stages (Figure 1). Cohen's weighted‐kappa (K) statistic measured clinical‐biological agreement. Positive predictive value (PPV) of an individual being clinically impaired (MCI or dementia) was calculated for each biological stage. Result Clinical stages showed a progressively increased prevalence of Aβ‐positivity and higher entorhinal tau PET pathology from cognitively normal (CN) to SOCD, MCI, and dementia in both tracers. MBI and SCD transitional groups showed no increased Aβ or tau pathology compared to CN (Figure 2). For this reason, only SOCD was considered part of stage 2 for following analyses. All tested biological staging strategies showed moderate agreement (0.34‐0.59) with clinical stages using either tracers. The distribution of biological across clinical stages were similar for FTP and MK, with MK‐6240 showing lower PPV values in earlier stages than FTP (Table 1). Conclusion Our results support that AA‐2024 biological and clinical stages show similar clinical‐biological concordance using either Flortaucipir or MK‐6240, although this can vary based on methods tested in the study. The MBI and SCD clinical subgroups showed no difference of pathological burden to clinical stage 1, while SOCD transitional stage showed higher burden compared to stage 1.

Abstract Background HEAD is a longitudinal, multi‐site, non‐randomized study aiming to harmonize different tau PET tracers onto a common scale for enrichment and monitoring of anti‐tau clinical trials. To achieve this, the Uniτ scale is being developed using data from participants scanned head‐to‐head with Flortaucipir and MK6240, with a subset also scanned with PI2620 and RO948. However, access to the Uniτ scale has been limited to the study community and collaborators. To address this limitation, we have developed the Uniτ Ecosystem – a set of tools for tau PET harmonization designed to support research and clinical trials ( www.unitau.app ). Method The Uniτ Ecosystem was developed for multiple operating systems (Web/macOS/Windows/Ubuntu) (Figure 1) and currently include four tools. The Uniτ harmonization is an online ROI harmonization module that allows the user to harmonize SUVRs from spreadsheets. The Uniτ packages (R, Python and MATLAB) facilitates the transformation of SUVR values to the Uniτ scale using the most used programming languages in research settings. The Uniτ calculator app allows rapid and convenient harmonization. The Uniτ desktop app is a 3D harmonization module for voxel‐wise harmonization. The Uniτ parameters were calculated using a training set of 200 participants with head‐to‐head MK6240 and Flortaucipir, and 90 individuals with additional PI2620 and RO948. Researchers can use their own datasets and convert tau PET data to the Uniτ scale. Result The online ROI harmonization module allows users to harmonize tau PET SUVRs uploaded from spreadsheets and offers interactive visualizations such as scatter plots and histograms for tau positivity thresholds (Figure 2). The calculator app enables users to harmonize single SUVR values effortlessly. The desktop application for 3D tau PET harmonization leverages the functionalities of the previous modules to harmonize entire 3D images, eliminating the need for predefined ROIs. Additionally, this module provides visualization tools for the parametric Uniτ images in 2D and 3D (Figure 3). Uniτ tools never store any data on any external servers. Conclusion The Uniτ Ecosystem represents a significant advance in tau PET harmonization, providing a user‐friendly platform to harmonize and visualize tau PET data for research and clinical trials.

Abstract Background Tau PET tracers present distinct binding characteristics that might influence their trajectories and relationship with other biomarkers along the AD continuum. In a head‐to‐head study, we investigated the relationship between the emergence of PET tracers MK6240 and Flortaucipir, and plasma p ‐tau217 abnormalities as a function of Aβ PET deposition. We further assessed the concordance between tau PET and plasma p ‐tau217 positivity and its relationship with cognitive scores. Method We evaluated 352 individuals from the HEAD study (205 cognitively unimpaired and 147 cognitively impaired) with Aβ PET, MK6240 and Flortaucipir tau PET, and plasma p ‐tau217 (ALZpath) and GFAP (Quanterix) measures. Tau PET Braak regions, plasma p ‐tau217 trajectories were modeled as functions of Aβ burden (Centiloid scale) using the Lowess method. Biomarkers were z‐scored anchored on young individuals ( n = 19, < 28 years old) as anchors. Tau PET (Braak 1 region) and plasma p ‐tau217 were considered positive/abnormal when surpassing 2.5 z‐score. Result Among the tested markers, MK6240 was the earliest to show abnormality as a function of Centiloid, occurring at 22 Centiloids, followed by plasma p ‐tau217 at 38 Centiloid and Flortaucipir at Centiloid 56 (Figure 1). Tau PET and plasma p ‐tau217 positivity showed an overall high concordance (∼80% for both tracers; Figure 2). In MK6240 discordant cases, most individuals were MK6240+/p‐tau217‐ (13.8%), while 6.6% were MK6240‐/p‐tau217+ (Figure 2A). For Flortaucipir, 15% of discordant cases were Flortaucipir‐/p‐tau217+, while 4.8% were Flortaucipir+/p‐tau217‐ (Figure 2B). The discordant groups present higher Centiloid than the ptau217‐/Tau‐ group and overall decreased scores in cognitive tests, except for p ‐tau217+/MK6240‐ group (Figure 3). Conclusion MK6240 becomes abnormal at lower levels of Aβ burden compared to plasma p ‐tau217 and Flortaucipir. The relatively high prevalence of discordant tau PET positive or plasma p ‐tau217 positive and suggests that some individuals may show tau PET positivity first, while others may exhibit plasma p ‐tau217 positivity first. The distinct cognitive profiles of this groups suggest potential clinical relevance, warranting further investigation.

Abstract Background Individuals with preclinical AD are difficult to detect using traditional clinical tools. Yet, many individuals classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU) can exhibit a heterogeneous pattern of subtle clinical abnormalities, potentially linked to early Alzheimer's disease (AD). Primary care providers often have access only to clinical tests to study at‐risk community‐dwelling older adults who visit them without cognitive complaints. Since early intervention is crucial in AD, identifying clinical tools to detect preclinical AD is important in areas with limited access to blood or imaging biomarkers. In this study, we evaluate the link between Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) total scores and AD pathology in CU individuals. Methods We studied 204 cognitively unimpaired (CU) older adults who underwent both 18 F‐FTP and 18 F‐MK6240 scans. These individuals were stratified based on their amyloid PET status, determined by visual reading, into CU A+ ( n = 35) and CU A‐ ( n = 137), as part of the ongoing HEAD study. CU adults had Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) of 0 and were clinically identified as non‐MCI and non‐demented. Voxel‐wise linear regression models tested the association between MoCA total scores and tau pathology. Results CU A+T+ had significantly lower total MoCA scores than A‐T‐ individuals (Figure 1). Lesser MoCA total score was significantly associated with greater mediobasal temporal tau deposition, using both 18 F‐MK6240 and 18 F‐FTP [Figure 2]. When we separated the population by Aβ status, we found that these results were driven by the CU A+ group (Figure 3A) and were not present in CU A‐ individuals (Figure 3B). Discussion These findings indicate that the MoCA, a simple routine in‐office clinical test, can detect subtle cognitive dysfunction associated with preclinical AD. This suggests that simple cognitive testing can play a role in the early detection of AD and therefore an option for prescreening older adults in non‐specialized clinical settings, the initial interface for most older adults without cognitive complaints. Conclusion MoCA total, the common dementia screening test also plays a valuable role in detecting preclinical AD.

Abstract Background Alzheimer Disease (AD) pathology evolves over decades, and understanding this progression is critical to the understanding of the disease and timing therapeutic interventions. Since individuals with Autosomal Dominant AD (ADAD) develop symptoms around the same age as their parent, it is possible to predict symptom onset and stage individuals by their estimated years to symptom onset (EYO). This approach does not generalize to other forms of AD, thus there is a pressing need for the timecourse of ADAD to be defined in broadly relevant terms. The objective of this project is to validate the Sampled Iterative Local Approximation (SILA) algorithm in a cohort with a known disease timecourse. SILA generates an estimate of time from amyloid positivity (A time ) based on longitudinal PET data. Method We evaluated A time in a longitudinal ADAD sample ( N = 316) with PET PiB data in three ways. First, we compared predicted age at amyloid positive (A+) to observed age at A+ for individuals who became A+ during enrollment. Next, using linear regression, we compared estimated age at A+ to estimated age at symptom onset (EYO=0). Finally, we used generalized additive models to compare the amount of variance in concurrent cognitive performance explained both A time and EYO. Result We observed a mean average error of 1.15 years between actual age at A+ ( N = 26) and the SILA‐predicted A time . Across all participants, SILA‐estimated age at A+ explained 39% of the variance in estimated age at symptom onset ( β = 0.918, p < 0.0001). Finally, we observed a nonlinear association between cognition and both A time and EYO. A time explained 19% of the variance in the general cognitive composite while EYO explained 43% of the variance. Conclusion SILA produces a valid estimate of time‐from‐amyloid positivity in ADAD. This work allows for disease stage in ADAD to be compared to staging for broad forms of AD, which was not previously possible using EYO. However, this work also illustrates that there is a high degree of heterogeneity in preclinical disease duration that is not explained by amyloid alone.