Sperling, Reisa Anne

Autosomal‐dominant, Dutch‐type cerebral amyloid angiopathy (D‐CAA) offers a unique opportunity to develop biomarkers for pre‐symptomatic cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). We hypothesized that neuroimaging measures of white matter injury would be present and progressive in D‐CAA prior to hemorrhagic lesions or symptomatic hemorrhage. In a longitudinal cohort of D‐CAA carriers and non‐carriers, we observed divergence of white matter injury measures between D‐CAA carriers and non‐carriers prior to the appearance of cerebral microbleeds and >14 years before the average age of first symptomatic hemorrhage. These results indicate that white matter disruption measures may be valuable cross‐sectional and longitudinal biomarkers of D‐CAA progression. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:358–363

AbstractBackgroundThough pathogenic variations in PSEN1 leading to Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) are all highly penetrant, there is substantial inter‐individual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change observed in ADAD. We hypothesized that this inter‐individual variability may be associated with the location of the pathogenic variant within PSEN1. We tested this hypothesis using biomarker and cognitive data from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study.MethodPSEN1 pathogenic variant carriers [grouped based on whether their ADAD genotype affected transmembrane (PSEN1 TM; N = 125) or cytoplasmic (PSEN1 CY; N = 62) domains] and non‐carriers [NC; N = 176] enrolled in DIAN underwent clinical evaluation, multimodal neuroimaging, and lumbar puncture for collection of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Linear mixed effects models with a restricted cubic spline were used to determine cross‐sectional differences in clinical and biomarker measures between NC, PSEN1 TM, and PSEN1 CY groups, across the disease course (estimated years to symptom onset; EYO).ResultBackground characteristics are reported in Table 1. PSEN1 CY and PSEN1 TM groups had elevated β‐amyloid (PiB‐PET) and phosphorylated‐tau levels (CSF pTauT181) compared to NC, but these biomarker measures were not different between PSEN1 TM and CY groups (Figure 1a‐b). Additionally, the PSEN1 TM group had decreased glucose metabolism compared to NC but was similar to the PSEN1 CY group (Figure 1c). However, we observed that PSEN1 TM carriers had significantly smaller hippocampal volume, greater lateral ventricle volume, and greater cognitive impairment (Figure 1d‐f) across EYO as compared to PSEN1 CY carriers.ConclusionDespite similar β‐amyloid PET and CSF pTauT181 levels across EYO, individuals with pathogenic variants affecting transmembrane domains in PSEN1 may have more rapid progression of disease as measured by cognitive function and neurodegeneration as compared to those with variants affecting cytoplasmic domains. These results have implications both for understanding the heterogeneity in ongoing ADAD clinical trials and for better understanding the pathobiology of ADAD.

AbstractIntroductionLittle is known about effects of physical activity (PA) in genetically driven early‐onset autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsA total of 372 individuals participating at the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network study were examined to evaluate the cross‐sectional relationship of PA with cognitive performance, functional status, cognitive decline, and AD biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid. Mutation carriers were categorized as high or low exercisers according to WHO recommendations.ResultsMutation carriers with high PA showed significantly better cognitive and functional performance and significantly less AD‐like pathology in cerebrospinal fluid than individuals with low PA. Mutation carriers with high PA scored 3.4 points better on Mini Mental State Examination at expected symptom onset and fulfilled the diagnosis of very mild dementia 15.1 years later compared with low exercisers.DiscussionThese results support a beneficial effect of PA on cognition and AD pathology even in individuals with genetically driven autosomal dominant AD.

Abstract In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six‐stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker‐based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker‐based research should not be considered a template for all research into age‐related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β‐amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.