Rentz, Dorene M.

Abstract Background Cognitive impairment often goes undetected by clinicians due to time constraints, limited expertise, and lack of standardized tools. Structured cognitive assessments improve detection accuracy compared to unstructured clinical judgment. In 2013, the Alzheimer’s Association published recommendations to help primary care clinicians incorporate cognitive assessments into the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Since then, advances in cognitive assessment tools, availability of disease‐modifying therapies, and shifting expectations around early diagnosis have highlighted the need for updated guidance. In response, the Alzheimer’s Association is developing an evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for cognitive testing in primary care, using the GRADE approach, informed by a systematic review of the best available evidence. Method A multidisciplinary panel formulated a clinical question to inform the development of this guideline. A systematic review was conducted (search range: 1999‐2024) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ten cognitive tests (5‐Cog, AD8, GPCOG, IQCODE, Mini‐Cog, MIS, MoCA, QDRS, RUDAS, and SLUMS) for the early detection of cognitive impairment (including MCI and dementia), in adults aged 55+ in ambulatory settings. The panel also narratively summarized data on emerging digital tools. Result Forty‐one studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review. Results were analyzed separately by test (including short‐IQCODE and short‐MoCA) and for primary care and for ambulatory clinic settings (e.g., neurology, memory disorder clinics), as well as for English and Spanish language, resulting in 21 separate analyses. Only three analyses, all related to MoCA, allowed for meta‐analysis. The panel will use the evidence to inform conditional recommendations for or against each specific test. Conclusion By evaluating the diagnostic performance of selected tests, this guideline aims to support healthcare professionals in primary care settings in effective triaging of individuals who may benefit from further cognitive evaluation. To enhance real‐world applicability, considerations such as administration time, ease of scoring, and diagnostic accuracy ‐ along with appropriate cut‐offs by race/ethnicity, education, and language ‐ should be prioritized. This guideline will be regularly updated over time to reflect emerging evidence and the needs of diverse populations.

Importance Tau positron emission tomography (PET) allows in vivo detection of neurofibrillary tangles, a core neuropathologic feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective To provide estimates of the frequency of tau PET positivity and its associated risk of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal study using data pooled from 21 cohorts, comprising a convenience sample of 6514 participants from 13 countries, collected between January 2013 and June 2024. Cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD dementia, or other neurodegenerative disorders were included. Exposures Tau PET with flortaucipir F 18, amyloid-β (Aβ) PET, and clinical examinations. Tau PET scans were visually rated as positive according to a US Food and Drug Administration– and European Medicines Agency–approved method, designed to indicate the presence of advanced neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stages V-VI). Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency of tau PET positivity and absolute risk of clinical progression (eg, progression to MCI or dementia). Results Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. Of 3487 cognitively unimpaired participants, 349 (9.8%) were tau PET positive; the estimated frequency of tau PET positivity was less than 1% in those aged younger than 50 years, and increased from 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) at 60 years to 19% (95% CI, 16%-24%) at 90 years. Tau PET positivity frequency estimates increased across MCI and AD dementia clinical diagnoses (43% [95% CI, 41%-46%] and 79% [95% CI, 77%-82%] at 75 years, respectively). Most tau PET–positive individuals (92%) were also Aβ PET positive. Cognitively unimpaired participants who were positive for both Aβ PET and tau PET had a higher absolute risk of progression to MCI or dementia over the following 5 years (57% [95% CI, 45%-71%]) compared with both Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–negative (17% [95% CI, 13%-22%]) and Aβ PET–negative/tau PET–negative (6% [95% CI, 5%-8%]) individuals. Among participants with MCI at the time of the tau PET scan, an Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–positive profile was associated with a 5-year absolute risk of progression to dementia of 70% (95% CI, 59%-81%). Conclusions and Relevance In a large convenience sample, a positive tau PET scan occurred at a nonnegligible rate among cognitively unimpaired individuals, and the combination of Aβ PET positivity and tau PET positivity was associated with a high risk of clinical progression in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of AD. These findings underscore the potential of tau PET as a biomarker for staging AD pathology.

Importance Alzheimer disease (AD) predominates in females at almost twice the rate relative to males. Mounting evidence in adults without AD indicates that females exhibit higher tau deposition than age-matched males, particularly in the setting of elevated β-amyloid (Aβ), but the evidence for sex differences in tau accumulation rates is inconclusive. Objective To examine whether female sex is associated with faster tau accumulation in the setting of high Aβ (as measured with positron emission tomography [PET]) and the moderating influence of sex on the association between APOE ε4 carrier status and tau accumulation. Data Sources This meta-analysis used data from 6 longitudinal aging and AD studies, including the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, Berkeley Aging Cohort Study, BioFINDER 1, Harvard Aging Brain Study, Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, and Wisconsin Registry for Alzheimer Prevention. Longitudinal data were collected between November 2004 and May 2022. Study Selection Included studies required available longitudinal [ 18 F]flortaucipir or [ 18 F]-MK-6240 tau-PET scans, as well as baseline [ 11 C] Pittsburgh Compound B, [ 18 F]flutemetamol or [ 18 F]florbetapir Aβ-PET scans. Recruitment criteria varied across studies. Analyses began on August 7, 2023, and were completed on February 5, 2024. Data Extraction and Synthesis In each study, primary analyses extracted estimates for the sex (female or male) and the sex by baseline Aβ-PET status (high or low) association with longitudinal tau-PET using a series of mixed-effects models. Secondary mixed-effects models extracted the interaction estimate for the association of sex by APOE ε4 carrier status with longitudinal tau-PET. Study-specific estimates for each mixed-effects model were then pooled in a meta-analysis, and the global fixed effect (β) and total heterogeneity ( I 2 ) across studies were estimated. This study is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures Seven tau-PET outcomes that showed cross-sectional sex differences were examined across temporal, parietal, and occipital lobes. Results Among 6 studies assessed, there were 1376 participants (761 [55%] female; mean [range] age at first tau scan, 71.9 [46-93] years; 401 participants [29%] with high baseline Aβ; 412 APOE ε4 carriers [30%]). Among individuals with high baseline Aβ, female sex was associated with faster tau accumulation localized to inferior temporal (β = −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.06; P = .009) temporal fusiform (β = −0.13; 95% CI, −0.23 to −0.04; P = .02), and lateral occipital regions (β = −0.15; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.06; P = .009) compared with male sex. Among APOE ε4 carriers, female sex was associated with faster inferior-temporal tau accumulation (β = −0.10; 95% CI, −0.16 to −0.03; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance These findings suggest that sex differences in the pathological progression of AD call for sex-specific timing considerations when administrating anti-Aβ and anti-tau treatments.

AbstractBackgroundThe residual approach has found wide application in researching cognitive resilience, a phenomenon conceptually understood as cognitive performance being better‐than‐typical for an individual, despite apparent AD pathology. The standard residual approach extracts information about an individual’s resilience from the residuals of a linear model predicting cognition. This approach is subject to several limiting assumptions. Here, we explore the implications of these assumptions and propose an alternative predictive modeling approach which circumvents them.MethodsOur alternative approach relies on training a machine learning model on a sample of participants who follow a “typical” clinical progression (Fig. 1A). Residuals are then extracted for a heterogeneous dataset that potentially includes resilient participants by comparing observed cognitive outcomes to those predicted by the “typical” model (Fig. 1B). Additionally, our estimate can be refined by effectively estimating and removing model error from the extracted residual by leveraging a second predictive model (Fig. 1C). Using simulated data, we explore the assumptions made by the standard approach and the consequences of their violation. We then contrast this against our approach.ResultsOur simulations demonstrated that the standard residual approach only extracted accurate resilience estimates if the predictors used in the model explained cognition sufficiently well, while being unrelated to resilience itself. That is, as the predictors explain more of the resilience, the residuals became increasingly determined by model error (Fig. 2). We found that residuals achieved with our approach are more precise and provide individualized estimates that are unaffected by the aforementioned trade‐off (Fig. 3).ConclusionsOur approach holds several advantages over the standard approach: The definition of resilience can be freely adjusted and enforced via different definitions of “typical”, it allows for incorporating complex, non‐linear models without removing relevant information from the residual, the error component of the residual can be estimated through cross‐validation, and all predictors that potentially explain cognition can be included into the model without losing resilience information from the residual. Our approach can be used to measure any phenomenon that can be operationalized as a deviation from a typical outcome and, thus, is also applicable for researching resistance to pathology.

AbstractBackgroundAnti‐amyloid immunotherapies modestly slow disease progression in early symptomatic AD; addition of other therapeutic modalities may be necessary to achieve larger treatment effects. Therapies that directly target tau can potentially produce substantial clinical benefit because the accumulation of insoluble tau protein is strongly correlated with the progression of AD. Which tau therapies are likely to be efficacious, whether or not to combine them with anti‐amyloid therapies, and which individuals are most likely to benefit are important unresolved questions that would require multiple parallel design trials to answer. Platform (umbrella) trials test multiple therapies in the same trial, allowing for substantial savings in time, cost and participant burden.MethodATP is a new NIH‐funded Phase 2 clinical trial platform that will be conducted as part of the AD Clinical Trials Consortium (ACTC) in partnership with industry and philanthropic groups. The goal is to investigate the effects of tau therapies on the biological hallmarks of AD including insoluble and soluble tau species, amyloid and other biomarkers of neurodegeneration. ATP will initially evaluate two tau therapies alone or in combination with an anti‐amyloid therapy. 900 participants with late preclinical or early prodromal AD (CDR 0 or 0.5) will be randomized to six arms for two years of blinded treatment, followed by an optional open label extension (Figure 1). At least 20 percent of participants will be from underrepresented groups. The primary endpoint is 18F MK6240 tau PET, with key secondary endpoints including plasma P‐tau and MTBR243‐tau, amyloid PET and clinical assessments (CDR‐SB, PACC5). Inclusion criteria are based on plasma P‐tau217, clinical status and regional 18F MK6240 uptake.ResultTwo tau therapies and an anti‐amyloid therapy have been chosen for inclusion in ATP and startup is underway. The final design, choice of therapies and design as well as plans for inclusion of additional tau therapies after the trial begins and other details will be presented.ConclusionThe ATP is a six arm factorial design platform trial that is planned to begin in late 2024 or early 2025 that will support efficient development of tau and combination therapies for early, sporadic AD.

AbstractThe emergence of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved amyloid‐targeting therapies for Alzheimer's disease challenges clinicians and healthcare providers with a transformative landscape. Effectively communicating the risks, benefits, burdens, costs, and available support associated with these novel disease‐modifying treatments to patients, families, and other healthcare providers is essential but complex. In response, the Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup has proposed language surrounding treatment eligibility, benefits, amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping, and treatment costs, serving as a resource to healthcare professionals in navigating discussions with patients and their families. As the landscape evolves with the approval of new Alzheimer's therapies, this resource stands poised for updates, ensuring its continued relevance in facilitating informed and meaningful patient‐provider dialogues.Highlights Effective communication of risks, benefits, burdens, and costs of FDA‐approved amyloid‐targeting antibodies is essential to patients, families, and healthcare providers. The Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup provides language for physicians and healthcare providers around treatment eligibility, benefits, ARIA, APOE genotyping, and treatment costs. This supplementary resource may be updated as new AD therapies become approved.

Abstract Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials are designed and powered to detect the impact of a therapeutic intervention, and there has been considerable discussion on what constitutes a clinically meaningful change in those receiving treatment versus placebo. The pathology of AD is complex, beginning many years before clinical symptoms are detectable, with multiple potential opportunities for therapeutic engagement. Introducing treatment strategies early in the disease and assessing meaningful change over the course of an 18‐month clinical trial are critical to understanding the value to an effective intervention. With new clinical trial data expected soon on emerging therapeutics from several AD studies, the Alzheimer's Association convened a work group of experts to discuss key considerations for interpreting data from cognitive and functional measures and what is considered a clinically meaningful benefit or meaningful slowing of this fatal disease. Our expectations of outcomes from therapeutic interventions in AD may need to be modified.

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 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.

AbstractIntroductionEarly detection of cognitive decline in older adults is a public health priority. Advancing Reliable Measurement in Alzheimer's Disease and Cognitive Aging (ARMADA), a multisite study, is validating cognition, emotion, motor, and sensory modules of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIHTB) in the aging spectrum from cognitively normal to dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT).MethodsParticipants 65 to 85 years old, in demographic groups racially proportional to the general US population, are recruited in one of three groups to validate the NIHTB: cognitively normal, amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), or mild DAT. Additional special emphasis cohorts include (1) Blacks in the three clinical groups; (2) Spanish‐speakers in the three clinical groups; (3) cognitively normal, population‐proportional, over age 85.DiscussionLongitudinal study will determine whether NIHTB can predict cognitive decline and is associated with Alzheimer's disease biomarkers. Here, we detail the methods for the ARMADA study.