Bejanin, Alexandre

AbstractINTRODUCTIONSelf‐reported sex influences brain resilience, but its role in genetic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) remains unclear.METHODSWe analyzed 394 genetic‐FTD patients and 279 controls from the ALLFTD consortium, assessing annual neuropsychological performance and MRI‐based cortical thickness. Clinical characteristics and cortical thickness were compared between sexes. We used the residuals of linear regression models, which predict each participant's cognitive and behavioral performance levels relative to cortical thickness, as a proxy for reserve. We then modeled sex differences in longitudinal trajectories with linear mixed‐effects models.RESULTSSymptomatic females with genetic FTD had lower frontal cortical thickness than males, and the C9orf72 subgroup showed lower‐than‐expected frontal cortical thickness for a given level of executive functioning. Differences in cognitive reserve between sexes peaked near symptom onset but diminished thereafter.DISCUSSIONFemales with genetic FTD showed higher cognitive reserve than males, suggesting that self‐reported sex modulates resilience to frontotemporal neurodegeneration.Highlights Females with genetic FTD showed higher cognitive reserve than males. Those differences were particularly pronounced in the C9orf72 and GRN subgroups. The higher cognitive reserve in females declined as the disease progressed.

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Abstract INTRODUCTION A biphasic model for brain structural changes in preclinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) could reconcile some conflicting and paradoxical findings in observational studies and anti‐amyloid clinical trials. METHODS In this study we tested this model fitting linear versus quadratic trajectories and computed the timing of the inflection points vertexwise of cortical thickness and cortical diffusivity—a novel marker of cortical microstructure—changes in 389 participants from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network. RESULTS In early preclinical AD, between 20 and 15 years before estimated symptom onset, we found increases in cortical thickness and decreases in cortical diffusivity followed by cortical thinning and cortical diffusivity increases in later preclinical and symptomatic stages. The inflection points 16 to 19 years before estimated symptom onset are in agreement with the start of tau biomarker alterations. DISCUSSION These findings confirm a biphasic trajectory for brain structural changes and have direct implications when interpreting magnetic resonance imaging measures in preventive AD clinical trials.

The specific effect of TDP-43 pathology on grey matter volume in individuals without frontotemporal lobar degeneration is unclear. Bejanin et al. reveal a major and independent contribution of TDP-43 to neurodegeneration and shed light on the regional distribution of TDP-43-related atrophy in older adults.

Background: TDP-43 has been shown to be strongly associated with memory loss, smaller hippocampal volumes, and faster rates of hippocampal atrophy in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) patients with an amnestic presentation. Whether TDP-43 has any clinical or anatomical associations in AD patients with non-amnestic phenotype is unknown. Objective: To determine whether TDP-43 plays a significant role in the clinic-anatomic features of non-amnestic AD. Methods: All cases with pathologically confirmed intermediate-high probability AD from 1996–2012 were identified and retrospectively sub-classified into amnestic versus non-amnestic dementia at the time of presentation. Neurofibrillary tangle counts were performed in those with a non-amnestic presentation using thioflavin-S microscopy in the hippocampus and three neocortical regions, and all cases were subtyped into hippocampal-sparing, limbic-predominant, and typical AD pathology. TDP-43 immunoreactivity was used to assess for the presence of TDP-43. Statistical analyses helped determine whether pathologic subtype or TDP-43 was more strongly associated with clinico-imaging features. Results: Out of 172 pathologically confirmed AD cases, 36 (19%) were classified as non-amnestic. Twenty-five of these 36 (69%) had typical pathology, 0 limbic-predominant pathology, and 11 (31%) hippocampal-sparing pathology. Eleven (44%) of the 25 cases with typical pathology were TDP-43+. Of the 11 cases with hippocampal-sparing pathology, 4 (36%) were TDP-43+. There were no differences in demographic, clinical, or neuroimaging features in those with TDP-43 versus those without except for older age at onset ( p = 0.02) and age at death ( p = 0.02) in those with TDP-43. AD pathological subtype accounted for slightly more of the variances in the neocortex than TDP-43. Conclusion: In non-amnestic AD, we find little evidence that clinical or anatomical features of the disease are related to TDP-43.