Scheltens, Philip

AbstractIntroductionHarboring two copies of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε2 allele strongly protects against Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, the effect of this genotype on gray matter (GM) volume in cognitively unimpaired individuals has not yet been described.MethodsMulticenter brain magnetic resonance images (MRIs) from cognitively unimpaired ε2 homozygotes were matched (1:1) against all other APOE genotypes for relevant confounders (n = 223). GM volumes of ε2 genotypic groups were compared to each other and to the reference group (APOE ε3/ε3).ResultsCarrying at least one ε2 allele was associated with larger GM volumes in brain areas typically affected by AD and also in areas associated with cognitive resilience. APOE ε2 homozygotes, but not APOE ε2 heterozygotes, showed larger GM volumes in areas related to successful aging.DiscussionIn addition to the known resistance against amyloid‐β deposition, the larger GM volumes in key brain regions may confer APOE ε2 homozygotes additional protection against AD‐related cognitive decline.

AbstractIntroductionWe aimed to describe clinician‐patient communication in the diagnostic process of memory clinics, specifically clinician behavior known to facilitate knowledgeable participation of patients during consultations.MethodsIn this multicenter, observational study, we audio‐recorded routine diagnostic consultations of 41 clinicians and 136 patients/caregivers at eight memory clinics. Patients/caregivers completed surveys after each audiotaped consultation. We used a study‐specific coding scheme to categorize communication behavior.ResultsClinicians often provided information on (results of) diagnostic testing. They infrequently invited questions and/or checked understanding. Clinician behavior to involve patients in decision‐making about diagnostic testing was limited. Of note, patients/caregivers rarely expressed their information or involvement preferences. Yet, approximately, one quarter of them would have liked to receive more information.DiscussionInvolving patients more explicitly by means of shared decision‐making could benefit the quality of care provided in memory clinics because it enables clinicians to attune the diagnostic workup to the individual patient's needs.

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.

Abstract Introduction A classification framework for posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) is proposed to improve the uniformity of definition of the syndrome in a variety of research settings. Methods Consensus statements about PCA were developed through a detailed literature review, the formation of an international multidisciplinary working party which convened on four occasions, and a Web‐based quantitative survey regarding symptom frequency and the conceptualization of PCA. Results A three‐level classification framework for PCA is described comprising both syndrome‐ and disease‐level descriptions. Classification level 1 (PCA) defines the core clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging features and exclusion criteria of the clinico‐radiological syndrome. Classification level 2 (PCA‐pure, PCA‐plus) establishes whether, in addition to the core PCA syndrome, the core features of any other neurodegenerative syndromes are present. Classification level 3 (PCA attributable to AD [PCA‐AD], Lewy body disease [PCA‐LBD], corticobasal degeneration [PCA‐CBD], prion disease [PCA‐prion]) provides a more formal determination of the underlying cause of the PCA syndrome, based on available pathophysiological biomarker evidence. The issue of additional syndrome‐level descriptors is discussed in relation to the challenges of defining stages of syndrome severity and characterizing phenotypic heterogeneity within the PCA spectrum. Discussion There was strong agreement regarding the definition of the core clinico‐radiological syndrome, meaning that the current consensus statement should be regarded as a refinement, development, and extension of previous single‐center PCA criteria rather than any wholesale alteration or redescription of the syndrome. The framework and terminology may facilitate the interpretation of research data across studies, be applicable across a broad range of research scenarios (e.g., behavioral interventions, pharmacological trials), and provide a foundation for future collaborative work.

Abstract During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum. Thanks to evolving biomarker research and substantial discoveries, it is now possible to identify the disease even at the preclinical stage before the occurrence of the first clinical symptoms. This preclinical stage of AD has become a major research focus as the field postulates that early intervention may offer the best chance of therapeutic success. To date, very little evidence is established on this “silent” stage of the disease. A clarification is needed about the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage. This article is aimed at addressing all the different issues by providing for each of them an updated review of the literature and evidence, with practical recommendations.

AbstractIntroductionThe genetics underlying posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), typically a rare variant of Alzheimer's disease (AD), remain uncertain.MethodsWe genotyped 302 PCA patients from 11 centers, calculated risk at 24 loci for AD/DLB and performed an exploratory genome‐wide association study.ResultsWe confirm that variation in/near APOE/TOMM40 (P = 6 × 10−14) alters PCA risk, but with smaller effect than for typical AD (PCA: odds ratio [OR] = 2.03, typical AD: OR = 2.83, P = .0007). We found evidence for risk in/near CR1 (P = 7 × 10−4), ABCA7 (P = .02) and BIN1 (P = .04). ORs at variants near INPP5D and NME8 did not overlap between PCA and typical AD. Exploratory genome‐wide association studies confirmed APOE and identified three novel loci: rs76854344 near CNTNAP5 (P = 8 × 10−10 OR = 1.9 [1.5–2.3]); rs72907046 near FAM46A (P = 1 × 10−9 OR = 3.2 [2.1–4.9]); and rs2525776 near SEMA3C (P = 1 × 10−8, OR = 3.3 [2.1–5.1]).DiscussionWe provide evidence for genetic risk factors specifically related to PCA. We identify three candidate loci that, if replicated, may provide insights into selective vulnerability and phenotypic diversity in AD.

Abstract Background An international Delphi panel has defined a harmonized protocol (HarP) for the manual segmentation of the hippocampus on MR. The aim of this study is to study the concurrent validity of the HarP toward local protocols, and its major sources of variance. Methods Fourteen tracers segmented 10 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cases scanned at 1.5 T and 3T following local protocols, qualified for segmentation based on the HarP through a standard web‐platform and resegmented following the HarP. The five most accurate tracers followed the HarP to segment 15 ADNI cases acquired at three time points on both 1.5 T and 3T. Results The agreement among tracers was relatively low with the local protocols (absolute left/right ICC 0.44/0.43) and much higher with the HarP (absolute left/right ICC 0.88/0.89). On the larger set of 15 cases, the HarP agreement within (left/right ICC range: 0.94/0.95 to 0.99/0.99) and among tracers (left/right ICC range: 0.89/0.90) was very high. The volume variance due to different tracers was 0.9% of the total, comparing favorably to variance due to scanner manufacturer (1.2), atrophy rates (3.5), hemispheric asymmetry (3.7), field strength (4.4), and significantly smaller than the variance due to atrophy (33.5%, P < .001), and physiological variability (49.2%, P < .001). Conclusions The HarP has high measurement stability compared with local segmentation protocols, and good reproducibility within and among human tracers. Hippocampi segmented with the HarP can be used as a reference for the qualification of human tracers and automated segmentation algorithms.