Atri, Alireza

Abstract In response to a Cochrane review (published in April 2026) on the clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies targeting beta amyloid, this perspective outlines a number of critiques. The scientists, methodologists, subject‐matter experts, and clinicians on this perspective strongly recommend that the Cochrane editorial board consider a call for editorial response, correction of press materials, or commissioned reply to this review for four overarching reasons: (1) decision to pool antibodies that do and do not clear beta amyloid, (2) decision to include studies from a time when biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease were not available, (3) analytical and methodological limitations of the approach used, (4) conflating the distinct roles and methodological processes of systematic review and guideline methodologies, (5) contextualizing the present critique within the existing evidence‐synthesis literature, and (6) mechanistic inference beyond the scope of the presented analyses. Conclusions that may not accurately reflect treatment‐specific effects could cause significant downstream clinical and psychosocial harm to those currently undergoing treatment and their family members as well as individuals considering participation in Alzheimer's clinical trials.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Research into cognitive dispersion – a cognitive process score measuring the intra‐individual variability (IIV) across a single testing session – suggests utility in neurodegenerative populations. Given widespread deficits observed in sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD), however, it is unclear if examining cognitive dispersion shows benefit in this condition. METHODS A total of 309 participants (188 amyloid‐positive EOAD, 43 amyloid‐negative early‐onset dementia [EOnonAD], 78 cognitively normal [CN]) completed neuropsychological testing twice over 12 months. Dispersion‐related differences among groups were assessed, as was cognitive dispersion's capacity to predict domain‐specific cognitive trajectories, and its convergence with imaging biomarkers. RESULTS EOAD participants displayed higher cognitive dispersion than EOnonAD participants, and associations with EOAD‐specific biomarkers. Additionally, cognitive dispersion was associated with 12‐month reliable change across several cognitive domains. DISCUSSION These preliminary results examine cognitive dispersion in sporadic EOAD. When used with baseline cognitive performance, cognitive dispersion measures may enrich future clinical trials in EOAD by enhancing treatment monitoring over time.

Abstract The growing availability of large-scale biomarker datasets has allowed data-driven methods to characterize Alzheimer’s disease biological heterogeneity. However, most prior studies have focused on cohorts of late-onset amnestic cases, leaving early-onset Alzheimer’s disease underexplored. We aimed to characterize tau-PET-based subtypes through a robust data-driven approach in the Longitudinal Early-Onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study. Baseline [18F]Flortaucipir PET scans from 365 amyloid-PET-positive participants with sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease were quantified in the left and right medial temporal, lateral temporal, occipital, parietal, and frontal cortices. Tau PET values were z-scored against 85 amyloid-PET-negative cognitively normal age-matched participants and fitted into Subtype and Stage Inference (SuStaIn)—an unsupervised clustering algorithm that simultaneously models subtypes and progression from cross-sectional data. The derived subtypes were subsequently characterized by baseline and longitudinal clinical, cognitive, MRI, tau and amyloid PET features. We identified three tau-PET-based subtypes: on average, Subtype 1/Typical (n = 144, 40%) showed a predominant bilateral temporoparietal pattern typical of Alzheimer’s disease. Subtype 2/Left temporal (n = 111, 31%) showed predominant left temporal binding. Subtype 3/Posterior (n = 104, 29%) showed early and permeating occipitoparietal involvement. Subtypes did not differ in demographics or global amyloid burden, but were relatively more enriched for specific clinical presentations: S1/Typical for amnestic presentations, S2/Left Temporal for primary progressive aphasia, and S3/Posterior for posterior cortical atrophy. Baseline tau PET subtypes aligned with cortical atrophy patterns and domain-specific cognitive impairment. When follow-up tau PET scans were fitted to SuStaIn trained on baseline data, 85.6% (n = 172/201) of participants retained the same subtype classification, indicating subtype temporal stability, and progressed within subtypes by 0.56 ± 0.70 SuStaIn stage/year. Longitudinal voxel-wise linear mixed-effects modelling revealed tau accumulation patterns for each subtype in regions relatively spared at baseline: occipital lobe accumulation predominated in S1/Typical, bilateral frontal and right temporal in S2/Left Temporal, and bilateral frontotemporal lobes in S3/Posterior. All subtypes showed longitudinal increases in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes, but with slower worsening in S3/Posterior compared with the other subtypes. Our findings reveal robust subtypes in sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease characterized by distinct spatiotemporal tau patterns that parallel differences in clinical presentations and trajectories of neurodegeneration. These subtypes extend beyond traditional clinical syndromes and support a more nuanced framework for individualized prognosis and care. Incorporating tau PET subtyping into clinical trial design could enable more targeted therapeutic approaches for this younger population.

Abstract INTRODUCTION : Despite expanding use of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), minimal examination has been undertaken in early‐onset AD (EOAD). Prior analyses assessed criterion and convergent validity of common plasma biomarkers in a well‐characterized sample with sporadic EOAD. METHODS : Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40, tau phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p‐tau231), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light change (NfL) levels were obtained for 189 EOAD, 52 early‐onset non‐AD (EOnonAD), and 83 cognitively normal (CN) participants. Diagnostic group differences, convergence with imaging biomarkers, and the capacity to predict specific cognitive domains were investigated. RESULTS : After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD participants exhibited more pathologic levels of Aβ42/40, p‐tau231, and GFAP relative to EOnonAD participants. However, NfL displayed the greatest sensitivity to non‐amnestic cognitive impairment across the sample. DISCUSSION : These results establish criterion and convergent validity of plasma biomarkers in sporadic EOAD and highlight complementary roles that AD‐specific and non‐specific plasma markers may play across the course of AD care.

Abstract In 2011, a workgroup of the Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable introduced recommendations for detecting and monitoring amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. Since then, anti‐amyloid immunotherapies have received regulatory approval for AD treatment and are beginning to enter clinical practice, underscoring the importance of informing healthcare providers, researchers, and patients about ARIA's implications in real‐world settings. In response, the Alzheimer's Association convened a new workgroup to review current knowledge of ARIA, including underlying mechanisms, clinical presentations, associated risk factors, mitigation strategies, radiologic detection methods, patients’ perspectives in treatment decision‐making, and outstanding challenges. Here, we outline key insights from this workgroup, highlighting that effective ARIA detection and monitoring in clinical practice requires adherence to robust protocols to mitigate risks and enhance patient safety. Limited availability of clinical and pathologic data on predictors of symptomatic and severe ARIA underscores the importance of continued real‐world data collection.

ABSTRACT Braak and others have proposed that Lewy body pathology (LBP) in Parkinson’s disease (PD) may arise not only in the brain but alternatively from an initial site in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract with subsequent passage to the central nervous system CNS through the vagus nerve or other routes. We tested this hypothesis by using both immunohistochemistry (IHC) and RT QuIC a form of alpha synuclein seed amplification assay (SAA) to detect alpha synuclein LBP in samples from selected brain regions and 10 GI tract sites taken from autopsies of 50 PD subjects and 128 elderly subjects without parkinsonism or dementia including 34 with IHC identified CNS incidental Lewy body disease (ILBD) and 94 with no Lewy body IHC pathology detected (NLB). A positive SAA or IHC result was restricted to the GI tract in only 2 subjects while LBP by either SAA or IHC was restricted to the brain in 11 subjects. To fairly compare GI-only with brain-only synucleinopathy, however, we would have to do SAA on brain samples from all ILBD and NLB cases in at least 4 critical brain regions: olfactory bulb, medulla, pons, and amygdala. Further SAA of brain regions is estimated, based on the proportional results to date, to potentially identify 21 additional brain-only LBP subjects, for a total of 32, if it were done on all of the NLB subjects. From this brain-only LBP is estimated to be 16 times more common than GI-only LBP. To assess the clinical impact of SAA-positive GI sites we found that the number of positive sites per subject is significantly correlated with UPDRS motor score and SCOPA-AUT GI related scores including those for salivation, straining, constipation, and bowel movement.

INTRODUCTION Recent work has identified unique cognitive profiles for early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) relative to late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), however, examination has been limited in determining whether the association between age and cognitive severity at presentation also differs across conditions. METHODS A series of linear spline regression models was conducted across baseline cognitive data from 325 EOAD and 314 LOAD participants, after accounting for education, sex, and apolipoprotein ε4 status. RESULTS Significant differences existed in the relationship between baseline age and cognitive performance between EOAD and LOAD samples for Processing Speed/Attention, Executive Functioning, and Episodic Immediate Memory. Younger participants from both EOAD and LOAD groups performed disproportionately worse on non‐amnestic cognitive domains, with this occurring to a greater extent in EOAD than LOAD. DISCUSSION In the age of disease‐modifying treatments, results highlight the importance of assessing for cognitive declines in individuals starting much earlier than age 65. Highlights Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants each displayed cognitive impairments relative to same‐aged peers across most domains. Both groups displayed positive relationships between impairment among non‐amnestic cognitive domains and baseline age. This relationship displayed a significantly greater effect in EOAD than LOAD, with domains of Processing Speed/Attention and Executive Functioning skills being the most pronounced. Of those participants developing AD, age displayed a disproportionate impact on their symptom onset.