Neumann, Lycia Tramujas Vasconcellos

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is a prevalent form of dementia associated with neuronal alpha‐synuclein aggregates (Lewy bodies). Symptoms include cognitive impairment, fluctuations, neuropsychiatric features including psychosis, sleep disorders, and dysautonomia. DLB is the most expensive form of dementia, and there are currently no treatments approved by the US FDA. Given the advent of sensitive and specific in vivo biomarkers for synuclein aggregation, drug developers are increasingly interested in DLB. FDA instituted Patient‐Focused Drug Development (PFDD) meetings in 2012 with the purpose of ensuring that patients’ experiences, perspectives, needs, and preferences are captured and meaningfully incorporated into drug development and evaluation. Method In October 2024, the Lewy Body Dementia Association (LBDA) and the Alzheimer’s Association (ALZ) co‐hosted an externally‐led PFDD (EL‐PFDD) meeting on DLB. Thirty days before the event, LBDA solicited public comment on the lived experience of DLB, the current state of treatment, and what people with DLB value in potential future therapies. During the live meeting, people with DLB, care partners and family members described their experiences and responded to live polling questions. Result The EL‐PFDD was attended by 347 people with DLB and care partners, drug developers (both industry and academic), FDA staff, and NIH staff. Preliminary analysis of the discussion content and survey responses shows several themes emerging from the meeting. The most bothersome and impactful symptoms varied over the course of the disease, but included cognitive impairment and fluctuations, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sleepiness. Concerns for the future included progressive decline in cognition, changes in behavior/mood, and cost of care. Limitations to current treatments included lack of FDA‐approved medications, and side effects and lack of efficacy associated with “off label” medications. Priorities for future treatments included symptomatic treatments that do not worsen other DLB symptoms, slowing disease progression, accessibility/insurance coverage, and avoiding side effects. Conclusion The EL‐PFDD on DLB provided valuable information for drug developers and regulators to understand the lived experience of people with DLB and care partners. The results will be documented in a “Voice of the Patient” report that will be hosted at www.lbda.org/el‐pfdd .

Abstract Background Neighborhood socio‐economic conditions may increase Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk through amyloid, tau, atrophy or vascular pathways, potentially varying by genetic risk, race or ethnicity and sex. We examined associations between Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition, AD pathology, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volume in cognitively unimpaired older adults by race or ethnicity, sex and APOE4 status. Method We included 1896 non‐demented older adults from US POINTER study with available cognitive evaluations, ADI level – a census–based neighborhood disadvantage metric (categorized as low, moderate and high) and a subsample with neuroimaging data ( N = 806). Linear/logistic regressions were used to assess interactions of ADI with sex, race or ethnicity, and APOE4 on (1) the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite, (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived GM volume meta‐ROI (entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, mid‐temporal, inferior temporal), (3) WMH and (4) AD pathology (amyloid and tau PET), adjusted by age, sex and intracranial volume when appropriate. Result African American participants ( p <0.001) and females ( p <0.001) were more likely to live in deprived areas. African American participants had significantly lower PACC‐5 ( p <0.001) and GM volume ( p <0.001), “Other or multiple races” participants showed significantly higher amyloid burden ( p = 0.001), and White participants higher WMH ( p = 0.013). Females showed higher PACC‐5 scores ( p <0.001), while APOE4 carriers showed lower PACC‐5 ( p = 0.042) and higher amyloid burden ( p <0.001) (Table 1). Race and ADI interacted on PACC‐5 ( p = 0.043) and showed a borderline interaction on Tau ( p = 0.079), with higher ADI linked to lower PACC‐5 in White, Hispanic, and “Other or Multiple Races” and higher Tau in Hispanic. Further, there was a borderline ADI*APOE4 status interaction on WMH ( p = 0.059) and a significant ADI*APOE4 interaction on amyloid ( p = 0.001), where APOE4 carriers in deprived areas showed higher WMH and lower amyloid burden (Figure 1). No significant ADI*sex interactions were observed. Conclusion Neighborhood disadvantage was more commonly observed in African American participants, but interaction with cognition was primarily seen in other racial/ethnic groups. APOE4 carriers showed increased amyloid burden, but those from more disadvantaged neighborhoods exhibited a higher vascular component alongside lower amyloid‐driven pathology. These results may indicate varying effects of social disadvantages across groups or sample bias.

Abstract Background Neighborhood social and built environment characteristics may promote physical activity, a modifiable factor for dementia risk, which may in turn promote cognitive and brain health. We explored the associations of the U.S. National Walkability Index ‐ a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability – with cognitive function, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH), neighborhood disadvantage, sedentary behavior and frequency of physical activity in cognitively unimpaired older adults at increased Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. Method We included baseline data from 1398 older adults (68.3 ± 5.17 years, 68.3% females, 30.5% APOE4 carriers) from the U.S. POINTER trial. Walkability was classified as: least, below average, above average and most walkable. Neighborhood disadvantage (low, moderate and high) was assessed using Area Deprivation Index (ADI) ( N = 1384). Physical inactivity was assessed using the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ, hours sitting/week, N = 1106), and physical activity was measured with a composite score from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. Linear and logistic regressions examined associations between walkability and (1) physical activity and sedentary behavior; and (2) cognition assessed with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC‐5), GM volume and WMHs, Additionally, associations between neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity and sedentary behavior were explored. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, APOE4 and total intracranial volume. Result More deprived areas were generally less walkable (β = ‐0.008, p < 0.001) (Figure 1). Higher walkability (Above average: β = 0.192, p = 0.011 and most walkable: β = 0.183, p = 0.032) was associated with higher PACC‐5 (Figure 2A) scores but not with more preserved GM or lower WMH. Walkability scores were not associated with physical activity and sedentary measurements, while greater neighborhood disadvantage was linked to sedentary behavior (β = 0.126, p < 0.001) (Figure 2B). Conclusion These results suggest that physical inactivity in more deprived areas is associated with neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages rather than built environment. Additionally, walkability scores were not associated with any measure of physical activity or brain health, suggesting the need to further investigate other health effects of neighborhood disadvantage and walkability.

Abstract Background In aging and dementia research, the relationships between modifiable risk factors and biomarkers often vary across cohorts. We aim to evaluate the consistency and generalizability of the association between the area deprivation index (ADI) ‐ an indicator of socioeconomic/resource disadvantage within a specific area ‐ and cognition and Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across three distinct research cohorts, two from the U.S. (U.S. POINTER Imaging, ADNI) and one from Spain (UBRAIN). Method We included a total of 3091 participants without dementia, 1879 from U.S. POINTER Imaging, 282 from ADNI and 930 from UBRAIN (Table 1). The ADI was calculated using validated indices from the US and Spain, with neighborhood deprivation ranked as Low, Moderate, and High in the US, and Low and High in Spain. Outcomes of interest included (1) the preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived gray matter volumes in AD‐vulnerable regions and (3) PET or CSF‐derived amyloid status (+/‐). We ran logistic regression models with ADI level as predictor adjusted by sex, age, and APOE4 and considered education and race or ethnicity (only US cohorts) in our analyses. Result Participants in more deprived areas had lower education across cohorts and were more likely to be female (U.S. POINTER) and African American (U.S. POINTER and ADNI, Table 1). Independent of age, sex and APOE4 status, higher ADI was associated with lower PACC in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.165, p <0.001; High β=‐0.412, p <0.001) and UBRAIN (ADI: High β=‐0.096, p = 0.022) but not in ADNI (Figure 1). After controlling for education, this association remained significant in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.166, p = 0.002; High: β=‐0.248, p = 0.007) but not in UBRAIN (β=‐0.021, p = 0.66). In U.S. POINTER, there was a trend towards an association of higher ADI with lower GM volume in AD‐vulnerable regions (β=‐0.126, p = 0.089) that was not observed in ADNI or UBRAIN (Figure 2). No associations between ADI and amyloid status were found across cohorts. Conclusion We observed differing associations in neighborhood deprivation and cognition across US cohorts, as well as between the US and Spain cohorts. Country‐specific factors and sample representativeness must be considered when investigating the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying social determinants and disparities in AD.