Roberts, Rosebud O.

Objective The newly proposed National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer's Association (NIA‐AA) criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to Alzheimer disease (AD) suggest a combination of clinical features and biomarker measures, but their performance in the community is not known. Methods The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) is a population‐based longitudinal study of nondemented subjects in Olmsted County, Minnesota. A sample of 154 MCI subjects from the MCSA was compared to a sample of 58 amnestic MCI subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 1 (ADNI‐1) to assess the applicability of the criteria in both settings and to assess their outcomes. Results Fourteen percent of MCSA and 16% of ADNI‐1 of subjects were biomarker negative. In addition, 14% of MCSA and 12% of ADNI‐1 subjects had evidence for amyloid deposition only, whereas 43% of MCSA and 55% of ADNI‐1 subjects had evidence for amyloid deposition plus neurodegeneration (magnetic resonance imaging atrophy, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography hypometabolism, or both). However, a considerable number of subjects had biomarkers inconsistent with the proposed AD model; for example, 29% of MCSA subjects and 17% of ADNI‐1 subjects had evidence for neurodegeneration without amyloid deposition. These subjects may not be on an AD pathway. Neurodegeneration appears to be a key factor in predicting progression relative to amyloid deposition alone. Interpretation The NIA‐AA criteria apply to most MCI subjects in both the community and clinical trials settings; however, a sizeable proportion of subjects had conflicting biomarkers, which may be very important and need to be explored. Ann Neurol 2013;74:199–208

AbstractBackgroundGenetic variants at the CLU, CR1, and PICALM loci associate with risk for late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) in genomewide association studies. In this study, our aim was to determine whether the LOAD risk variants at these three loci influence memory endophenotypes in black and white subjects.MethodsWe pursued an association study between single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes at the CLU, CR1, and PICALM loci and memory endophenotypes. We assessed black subjects (AA series: 44 with LOAD and 224 control subjects) recruited at Mayo Clinic Florida and whites recruited at Mayo Clinic Minnesota (RS series: 372 with LOAD and 1690 control subjects) and Florida (JS series: 60 with LOAD and 529 control subjects). Single nucleotide polymorphisms at the LOAD risk loci CLU (rs11136000), CR1 (rs6656401, rs3818361), and PICALM (rs3851179) were genotyped and tested for association with Logical Memory immediate recall, Logical Memory delayed recall, Logical Memory percent retention, Visual Reproduction immediate recall, Visual Reproduction delayed recall, and Visual Reproduction percent retention scores from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised using multivariable linear regression analysis, adjusting for age at exam, sex, education, and apolipoprotein E ε4 dosage.ResultsWe identified nominally significant or suggestive associations between the LOAD‐risky CR1 variants and worse Logical Memory immediate recall scores in blacks (P = .068–.046, β = −2.7 to −1.2). The LOAD‐protective CLU variant is associated with better logical memory endophenotypes in white subjects (P = .099–.027, β = 0.31–0.93). The CR1 associations persisted when the control subjects from the AA series were assessed separately. The CLU associations appeared to be driven by one of the white series (RS) and were also observed when the control subset from RS was analyzed.ConclusionThese results suggest for the first time that LOAD risk variants at CR1 may influence memory endophenotypes in blacks. In addition, the CLU LOAD‐protective variant may confer enhanced memory in whites. Although these results would not remain significant after stringent corrections for multiple testing, they need to be considered in the context of the LOAD associations with which they have biological consistency. They also provide estimates for effect sizes on memory endophenotypes that could guide future studies. The detection of memory effects for these variants in clinically normal subjects, implies that these LOAD risk loci might modify memory prior to clinical diagnosis of AD.

AbstractBackgroundType 2 diabetes may increase the risk of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) through Alzheimer's disease (AD)‐related and vascular pathology and may also increase the risk of nonamnestic MCI (naMCI) through vascular disease mechanisms. We examined the association of type 2 diabetes with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and MCI subtype (aMCI and naMCI) overall and by sex.MethodsParticipants were Olmsted County, Minnesota residents (70 years and older) enrolled in a prospective, population‐based study. At baseline and every 15 months thereafter, participants were evaluated using the Clinical Dementia Rating scale, a neurological evaluation, and neuropsychological testing for a diagnosis of normal cognition, MCI, and dementia by a consensus panel. Type 2 diabetes was ascertained from the medical records of participants at baseline.ResultsOver a median 4.0 years of follow‐up, 348 of 1450 subjects developed MCI. Type 2 diabetes was associated (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]) with MCI (1.39 [1.08–1.79]), aMCI (1.58 [1.17–2.15]; multiple domain: 1.58 [1.01–2.47]; single domain: 1.49 [1.09–2.05]), and the hazard ratio for naMCI was elevated (1.37 [0.84–2.24]). Diabetes was strongly associated with multiple‐domain aMCI in men (2.42 [1.31–4.48]) and an elevated risk of multiple domain naMCI in men (2.11 [0.70–6.33]), and with single domain naMCI in women (2.32 [1.04–5.20]).ConclusionsDiabetes was associated with an increased risk of MCI in elderly persons. The association of diabetes with MCI may vary with subtype, number of domains, and sex. Prevention and control of diabetes may reduce the risk of MCI and Alzheimer's disease.

ObjectiveThe new criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) proposed 3 stages: abnormal levels of β‐amyloid (stage 1), stage 1 plus evidence of brain injury (stage 2), and stage 2 plus subtle cognitive changes (stage 3). However, a large group of subjects with normal β‐amyloid biomarkers have evidence of brain injury; we labeled them as the “suspected non‐Alzheimer pathophysiology” (sNAP) group. The characteristics of the sNAP group are poorly understood.MethodsUsing the preclinical AD classification, 430 cognitively normal subjects from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who underwent brain magnetic resonance (MR), 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), and Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) were evaluated for FDG PET regional volumetrics, MR regional brain volumetrics, white matter hyperintensity volume, and number of infarcts. We examined cross‐sectional associations across AD preclinical stages, those with all biomarkers normal, and the sNAP group.ResultsThe sNAP group had a lower proportion (14%) with apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype than the preclinical AD stages 2 + 3. The sNAP group did not show any group differences compared to stages 2 + 3 of the preclinical AD group on measures of FDG PET regional hypometabolism, MR regional brain volume loss, cerebrovascular imaging lesions, vascular risk factors, imaging changes associated with α‐synucleinopathy, or physical findings of parkinsonism.InterpretationCognitively normal persons with brain injury biomarker abnormalities, with or without abnormal levels of β‐amyloid, were indistinguishable on a variety of imaging markers, clinical features, and risk factors. The initial appearance of brain injury biomarkers that occurs in cognitively normal persons with preclinical AD may not depend on β‐amyloidosis. ANN NEUROL 2013;73:472–480