Fox, Nick C.

AbstractBackgroundRates of cognitive and biomarker change in Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) vary substantially across individuals. Prior cross‐sectional work suggests that the location of the pathogenic variant within PSEN1, specifically whether the underlying variant affects transmembrane (TM) or cytoplasmic (CY) domains in PSEN1, may be a key determinant in these differential rates of progression. Here we use longitudinal data from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network observational study (DIAN‐Obs) to examine whether variants affecting TM versus CY domains in PSEN1 have differential rates of change in key cognitive and neurodegenerative markers, and whether these differences are relevant to ADAD clinical trials.MethodsUsing longitudinal clinical, cognitive, and MRI data from PSEN1 pathogenic variant carriers [TM group N=76 and CY group N=44; Table 1], we assessed rates of change in Mini‐Mental State Exam (MMSE), Clinical Dementia Rating® Sum of Boxes (CDR®‐SOB), and hippocampal volume (HV) using linear mixed effects models accounting for disease stage (estimated years to symptom onset [EYO]). We further assessed how PSEN1 mutation location (TM versus CY) impacts sample size and detectable effect size in a potential ADAD clinical trial (modeled as a 4‐year trial with annual assessments; 80% power; α = 0.05).Results PSEN1 TM and PSEN1 CY groups did not differ on baseline age, EYO, or CDR®. The PSEN1 TM group had significantly greater rates of change on MMSE (B[SE] = ‐0.42[0.1], p=0.002), CDR®‐SOB (B[SE] = 0.23[0.1], p=0.001), and HV atrophy (B[SE] = ‐58.93[14.3], p=0.0006 compared to the PSEN1 CY group (Fig.1). Consistent with these differential rates of change, power analyses indicated the required sample size to detect a 30% treatment effect on MMSE or HV would be reduced by 59.6% for MMSE and 91.0% for HV for a trial population comprised of PSEN1 TM versus CY carriers (Fig.2).ConclusionsIndividuals who had a variant affecting the transmembrane domains of PSEN1 had greater rates of cognitive decline and neurodegeneration compared to those with variants affecting cytoplasmic domains. In addition to having implications for ADAD pathophysiology, these results suggest that incorporating information regarding the location of PSEN1 variants may be beneficial in analyzing and designing stratification approaches for ADAD trials.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.

ObjectiveTo determine the characteristics of participants with amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in a trial of gantenerumab or solanezumab in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease (DIAD).Methods142 DIAD mutation carriers received either gantenerumab SC (n = 52), solanezumab IV (n = 50), or placebo (n = 40). Participants underwent assessments with the Clinical Dementia Rating® (CDR®), neuropsychological testing, CSF biomarkers, β‐amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to monitor ARIA. Cross‐sectional and longitudinal analyses evaluated potential ARIA‐related risk factors.ResultsEleven participants developed ARIA‐E, including 3 with mild symptoms. No ARIA‐E was reported under solanezumab while gantenerumab was associated with ARIA‐E compared to placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 9.1, confidence interval [CI][1.2, 412.3]; p = 0.021). Under gantenerumab, APOE‐ɛ4 carriers were more likely to develop ARIA‐E (OR = 5.0, CI[1.0, 30.4]; p = 0.055), as were individuals with microhemorrhage at baseline (OR = 13.7, CI[1.2, 163.2]; p = 0.039). No ARIA‐E was observed at the initial 225 mg/month gantenerumab dose, and most cases were observed at doses >675 mg. At first ARIA‐E occurrence, all ARIA‐E participants were amyloid‐PET+, 60% were CDR >0, 60% were past their estimated year to symptom onset, and 60% had also incident ARIA‐H. Most ARIA‐E radiologically resolved after dose adjustment and developing ARIA‐E did not significantly increase odds of trial discontinuation. ARIA‐E was more frequently observed in the occipital lobe (90%). ARIA‐E severity was associated with age at time of ARIA‐E.InterpretationIn DIAD, solanezumab was not associated with ARIA. Gantenerumab dose over 225 mg increased ARIA‐E risk, with additional risk for individuals APOE‐ɛ4(+) or with microhemorrhage. ARIA‐E was reversible on MRI in most cases, generally asymptomatic, without additional risk for trial discontinuation. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:729–744

Abstract Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a promising candidate blood-based biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis and prognostication. The timing of its disease-associated changes, its clinical correlates, and biofluid-type dependency will influence its clinical utility. We evaluated plasma, serum, and CSF GFAP in families with autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), leveraging the predictable age at symptom onset to determine changes by stage of disease. Plasma GFAP elevations appear a decade before expected symptom onset, after β-amyloid accumulation and prior to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Plasma GFAP distinguished β-amyloid-positive from β-amyloid-negative ADAD participants and showed a stronger relationship with β-amyloid load in asymptomatic than symptomatic ADAD. Higher plasma GFAP was associated with the degree and rate of neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. Serum GFAP showed similar relationships, but these were less pronounced for CSF GFAP. Our findings support a role for plasma GFAP as a clinical biomarker for β-amyloid-associated cognitive deterioration in AD.

Abstract Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a promising candidate blood-based biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis and prognostication. The timing of its disease-associated changes, its clinical correlates, and biofluid-type dependency will influence its clinical utility. We evaluated plasma, serum, and CSF GFAP in families with autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), leveraging the predictable age at symptom onset to determine changes by stage of disease. Plasma GFAP elevations appear a decade before expected symptom onset, after β-amyloid accumulation and prior to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Plasma GFAP distinguished β-amyloid-positive from β-amyloid-negative ADAD participants and showed a stronger relationship with β-amyloid load in asymptomatic than symptomatic ADAD. Higher plasma GFAP was associated with the degree and rate of neurodegeneration and cognitive impairment. Serum GFAP showed similar relationships, but these were less pronounced for CSF GFAP. Our findings support a role for plasma GFAP as a clinical biomarker for β-amyloid-associated cognitive deterioration in AD.

AbstractIntroductionAs knowledge about neurological examination findings in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) is incomplete, we aimed to determine the frequency and significance of neurological examination findings in ADAD.MethodsFrequencies of neurological examination findings were compared between symptomatic mutation carriers and non mutation carriers from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) to define AD neurological examination findings. AD neurological examination findings were analyzed regarding frequency, association with and predictive value regarding cognitive decline, and association with brain atrophy in symptomatic mutation carriers.ResultsAD neurological examination findings included abnormal deep tendon reflexes, gait disturbance, pathological cranial nerve examination findings, tremor, abnormal finger to nose and heel to shin testing, and compromised motor strength. The frequency of AD neurological examination findings was 65.1%. Cross‐sectionally, mutation carriers with AD neurological examination findings showed a more than two‐fold faster cognitive decline and had greater parieto‐temporal atrophy, including hippocampal atrophy. Longitudinally, AD neurological examination findings predicted a significantly greater decline over time.DiscussionADAD features a distinct pattern of neurological examination findings that is useful to estimate prognosis and may inform clinical care and therapeutic trial designs.

AbstractThe extent to which the pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease corresponds to the pathophysiology of ‘sporadic’ late onset Alzheimer's disease is unknown, thus limiting the extrapolation of study findings and clinical trial results in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease to late onset Alzheimer's disease.We compared brain MRI and amyloid PET data, as well as CSF concentrations of amyloid-β42, amyloid-β40, tau and tau phosphorylated at position 181, in 292 carriers of pathogenic variants for Alzheimer's disease from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network, with corresponding data from 559 participants from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Imaging data and CSF samples were reprocessed as appropriate to guarantee uniform pipelines and assays. Data analyses yielded rates of change before and after symptomatic onset of Alzheimer's disease, allowing the alignment of the ∼30-year age difference between the cohorts on a clinically meaningful anchor point, namely the participant age at symptomatic onset.Biomarker profiles were similar for both autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease and late onset Alzheimer's disease. Both groups demonstrated accelerated rates of decline in cognitive performance and in regional brain volume loss after symptomatic onset. Although amyloid burden accumulation as determined by PET was greater after symptomatic onset in autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease than in late onset Alzheimer's disease participants, CSF assays of amyloid-β42, amyloid-β40, tau and p-tau181 were largely overlapping in both groups. Rates of change in cognitive performance and hippocampal volume loss after symptomatic onset were more aggressive for autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease participants.These findings suggest a similar pathophysiology of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease and late onset Alzheimer's disease, supporting a shared pathobiological construct.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONAs the number of biomarkers used to study Alzheimer's disease (AD) continues to increase, it is important to understand the utility of any given biomarker, as well as what additional information a biomarker provides when compared to others.METHODSWe used hierarchical clustering to group 19 cross‐sectional biomarkers in autosomal dominant AD. Feature selection identified biomarkers that were the strongest predictors of mutation status and estimated years from symptom onset (EYO). Biomarkers identified included clinical assessments, neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid amyloid, and tau, and emerging biomarkers of neuronal integrity and inflammation.RESULTSThree primary clusters were identified: neurodegeneration, amyloid/tau, and emerging biomarkers. Feature selection identified amyloid and tau measures as the primary predictors of mutation status and EYO. Emerging biomarkers of neuronal integrity and inflammation were relatively weak predictors.DISCUSSIONThese results provide novel insight into our understanding of the relationships among biomarkers and the staging of biomarkers based on disease progression.

AbstractBackgroundThough pathogenic variations in PSEN1 leading to Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) are all highly penetrant, there is substantial inter‐individual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change observed in ADAD. We hypothesized that this inter‐individual variability may be associated with the location of the pathogenic variant within PSEN1. We tested this hypothesis using biomarker and cognitive data from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study.MethodPSEN1 pathogenic variant carriers [grouped based on whether their ADAD genotype affected transmembrane (PSEN1 TM; N = 125) or cytoplasmic (PSEN1 CY; N = 62) domains] and non‐carriers [NC; N = 176] enrolled in DIAN underwent clinical evaluation, multimodal neuroimaging, and lumbar puncture for collection of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Linear mixed effects models with a restricted cubic spline were used to determine cross‐sectional differences in clinical and biomarker measures between NC, PSEN1 TM, and PSEN1 CY groups, across the disease course (estimated years to symptom onset; EYO).ResultBackground characteristics are reported in Table 1. PSEN1 CY and PSEN1 TM groups had elevated β‐amyloid (PiB‐PET) and phosphorylated‐tau levels (CSF pTauT181) compared to NC, but these biomarker measures were not different between PSEN1 TM and CY groups (Figure 1a‐b). Additionally, the PSEN1 TM group had decreased glucose metabolism compared to NC but was similar to the PSEN1 CY group (Figure 1c). However, we observed that PSEN1 TM carriers had significantly smaller hippocampal volume, greater lateral ventricle volume, and greater cognitive impairment (Figure 1d‐f) across EYO as compared to PSEN1 CY carriers.ConclusionDespite similar β‐amyloid PET and CSF pTauT181 levels across EYO, individuals with pathogenic variants affecting transmembrane domains in PSEN1 may have more rapid progression of disease as measured by cognitive function and neurodegeneration as compared to those with variants affecting cytoplasmic domains. These results have implications both for understanding the heterogeneity in ongoing ADAD clinical trials and for better understanding the pathobiology of ADAD.