Karlawish, Jason

Importance Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarker and genetic testing results are increasingly disclosed to cognitively unimpaired adults in research and could in the future inform clinical treatment decisions in this population. Objectives To assess psychological outcomes after returning 3 categories of amyloid biomarker results as well as apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) genotypes. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was a secondary analysis of data collected as part of screening for the multisite AHEAD preclinical AD trial. Participants were individuals aged 55 to 80 years undergoing screening from July 14, 2020, to October 15, 2024. Exposure Participants were informed whether they had not-detected, intermediate, or elevated amyloid positron emission tomography levels, as well as their APOE genotype, which were categorized as noncarrier, ε4 heterozygote, or ε4 homozygote. Main outcomes and measures Impact of Events Scale (IES; 15 items to assess intrusive thoughts and avoidance; each item is scored as not at all [0], rarely [1], sometimes [3], or often [5]; total range, 0-75), collected 24 to 72 hours after disclosure, and change in a scale measuring concerns about AD dementia (adapted scale using 6 items in which participants indicated their level of agreement with statements related to their perceived probability of developing AD dementia; items scored as strongly disagree [1] through strongly agree [5]; total range, 6-30), calculated by subtracting the score collected before biomarker testing from 1 collected after biomarker and genetic test results disclosure. Results Among 3414 included individuals, the mean (SD) age was 68.8 (6.0) years and 2116 (62%) were female. Group mean IES scores were below clinically significant thresholds. Nevertheless, across genetic groups, learning an elevated amyloid result (1184 participants) was associated with higher IES (mean [SD], 10.5 [10.9]) than intermediate amyloid (482 participants; mean [SD] IES, 8.8 [9.8]), and intermediate amyloid was associated with higher scores than not-detected amyloid (1748 participants; mean [SD] IES, 6.5 [8.4]). Across amyloid groups, learning APOE ε4 homozygosity (337 participants) was associated with higher mean (SD) IES (12.7 [11.6]) than heterozygosity (1609 participants; 9.1 [10.2]), and heterozygosity was associated with higher IES than noncarrier status (1468 participants; mean [SD] IES, 6.2 [8.1]). Both types of information were significant in an analysis of covariance model; no interaction effect was observed. In contrast, only biomarker disclosure was associated with differential change in concerns about AD dementia. Those with elevated amyloid showed a mean (SD) increase in concern (0.8 [3.5]), those with intermediate amyloid showed a smaller increase (0.4 [3.7]), and those with not-detected amyloid showed decreased concerns (−1.1 [4.2]). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of cognitively unimpaired adults, associations with intrusive thoughts were observed to differ among genetic and biomarker subgroups; such associations were limited to biomarker subgroups for measures of perceived dementia risk.

Abstract Background Prior studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker disclosure have answered important questions about individuals’ experiences learning amyloid results. In comparison, the experiences of individuals performing AD biomarker disclosure have been under characterized. The present study examines the clinician experience disclosing amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) results within the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative's ADNI‐4 study. Methods The ADNI‐4 longitudinal cohort study includes a pragmatic process for amyloid PET disclosure for participants across the cognitive spectrum. Disclosing clinicians complete a short questionnaire after each disclosure session, reporting on the visit length, the clinician's rating of participant and study partner understanding and emotional reactions, topics discussed, challenges, assessment of the visit overall, and any feedback about the process. Results Across the first 100 disclosures (48 cognitively normal, 35 Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), 17 dementia) in ADNI‐4, visits lasted an average of 29.4 minutes (SD 13.9, range 10‐90). Most cognitively impaired participants had a loved one present at the disclosure visit (dementia 94%, MCI 80%) but the majority of cognitively normal participants (73%) did not. Clinicians rated understanding of the result as adequate for all study partners and the vast majority (94%) of participants. Clinicians reported feeling “very confident” in their ability to assess readiness to receive result (70%), disclose (73%), and answer questions (77%). Clinicians rated all visits as “good” or better, with two‐thirds (65%) rated as “excellent.” Frequently discussed topics included meaning of result (99%), other risk factors (72%), and emotional impact of result (49%). Stigma and discrimination were rarely discussed, coming up in 12% and 3% of disclosure sessions, respectively. Challenges were infrequent (7%) and primarily included desire for additional information and challenges related to the participant's impairment. Clinicians provided the study team feedback about the disclosure process for 25% of disclosure visits. Comments included the desire for additional information or resources, positive feedback, and the importance of the study partner. Conclusions Clinicians disclosing amyloid PET results in ADNI‐4 report high confidence, adequate participant and study partner understanding, and few challenges. These data from clinicians, in combination with participant data, will inform future disclosure practices in both research and care.

Importance Advances in Alzheimer disease (AD) have shifted research focus to earlier disease stages, necessitating more scalable approaches to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. Objective To assess the utility of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) for classifying Aβ status in cognitively unimpaired individuals, both as a stand-alone test and in a 2-step approach where positive plasma results were confirmed using a second modality (Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] or cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional cohort study used data collected between June 2009 and March 2024. We included 2916 cognitively unimpaired participants from 12 international independent observational cohorts in the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada with available plasma p-tau217 levels and CSF or PET Aβ biomarkers. Performance comparisons between mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based p-tau217 measurements were also performed (n = 964). Exposures Plasma p-tau217 levels measured by immunoassay. Main Outcome and Measures Aβ status, determined by CSF or Aβ PET biomarkers. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. As a stand-alone test, plasma p-tau217 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79% (95% CI, 74-84) and an overall accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 80-82). In a 2-step workflow, the PPV and accuracy significantly increased to 91% (95% CI, 86-95). While this approach required screening of 677 individuals with plasma p-tau217 to identify 100 Aβ-positive individuals, compared to 536 participants when using PET alone, it reduced the need for PET testing to 124. Immunoassays demonstrated comparable PPVs to mass spectrometry (80% [95% CI, 74-86] vs 85% [95% CI, 81-90]; P = .12) but significantly lower overall accuracy (82% [95% CI, 79-84]% vs 88 [95% CI, 86-90]; P < .001) and true Aβ-positive detection rate (49% [95% CI, 43-55] vs 69% [95% CI, 64-75]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings highlight the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a stand-alone test—or when used in a sequential 2-step approach alongside PET or CSF testing—as a cost-effective, scalable, and minimally burdensome strategy for identifying preclinical AD. Tailored screening workflows that incorporate p-tau217 can improve efficiency in participant selection for preclinical AD trials and, in the future, help guide access to disease-modifying treatments.

AbstractBackgroundAnti‐amyloid immunotherapies modestly slow disease progression in early symptomatic AD; addition of other therapeutic modalities may be necessary to achieve larger treatment effects. Therapies that directly target tau can potentially produce substantial clinical benefit because the accumulation of insoluble tau protein is strongly correlated with the progression of AD. Which tau therapies are likely to be efficacious, whether or not to combine them with anti‐amyloid therapies, and which individuals are most likely to benefit are important unresolved questions that would require multiple parallel design trials to answer. Platform (umbrella) trials test multiple therapies in the same trial, allowing for substantial savings in time, cost and participant burden.MethodATP is a new NIH‐funded Phase 2 clinical trial platform that will be conducted as part of the AD Clinical Trials Consortium (ACTC) in partnership with industry and philanthropic groups. The goal is to investigate the effects of tau therapies on the biological hallmarks of AD including insoluble and soluble tau species, amyloid and other biomarkers of neurodegeneration. ATP will initially evaluate two tau therapies alone or in combination with an anti‐amyloid therapy. 900 participants with late preclinical or early prodromal AD (CDR 0 or 0.5) will be randomized to six arms for two years of blinded treatment, followed by an optional open label extension (Figure 1). At least 20 percent of participants will be from underrepresented groups. The primary endpoint is 18F MK6240 tau PET, with key secondary endpoints including plasma P‐tau and MTBR243‐tau, amyloid PET and clinical assessments (CDR‐SB, PACC5). Inclusion criteria are based on plasma P‐tau217, clinical status and regional 18F MK6240 uptake.ResultTwo tau therapies and an anti‐amyloid therapy have been chosen for inclusion in ATP and startup is underway. The final design, choice of therapies and design as well as plans for inclusion of additional tau therapies after the trial begins and other details will be presented.ConclusionThe ATP is a six arm factorial design platform trial that is planned to begin in late 2024 or early 2025 that will support efficient development of tau and combination therapies for early, sporadic AD.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. Through a modified‐Delphi approach and guideline‐development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or a related dementia (ADRD) are two decades old. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. An expert workgroup conducted a review of 7374 publications (133 met inclusion criteria) and developed recommendations as steps in an evaluation process. This summary briefly reviews core recommendations and details specialist recommendations of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use the recommendations in this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations appropriate for specialty practice settings, forming key elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. As part of the modified Delphi approach and guideline development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. The workgroup provided a summary of validated instruments to measure symptoms in daily life (including cognition, mood and behavior, and daily function) and to test for signs of cognitive impairment in the office. This article distills this information to provide a resource to support clinicians in the implementation of this approach in clinical practice. The companion articles provide context for primary care and specialty clinicians with regard to how to fit these instruments into the workflow and actions to take when integration of performance on these instruments with clinical profile and clinician judgment support potential cognitive impairment.

ImportanceNomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement.ObjectiveTo establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes.Evidence ReviewThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups.FindingsFrom working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia.Conclusions and RelevanceThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.

ImportanceIncreased white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume is a common magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) finding in both autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) and late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), but it remains unclear whether increased WMH along the AD continuum is reflective of AD-intrinsic processes or secondary to elevated systemic vascular risk factors.ObjectiveTo estimate the associations of neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis with WMH accumulation and investigate whether systemic vascular risk is associated with WMH beyond these AD-intrinsic processes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used data from 3 longitudinal cohort studies conducted in tertiary and community-based medical centers—the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN; February 2010 to March 2020), the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; July 2007 to September 2021), and the Harvard Aging Brain Study (HABS; September 2010 to December 2019).Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcomes were the independent associations of neurodegeneration (decreases in gray matter volume), parenchymal amyloidosis (assessed by amyloid positron emission tomography), and vessel amyloidosis (evidenced by cerebral microbleeds [CMBs]) with cross-sectional and longitudinal WMH.ResultsData from 3960 MRI sessions among 1141 participants were included: 252 pathogenic variant carriers from DIAN (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.2] years; 137 [54%] female), 571 older adults from ADNI (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [7.3] years; 274 [48%] female), and 318 older adults from HABS (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.6] years; 194 [61%] female). Longitudinal increases in WMH volume were greater in individuals with CMBs compared with those without (DIAN: t = 3.2 [P = .001]; ADNI: t = 2.7 [P = .008]), associated with longitudinal decreases in gray matter volume (DIAN: t = −3.1 [P = .002]; ADNI: t = −5.6 [P < .001]; HABS: t = −2.2 [P = .03]), greater in older individuals (DIAN: t = 6.8 [P < .001]; ADNI: t = 9.1 [P < .001]; HABS: t = 5.4 [P < .001]), and not associated with systemic vascular risk (DIAN: t = 0.7 [P = .40]; ADNI: t = 0.6 [P = .50]; HABS: t = 1.8 [P = .06]) in individuals with ADAD and LOAD after accounting for age, gray matter volume, CMB presence, and amyloid burden. In older adults without CMBs at baseline, greater WMH volume was associated with CMB development during longitudinal follow-up (Cox proportional hazards regression model hazard ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.72-4.03; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings suggest that increased WMH volume in AD is associated with neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis but not with elevated systemic vascular risk. Additionally, increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis preceding the emergence of CMBs.