Citations

AbstractBackgroundAmyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), edema (E) or hemorrhagic (H) type, have been reported in trials of anti‐β‐amyloid passive immunotherapies in sporadic and dominantly inherited Alzheimer Disease (DIAD). However, beyond APOE‐ɛ4 the risk factors and clinical implications of ARIA are not well understood, especially in DIAD populations. Here we characterize ARIA, focusing on ARIA‐E in the DIAN‐TU‐001 trial evaluating gantenerumab and solanezumab in DIAD.MethodThe DIAN‐TU‐001 trial enrolled 194 participants, including 144 DIAD mutation‐carriers receiving gantenerumab (n=52), solanezumab (n=52), or a placebo (n=40). Clinical assessments included the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). Imaging assessments included PiB‐PET and safety MR, including T2‐FLAIR and T2*‐GRE. Treatment dosage and APOE‐ɛ4 status were also reported.ResultEleven participants developed a total of 14 ARIA‐E episodes (discovered on scheduled safety MR) and three had associated mild symptoms reported in retrospect (e.g. headache, imbalance disorder). Though one ARIA‐E case was observed in the solanezumab arm, the following results focus on the gantenerumab arm to prevent unblinding. Recipients of gantenerumab were more likely to develop ARIA‐E compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR)=9.29, 95% confidence interval (CI)=[1.1,75.9], p‐value<0.05). ARIA‐E participants were PiB‐PET+ and 60% were CDR>0. APOE‐ɛ4 tends to be associated with risk for developing ARIA‐E (OR=5.0, 95%CI=[1.0,30.4], p‐value=0.055). ARIA‐E were not observed at initial 225mg dose and were first observed after a titration step (within 4‐24 weeks, after 1‐6 injections, Table 1). Time‐to‐resolution of ARIA‐E was 10.4±6.2weeks. Seven of ten ARIA‐E patients paused/reduced dose escalation and three discontinued treatment. Overall, developing ARIA‐E did not increase the odds of trial discontinuation (OR=1.57, 95%CI=[0.34,7.33], p‐value=0.57). ARIA‐E occurred primarily in the occipital lobe (71%) with associated incident ARIA‐H (microhemorrhages or superficial siderosis) in 60% of ARIA‐E participants. ARIA‐E size was associated with microhemorrhage count (Spearman’s rho=0.72, p‐value<0.05), rate of change (rho=0.78, p‐value<0.01), and baseline PiB‐PET (rho=0.68, p‐value<0.05). Normalizing by baseline, PiB‐PET decreased similarly in ARIA‐E+ (‐0.21±0.20) and ARIA‐E‐ (‐0.16±0.20) participants.ConclusionIn DIAD, gantenerumab dose over 225mg increased ARIA‐E risk, possibly more for APOE‐ɛ4 carriers. ARIA‐E was reversible, generally asymptomatic, and without increased odds of trial discontinuation. These aspects of drug response give insights for managing ARIA‐E occurrence in future trials.

AbstractBackgroundAlzheimer’s disease (AD) prevention trials aim to intervene prior to significant neuronal loss, brain damage, and symptom onset to delay or slow cognitive decline. In dominantly inherited AD (DIAD), mutation carriers develop symptomatic AD at predictable ages with near 100% penetrance. In 2012, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit Adaptive Prevention Trial (DIAN‐TU APT) platform launched a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel group trial of two anti‐amyloid‐beta monoclonal antibodies with two different antigenic targets, gantenerumab and solanezumab (NCT01760005). The DIAN‐TU scientific development, implementation of the first AD prevention trial, trial challenges and opportunities, including dose escalation, and top‐line results will be presented.MethodDIAN was established in 2008 in response to a call from the National Institute of Aging to establish a network to study DIAD and enable future clinical trials. Successive breakthroughs in understanding disease processes enabled the launch of the DIAN‐TU adaptive prevention trial, a global adaptive platform trial supporting testing multiple drugs in parallel. The DIAN‐TU partners include patients and families at risk for DIAD, global academic researchers, the NIH, Alzheimer’s Association, philanthropic supporters, the DIAN‐TU Pharma Consortium, and pharmaceutical companies with drugs being tested. Important milestones include developing a platform to enable a comprehensive efficient treatment trial for this rare population, adding tau PET as part of AMP AD, adapting dosing mid‐trial and extending the original biomarker trial to continue randomized dosing to test a cognitive endpoint until the last patient reaches 4 years, developing a disease progression statistical model and inclusion of DIAN observational data to increase the power to determine drug effects.ResultThe primary and key secondary outcomes of the DIAN‐TU trial will be presented for each therapy in the context of targeting amyloid‐beta at pre‐clinical and clinically symptomatic stages of disease.ConclusionThese results inform about AD hypotheses, timing of treatment and the prospect of slowing, or preventing AD in DIAD and sporadic AD.

AbstractBackgroundGantenerumab is a humanized anti‐amyloid‐beta monoclonal antibody in clinical development for the treatment of several stages of Alzheimer disease (AD). Gantenerumab was evaluated in a phase 2/3 clinical trial program designed to evaluate its efficacy in autosomal dominant AD based on a combination of clinical and biomarker evidence.MethodThe study enrolled both mutation carriers (n=69 with 3:1 randomization of treatment (n=52) vs placebo (n=17)) and non‐carriers (n=28, all on placebo) from 15 years before to 10 years after the expected age of onset inclusive. Patients were both asymptomatic (CDR 0 and MMSE >25) and symptomatic (CDR 0.5‐1 and MMSE >16). There were 41 asymptomatic and 28 symptomatic mutation carriers. The initial dose of gantenerumab was 225 mg monthly administered subcutaneously. The dose was titrated to 1200 mg/month following a protocol amendment based on the increased amyloid lowering seen at higher doses in the gantenerumab program in symptomatic AD. The treatment duration was a minimum of 4 years (range 48‐80 months). The primary outcome was change from baseline in the DIAN‐TU multivariate cognitive endpoint. Secondary clinical outcomes included the DIAN‐TU cognitive composite, Cogstate multivariate cognitive endpoint, CDR SB, and time to CDR progression of >0.5 points. Change from baseline in amyloid PET was the primary biomarker outcome. Other biomarker outcomes included MRI, tau PET, CSF amyloid, tau and phosphotau, and CSF and plasma neurofilament light (NfL). Safety outcomes including ARIA were compared between drug and placebo groups.ResultWe will report change from baseline on the DIAN‐TU multivariate cognitive endpoint, DIAN‐TU cognitive composite, CDR‐SB and other secondary efficacy endpoints. We expect significant lowering on amyloid PET with PIB and florbetapir based on the results from recent anti‐amyloid antibodies, including Gantenerumab, in sporadic AD. We will also present the results of change in other key imaging and fluid biomarkers. The frequency, duration, and severity of ARIA will be reported and compared with studies in sporadic AD.ConclusionThis clinical trial was designed to inform future for ADAD and will provide new insights on the role of amyloid reduction in both pre‐symptomatic and clinical AD.

AbstractBackgroundSolanezumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting soluble forms of β‐amyloid protein important in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Three previous 18‐month double‐blind placebo‐controlled trials of low‐dose solanezumab in late‐onset sporadic AD found inconsistent benefits on cognitive and functional assessments. Dominantly‐inherited mutation‐associated AD subjects both before and after onset of symptoms form an ideal population to study potential benefits of solanezumab therapy.MethodMutation‐carrying asymptomatic (CDR 0, N=41) or mildly symptomatic (CDR 0.5 – 1, N=28) patients were treated for a minimum of 4 years and up to 7 years in a double‐blind 3 to 1 active versus placebo randomized clinical trial that measured disease progression by clinical, neuropsychological and biomarker evaluations. The trial was initiated with a dose of 400 mg every 4 weeks and escalated to 1600 mg when low dose trials in sporadic AD did not meet their primary endpoints. The primary cognitive outcome measure was DIAN‐MCE, composed of Delayed Recall Score of the International Shopping List Test, the Delayed Recall score of the Logical Memory IIa subtest from the Wechsler Memory Scale‐Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test total score from the WAIS‐R and the MMSE total score. Secondary outcomes included a battery of other cognitive and functional measures. The study was powered to detect delay of cognitive disease progression in the DIAN‐MCE. Biomarkers include imaging modalities (volumetric MRI, FDG, amyloid and Tau PET). CSF markers included β‐amyloid, Tau and PhosphoTau species. NfL was measured in both CSF and plasma. The study used a pre‐specified Bayesian multivariate disease progression model, which included dynamic borrowing of control subjects from the DIAN Observational study.ResultThe topline efficacy, safety and biomarker results will be reported.ConclusionThis study provides the first test of targeting soluble abeta forms in DIAD. It addresses the efficacy of early initiation of higher doses of solanezumab targeting soluble forms of amyloid as a disease modifying therapy. While these results are specific to DIAD, they have the potential to inform the application of anti‐amyloid therapy in sporadic AD.

Abstract Structural grey matter covariance networks provide an individual quantification of morphological patterns in the brain. The network integrity is disrupted in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, and network properties show associations with the level of amyloid pathology and cognitive decline. Therefore, these network properties might be disease progression markers. However, it remains unclear when and how grey matter network integrity changes with disease progression. We investigated these questions in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease mutation carriers, whose conserved age at dementia onset allows individual staging based upon their estimated years to symptom onset. From the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network observational cohort, we selected T1-weighted MRI scans from 269 mutation carriers and 170 non-carriers (mean age 38 ± 15 years, mean estimated years to symptom onset −9 ± 11), of whom 237 had longitudinal scans with a mean follow-up of 3.0 years. Single-subject grey matter networks were extracted, and we calculated for each individual the network properties which describe the network topology, including the size, clustering, path length and small worldness. We determined at which time point mutation carriers and non-carriers diverged for global and regional grey matter network metrics, both cross-sectionally and for rate of change over time. Based on cross-sectional data, the earliest difference was observed in normalized path length, which was decreased for mutation carriers in the precuneus area at 13 years and on a global level 12 years before estimated symptom onset. Based on longitudinal data, we found the earliest difference between groups on a global level 6 years before symptom onset, with a greater rate of decline of network size for mutation carriers. We further compared grey matter network small worldness with established biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (i.e. amyloid accumulation, cortical thickness, brain metabolism and cognitive function). We found that greater amyloid accumulation at baseline was associated with faster decline of small worldness over time, and decline in grey matter network measures over time was accompanied by decline in brain metabolism, cortical thinning and cognitive decline. In summary, network measures decline in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease, which is alike sporadic Alzheimer’s disease, and the properties show decline over time prior to estimated symptom onset. These data suggest that single-subject networks properties obtained from structural MRI scans form an additional non-invasive tool for understanding the substrate of cognitive decline and measuring progression from preclinical to severe clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease.

AbstractIntroductionAlthough some members of families with autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease mutations learn their mutation status, most do not. How knowledge of mutation status affects clinical disease progression is unknown. This study quantifies the influence of mutation awareness on clinical symptoms, cognition, and biomarkers.MethodsMutation carriers and non‐carriers from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) were stratified based on knowledge of mutation status. Rates of change on standard clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging outcomes were examined.ResultsMutation knowledge had no associations with cognitive decline, clinical progression, amyloid deposition, hippocampal volume, or depression in either carriers or non‐carriers. Carriers who learned their status mid‐study had slightly higher levels of depression and lower cognitive scores.DiscussionKnowledge of mutation status does not affect rates of change on any measured outcome. Learning of status mid‐study may confer short‐term changes in cognitive functioning, or changes in cognition may influence the determination of mutation status.

AbstractIntroductionFour less well‐studied but promising “emerging” cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are elevated in late‐onset Alzheimer disease (AD): neurogranin, synaptosomal‐associated protein‐25 (SNAP‐25), visinin‐like protein 1 (VILIP‐1), and chitinase‐3‐like protein 1 (YKL‐40).MethodsCSF neurogranin, SNAP‐25, VILIP‐1, and YKL‐40 were measured in families carrying autosomal‐dominant AD mutations.ResultsThe four emerging CSF biomarkers were significantly elevated in the mutation carriers (n = 235) versus noncarriers (n = 145). CSF SNAP‐25, VILIP‐1, and YKL‐40 were altered very early in the AD time course, approximately 15–19 years before estimated symptom onset. All CSF biomarkers predicted important AD‐related outcomes including performance on a cognitive composite, brain amyloid burden as measured by amyloid positron emission tomography, and the estimated years from symptom onset.DiscussionEarly abnormalities in CSF tTau, pTau, SNAP‐25, VILIP‐1, and YKL‐40 suggest that synaptic damage, neuronal injury, and neuroinflammation begin shortly after the commencement of brain amyloid accumulation.

Abstract Introduction Quantitative in vivo measurement of brain amyloid burden is important for both research and clinical purposes. However, the existence of multiple imaging tracers presents challenges to the interpretation of such measurements. This study presents a direct comparison of Pittsburgh compound B–based and florbetapir‐based amyloid imaging in the same participants from two independent cohorts using a crossover design. Methods Pittsburgh compound B and florbetapir amyloid PET imaging data from three different cohorts were analyzed using previously established pipelines to obtain global amyloid burden measurements. These measurements were converted to the Centiloid scale to allow fair comparison between the two tracers. The mean and inter‐individual variability of the two tracers were compared using multivariate linear models both cross‐sectionally and longitudinally. Results Global amyloid burden measured using the two tracers were strongly correlated in both cohorts. However, higher variability was observed when florbetapir was used as the imaging tracer. The variability may be partially caused by white matter signal as partial volume correction reduces the variability and improves the correlations between the two tracers. Amyloid burden measured using both tracers was found to be in association with clinical and psychometric measurements. Longitudinal comparison of the two tracers was also performed in similar but separate cohorts whose baseline amyloid load was considered elevated (i.e., amyloid positive). No significant difference was detected in the average annualized rate of change measurements made with these two tracers. Discussion Although the amyloid burden measurements were quite similar using these two tracers as expected, difference was observable even after conversion into the Centiloid scale. Further investigation is warranted to identify optimal strategies to harmonize amyloid imaging data acquired using different tracers.