Citations

AbstractBackgroundLewy body (LB) diseases can present with overlapping prodromal, cognitive, motor, autonomic or neuropsychiatric symptoms. Intuitively, greater symptom severity should correlate with greater pathological burden, but this has not been consistently shown. LB pathology does not translate to clinical expression in Incidental LB disease. While several composite scores/toolkits utilize overlapping schemes for diagnosis, a composite data‐derived score to predict LB pathologic burden is lacking. We aimed to utilize an autopsy‐confirmed cohort, and validated, brief, and standardized clinical, functional, pathologic assessments, and machine learning (ML)/quantitative modeling techniques to identify clusters and importance rankings among assessments/measures to predict LB pathologic severity and density.MethodA total of 234 subjects with neuropathological finding of LB at autopsy in the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders (AZSAND) who were classified as Cognitively Unimpaired or Mild Cognitive Impairment after their first study clinical evaluation were included. Of these, 145 subjects had complete scores for 32 of 46 measures (clinical, cognitive, behavioral and functional) that were utilized as predictors of LB pathology. Olfactory function was assessed using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). LB severity was assessed by the Unified Staging System for Lewy Body Disorders (USSLB). Several ML algorithms and quantitative prediction models were explored and compared: artificial neural network (ANN), partial least square regression (PLSR), support vector regression (SVR), relevance vector regression (RVR) and ensemble forest regression (EFR) with leave‐one‐out (LOO) scheme. Game‐theory based Shapley methods assessed the impact, including rankings, consistency and magnitude, of model predictors.ResultRVR predicted aggregate LB density with large effect size (R2 = 0.691, p<0.00001). ANN predicted USSLB severity stage with large effect size (R2 = 0.74, p<2.5e‐43). All other ML algorithms/models provided substantial prediction. Across all models, UPSIT was the most influential predictor (>65%), followed by Controlled Oral Word Association Test (COWAT) and age.ConclusionThese preliminary and exploratory results support the utilization of ML techniques/models to assess LB pathologic burden with key measures collected in relatively small samples. UPSIT was consistently ranked highest impactful among clinical and functional measures/predictors. Integrated together in ML/data‐derived composites, UPSIT, COWAT and other clinical characteristics may be of antemortem utility to predict USSLB stages.

AbstractBackgroundFrontotemporal dementia (FTD) presents with heterogeneous neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). These symptoms often begin prior to the onset of FTD, and progress throughout the prodromal stages of FTD. Particularly, familial FTD due to autosomal dominant genetic mutations might display mutation‐specific NPS profiles. We hypothesized distinct NPS trajectories for chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 (C9orf72), progranulin (GRN), and microtubule‐associated protein tau (MAPT) mutation carriers during their transition from presymptomatic to symptomatic stages of FTD.MethodIn this study, we analyzed N = 1662 participants from the ARTFL‐LEFFTDS Longitudinal FTLD (ALLFTD) Study, with 342 C9orf72, 148 GRN, 168 MAPT mutation carriers, and 1004 noncarriers. We used the CDR plus NACC FTLD global scores to define the conversion status, and stratified participants into four stages of progression: 1) Presymptomatic (CDR = 0 throughout the follow‐up), 2) Early conversion (began with CDR = 0, then increased to 0.5), 3) Advanced conversion (began with CDR = 0.5, then increased to 1.0 or above), and 4) Symptomatic (CDR>1.0 throughout). Over up to seven visits, the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) assessed changes in NPS. We analyzed total NPI‐Q score trajectories using a generalized linear mixed‐effects model, adjusting for age and baseline NPI‐Q scores.ResultOur findings showed similar NPS trajectories among carriers and noncarriers during presymptomatic stages. However, in the early conversion stage, C9orf72 and GRN carriers exhibited significantly higher NPI‐Q score increases compared to MAPT carriers, primarily in the psychosis and hyperactivity domains. In the advanced and symptomatic stages, the rate of increase in NPS was not significantly different across groups.ConclusionThis study suggests that people with familial FTD, particularly those predicted to have underlying TDP‐43 pathology, may experience more severe neuropsychiatric symptoms like psychosis or hyperactivity as they progress from presymptomatic to prodromal phases. This trajectory appears distinct from those with tau pathology or sporadic FTD. Further studies are warranted to understand these unique progression patterns and their implications for FTD management.

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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) manifests prior to the age of 65, and affects 4%–8% of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The current analyses sought to examine longitudinal cognitive trajectories of participants with early‐onset dementia. METHODS Data from 307 cognitively normal (CN) volunteer participants and those with amyloid‐positive EOAD or amyloid‐negative cognitive impairment (EOnonAD) were compared. Cognitive trajectories across a comprehensive cognitive battery spanning 42 months were examined using mixed‐effects modeling. RESULTS The EOAD group displayed worse cognition at baseline relative to EOnonAD and CN groups, and more aggressive declines in cognition over time. The largest effects were observed on measures of executive functioning domains, while memory declines were blunted in EOAD. DISCUSSION EOAD declined 2–4× faster than EOnonAD, and EOAD pathology is not restricted to memory networks. Early identification of deficits is critical to ensure that individuals with sporadic EOAD can be considered for treatment using disease‐modifying medications. Highlights Represents the most comprehensive longitudinal characterization of sporadic EOAD to date. The trajectory of cognitive declines was steep for EOAD participants and worse than for other groups. Executive functioning measures exhibited the greatest declines over time in EOAD.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) share similar amyloid etiology, but evidence from smaller‐scale studies suggests that they manifest differently clinically. Current analyses sought to contrast the cognitive profiles of EOAD and LOAD. METHODS Z‐ score cognitive‐domain composites for 311 amyloid‐positive sporadic EOAD and 314 amyloid‐positive LOAD participants were calculated from baseline data from age‐appropriate control cohorts. Z‐ score composites were compared between AD groups for each domain. RESULTS After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD displayed worse visuospatial, executive functioning, and processing speed/attention skills relative to LOAD, and LOAD displayed worse language, episodic immediate memory, and episodic delayed memory. DISCUSSION Sporadic EOAD possesses distinct cognitive profiles relative to LOAD. Clinicians should be alert for non‐amnestic impairments in younger patients to ensure proper identification and intervention using disease‐modifying treatments. Highlights Both early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants displayed widespread cognitive impairments relative to their same‐aged peers. Cognitive impairments were more severe for EOAD than for LOAD participants in visuospatial and executive domains. Memory and language impairments were more severe for LOAD than for EOAD participants Results were comparable after removing clinical phenotypes of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA), primary progressive aphasia (lv‐PPA), and frontal‐variant AD.

AbstractBackgroundIdiopathic rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder (RBD) is a strong known predictor of a final clinicopathological diagnosis of a Lewy type α‐synucleinopathy (LTS). Olfactory dysfunction is an early symptom of synucleinopathies and has been repeatedly associated with the presence of post‐mortem LTS.ObjectiveTo assess the combined value of a clinician diagnosis of probable RBD (PRBD) and hyposmia in predicting the post‐mortem presence of LTS in a broader, less‐selected, volunteer elderly population.MethodsWe studied 652 autopsied subjects from the Arizona Study of Aging and Neurodegenerative Disorders, which were evaluated for PRBD, had completed annual movement and cognitive assessments, and had at least one the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) olfactory test.ResultsHistological evidence of LTS was significantly more frequent in those who had PRBD (112/152: 73.7%) than those without (177/494: 35.8%) (P < 0.001). LTS was more frequent in cases with PRBD and a low UPSIT score (90.8%) compared to cases with PRBD only (73.7%) (P < 0.001) or cases with a low UPSIT score only (69.4%) (P < 0.001). Sensitivity of PRBD diagnosis for predicting LTS was 38.8% and specificity 88.8%, whereas sensitivity of a low UPSIT score was 74.4% and specificity 73.4% (Youden's index = 0.276 for PRBD, 0.478 for UPSIT). When combining both measures, sensitivity was 34.3% and specificity increased to 97.2%.ConclusionPRBD, diagnosed without sleep study confirmation, combined with a reduced olfactory performance is highly specific for predicting post‐mortem presence of LTS. The combination of both measures may provide a cost‐effective means of predicting LTS in a broader community.

AbstractThe emergence of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved amyloid‐targeting therapies for Alzheimer's disease challenges clinicians and healthcare providers with a transformative landscape. Effectively communicating the risks, benefits, burdens, costs, and available support associated with these novel disease‐modifying treatments to patients, families, and other healthcare providers is essential but complex. In response, the Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup has proposed language surrounding treatment eligibility, benefits, amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping, and treatment costs, serving as a resource to healthcare professionals in navigating discussions with patients and their families. As the landscape evolves with the approval of new Alzheimer's therapies, this resource stands poised for updates, ensuring its continued relevance in facilitating informed and meaningful patient‐provider dialogues.Highlights Effective communication of risks, benefits, burdens, and costs of FDA‐approved amyloid‐targeting antibodies is essential to patients, families, and healthcare providers. The Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup provides language for physicians and healthcare providers around treatment eligibility, benefits, ARIA, APOE genotyping, and treatment costs. This supplementary resource may be updated as new AD therapies become approved.

AbstractBackgroundWhile preclinical studies have shown that alpha‐synuclein can spread through cell‐to‐cell transmission whether it can be transmitted between humans is unknown.ObjectivesThe aim was to assess the presence of a synucleinopathy in autopsied conjugal couples.MethodsNeuropathological findings in conjugal couples were categorized as Parkinson's disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), Alzheimer's disease with Lewy bodies (ADLB), incidental Lewy body disease (ILBD), or no Lewy bodies.ResultsNinety conjugal couples were included; the mean age of death was 88.3 years; 32 couples had no Lewy bodies; 42 couples had 1 spouse with a synucleinopathy: 10 PD, 3 DLB, 13 ADLB, and 16 ILBD; 16 couples had both spouses with a synucleinopathy: in 4 couples both spouses had PD, 1 couple had PD and DLB, 4 couples had PD and ADLB, 2 couples had PD and ILBD, 1 couple had DLB and ADLB, in 3 couples both had ADLB, and 1 couple had ADLB and ILBD. No couples had both spouses with ILBD.ConclusionsThis large series of 90 autopsied conjugal couples found 16 conjugal couples with synucleinopathies, suggesting transmission of synucleinopathy between spouses is unlikely. © 2024 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.