Citations

Abstract Background The National Institute on Aging Alzheimer's Disease Family Based Study (NIA‐ AD FBS) is a multi‐site, longitudinal study aimed to be a data and bio sample resource for investigators worldwide. Since its inception in 2002 the FBS goal has been to promote greater cooperation and sharing of clinical and biological resources among researchers. Methods The focus of the Family Based Study (FBS) has been the recruitment of families with at least two affected individuals and a third first degree relative with or without dementia and willing to participate. Participants are from different ethnic backgrounds including Caucasian, African American and Hispanics. The FBS study is actively recruiting both late onset (LOAD) and early onset Alzheimer's Disease (EOAD) families as well as conducting follow up evaluations every two years, approximately. Uniform assessments are completed across all sites and include DNA, Plasma, PaXgene and PBMC samples collection and brain autopsies whenever possible. We conduct both in person and remote evaluations and use the services of a mobile phlebotomy company to collect bio samples. In addition, we’ve created a protocol for genetic testing on the proband for EOAD families where an additional sample is sent to a CLIA approved lab and after genetic counseling, the presence or not of AD related mutations is disclosed to the families. Results To date, this cohort has recruited 1,756 families and acquired data from 9,682 family members. Families are from Caucasian, African Americans and Hispanics ethnic groups. The cohort has longitudinal clinical data, cognitive assessment, family history and bio samples available for sharing. Genotype data includes APOE, GWAS, WES, WGS, brain methylation, RNA sequencing and biomarkers data. Conclusion The NIA‐LOAD FBS study is the largest collection of familial Alzheimer's Disease worldwide and many genetic studies of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have included cases and controls from this dataset. Over 140 publications have used data and/or samples from FBS to address the genetics of Alzheimer's Disease. The enriched resources provided by this cohort are invaluable to the scientific community.

Abstract Background The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomized trial ( n = 977;ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03243422) demonstrated that hearing intervention slowed 3‐year cognitive decline by 48% among a subgroup of participants. To further investigate differences by treatment with respect to cognitive benefit, we tested the hypothesis that hearing intervention is associated with improved neurodegeneration blood biomarkers 3‐years post‐randomization and assessed whether combining biomarkers and cognitive results improved power in the trial design. Method The ACHIEVE study is a multicenter, parallel‐arm, randomized trial (hearing intervention vs health education control) on 3‐year cognitive decline among adults 70–84years with untreated hearing loss and without substantial cognitive impairment. Participants were recruited from two populations: (1) a long‐standing cardiovascular health observational study (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC]), and (2) de novo community volunteers. Plasma was collected in year 3 in a subsample ( n = 540) while ARIC participants ( n = 164) also had baseline plasma. Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) neurodegenerative biomarkers were derived using the Alamar CNS protein panel. Regression models estimated the association of treatment with 3‐year biomarkers and global cognitive differences in the combined sample and by recruitment source and annualized change from baseline in the ARIC sample. We included a simple composite score of the standardized outcomes (Table 2). Result Among the subsample, baseline characteristics were balanced by treatment. There were no significant differences on 3‐year neurodegeneration biomarker levels by treatment in the combined (Table 1) or de novo groups (Table 2). Among ARIC participants, intervention resulted in lower 3‐year GFAP (mean:‐0.415;95%CI:‐0.712,‐0.118) and NfL (mean:‐0.349;95%CI:‐0.652,‐0.046) (Table 2). Annualized change from baseline analyses among ARIC participants (Table 3) revealed intervention was associated with a slower rate of cognitive decline (difference‐in‐means:0.059;95%CI:0.018,0.100) and a slower rate of increase in GFAP (difference‐in‐means: ‐0.060;95%CI:‐0.112,‐0.009). Differences in estimates suggest combined score, relative to cognition alone, may increase power in clinical trials that show a positive effect (ARIC subgroup: p = 0.02vs. 0.08[Table 2] and p = 0.0009vs.0.048[Table 3]). Conclusion Hearing intervention was associated with positive 3‐year effects on neurodegeneration blood biomarkers in ARIC participants which parallels cognitive decline results. Results provides objective evidence of brain changes following hearing intervention and potential signal of a more powerful combined outcome approach for future brain health clinical trials.

Abstract Background Individuals living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas are disproportionately affected by dementia. However, the pathway leading from neighbourhood deprivation to cognitive symptoms is not well understood. To test our hypothesis that this relationship is associated with cerebral small vessel disease (SVD), we examined (1) whether neighbourhood deprivation related to midlife SVD burden and cognition, and (2) whether these links can be explained by modifiable lifestyle risk factors. Method In this multi‐centre cross‐sectional study, 514 cognitively healthy midlife participants aged 40‐59 years (median 52 years, 64.6% female) underwent clinical assessment and 3T MRI. Postcode data were used to obtain national indices of neighbourhood deprivation. To quantify SVD, we assessed white matter hyperintensities (WMH), perivascular spaces, cerebral microbleeds, and lacunes. Cognition was assessed using the Computerized Assessment of Information Processing (COGNITO) battery. Lifestyle risk factors were evaluated based on clinical data. Using multivariate statistics like structural equation modelling (SEM) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA), we examined associations between these constructs both globally and at the item‐level (i.e., distinction between domains of cognition/deprivation), to shed light on specific domains that could inform targeted prevention strategies. Result Neighbourhood deprivation related to greater prevalence of lifestyle risk factors ( r = 0.36, p < .001), greater SVD burden (b=0.18, p = .01; Figure 1), and greater cognitive impairment ( r = 0.36, p < .001), independent of educational attainment, sex, and age. These links with neighbourhood deprivation were largely driven by lifestyle factors relating to vascular health (sleep, physical activity, obesity, hypertension) (Figure 2), and cognitive deficits consistent with SVD (processing speed, visuospatial) (Figure 3). Residents of deprived neighbourhoods displayed greater prevalence of lifestyle risk factors, except alcohol consumption. Lower cognitive scores were most closely associated with deprivation domains of Crime and Living Environment (Figure 3). The DEPRIVATION→SVD path was mediated by lifestyle risk factors (z=2.57, p = .010), and the DEPRIVATION→COGNITION path was mediated by SVD (z=‐2.14, p = .032) (global SVD & hypertensive subtype, but not CAA‐SVD). Conclusion The pathway linking neighbourhood disadvantage to cognitive impairment at midlife is influenced by vascular risk factors and cerebrovascular burden. Tailored strategies could promote resilience against dementia by promoting health behaviours aligned with the community's unique needs.

Abstract Background Neighborhood socio‐economic conditions may increase Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk through amyloid, tau, atrophy or vascular pathways, potentially varying by genetic risk, race or ethnicity and sex. We examined associations between Area Deprivation Index (ADI) and cognition, AD pathology, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH) volume in cognitively unimpaired older adults by race or ethnicity, sex and APOE4 status. Method We included 1896 non‐demented older adults from US POINTER study with available cognitive evaluations, ADI level – a census–based neighborhood disadvantage metric (categorized as low, moderate and high) and a subsample with neuroimaging data ( N = 806). Linear/logistic regressions were used to assess interactions of ADI with sex, race or ethnicity, and APOE4 on (1) the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite, (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived GM volume meta‐ROI (entorhinal, fusiform, parahippocampal, mid‐temporal, inferior temporal), (3) WMH and (4) AD pathology (amyloid and tau PET), adjusted by age, sex and intracranial volume when appropriate. Result African American participants ( p <0.001) and females ( p <0.001) were more likely to live in deprived areas. African American participants had significantly lower PACC‐5 ( p <0.001) and GM volume ( p <0.001), “Other or multiple races” participants showed significantly higher amyloid burden ( p = 0.001), and White participants higher WMH ( p = 0.013). Females showed higher PACC‐5 scores ( p <0.001), while APOE4 carriers showed lower PACC‐5 ( p = 0.042) and higher amyloid burden ( p <0.001) (Table 1). Race and ADI interacted on PACC‐5 ( p = 0.043) and showed a borderline interaction on Tau ( p = 0.079), with higher ADI linked to lower PACC‐5 in White, Hispanic, and “Other or Multiple Races” and higher Tau in Hispanic. Further, there was a borderline ADI*APOE4 status interaction on WMH ( p = 0.059) and a significant ADI*APOE4 interaction on amyloid ( p = 0.001), where APOE4 carriers in deprived areas showed higher WMH and lower amyloid burden (Figure 1). No significant ADI*sex interactions were observed. Conclusion Neighborhood disadvantage was more commonly observed in African American participants, but interaction with cognition was primarily seen in other racial/ethnic groups. APOE4 carriers showed increased amyloid burden, but those from more disadvantaged neighborhoods exhibited a higher vascular component alongside lower amyloid‐driven pathology. These results may indicate varying effects of social disadvantages across groups or sample bias.

Abstract Background Neighborhood social and built environment characteristics may promote physical activity, a modifiable factor for dementia risk, which may in turn promote cognitive and brain health. We explored the associations of the U.S. National Walkability Index ‐ a nationwide geographic data resource that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability – with cognitive function, gray matter (GM) and white matter hyperintensities (WMH), neighborhood disadvantage, sedentary behavior and frequency of physical activity in cognitively unimpaired older adults at increased Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk. Method We included baseline data from 1398 older adults (68.3 ± 5.17 years, 68.3% females, 30.5% APOE4 carriers) from the U.S. POINTER trial. Walkability was classified as: least, below average, above average and most walkable. Neighborhood disadvantage (low, moderate and high) was assessed using Area Deprivation Index (ADI) ( N = 1384). Physical inactivity was assessed using the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ, hours sitting/week, N = 1106), and physical activity was measured with a composite score from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire. Linear and logistic regressions examined associations between walkability and (1) physical activity and sedentary behavior; and (2) cognition assessed with the Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC‐5), GM volume and WMHs, Additionally, associations between neighborhood disadvantage and physical activity and sedentary behavior were explored. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, APOE4 and total intracranial volume. Result More deprived areas were generally less walkable (β = ‐0.008, p < 0.001) (Figure 1). Higher walkability (Above average: β = 0.192, p = 0.011 and most walkable: β = 0.183, p = 0.032) was associated with higher PACC‐5 (Figure 2A) scores but not with more preserved GM or lower WMH. Walkability scores were not associated with physical activity and sedentary measurements, while greater neighborhood disadvantage was linked to sedentary behavior (β = 0.126, p < 0.001) (Figure 2B). Conclusion These results suggest that physical inactivity in more deprived areas is associated with neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages rather than built environment. Additionally, walkability scores were not associated with any measure of physical activity or brain health, suggesting the need to further investigate other health effects of neighborhood disadvantage and walkability.

Abstract Background In aging and dementia research, the relationships between modifiable risk factors and biomarkers often vary across cohorts. We aim to evaluate the consistency and generalizability of the association between the area deprivation index (ADI) ‐ an indicator of socioeconomic/resource disadvantage within a specific area ‐ and cognition and Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across three distinct research cohorts, two from the U.S. (U.S. POINTER Imaging, ADNI) and one from Spain (UBRAIN). Method We included a total of 3091 participants without dementia, 1879 from U.S. POINTER Imaging, 282 from ADNI and 930 from UBRAIN (Table 1). The ADI was calculated using validated indices from the US and Spain, with neighborhood deprivation ranked as Low, Moderate, and High in the US, and Low and High in Spain. Outcomes of interest included (1) the preclinical Alzheimer's cognitive composite (PACC‐5), (2) MRI‐derived gray matter volumes in AD‐vulnerable regions and (3) PET or CSF‐derived amyloid status (+/‐). We ran logistic regression models with ADI level as predictor adjusted by sex, age, and APOE4 and considered education and race or ethnicity (only US cohorts) in our analyses. Result Participants in more deprived areas had lower education across cohorts and were more likely to be female (U.S. POINTER) and African American (U.S. POINTER and ADNI, Table 1). Independent of age, sex and APOE4 status, higher ADI was associated with lower PACC in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.165, p <0.001; High β=‐0.412, p <0.001) and UBRAIN (ADI: High β=‐0.096, p = 0.022) but not in ADNI (Figure 1). After controlling for education, this association remained significant in U.S. POINTER (Moderate: β=‐0.166, p = 0.002; High: β=‐0.248, p = 0.007) but not in UBRAIN (β=‐0.021, p = 0.66). In U.S. POINTER, there was a trend towards an association of higher ADI with lower GM volume in AD‐vulnerable regions (β=‐0.126, p = 0.089) that was not observed in ADNI or UBRAIN (Figure 2). No associations between ADI and amyloid status were found across cohorts. Conclusion We observed differing associations in neighborhood deprivation and cognition across US cohorts, as well as between the US and Spain cohorts. Country‐specific factors and sample representativeness must be considered when investigating the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying social determinants and disparities in AD.

Abstract Background The first three talks focused on three important aspects on including diversity in Resilience Research ‐ engagement and inclusion of historically underserved communities, including sex, gender, and social determinants of health (SDH) in our analyses, and methodological challenges and recommendations for inclusion of diverse populations. Objective While important knowledge gaps were identified and recommendations made for diversity inclusion, discussion of these topics in the context of clinical importance and applied potential will enhance knowledge mobilization and translation of research findings which will be discussed as part of this talk. Methods Clinical importance for knowledge mobilization focuses on direct impact on patient diagnosis/treatment to ensure research improves health outcomes. Whereas, applied potential focuses on public health and outreach activities to ensure that research reaches underserved communities and subgroups of populations. Results Guided by the aspects discussed in the first three talks, we will discuss specific examples from emerging research across diverse populations on 1) how inclusion of diversity in resilience research can aid in improvements in patient care, screening, and management; and 2) how better data collection and targeting awareness of research in underserved communities along with improving instruments of recruitment and retention can provide us with data for deeper evaluation of mechanisms of prevention across different sub‐populations. Conclusion While creating a roadmap for inclusion of diversity in resilience research for aging and dementia is the important first step, focus should be placed on effective translation of the emerging research findings to reach broader aspects of patient care.

Abstract The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study started in 1987‐1989 (visit 1), when participants from four U.S. communities were 45‐64yo. Participants have been seen at up to 10 additional in‐person visits with annual/semi‐annual telephone calls to ascertain clinical events, hospitalizations, and other health outcomes. In 2011‐2013, at ARIC visit 5, the ARIC Neurocognitive Study (ARIC‐NCS) was initiated for surviving participants, incorporating neuropsychological assessments at multiple in‐person visits and informant interviews to support cognitive adjudication. A subset of participants have undergone brain MRI with measurement of brain volumes, cortical thickness, arterial disease and vascular lesions, with a smaller subset having brain florbetapir PET. Blood‐based Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers are available at multiple visits along with extensive measurement of vascular risk factors, vascular markers, and ‐omic (e.g.genomic and proteomic) data. This presentation will focus on the available data in ARIC, the methods underlying its collection and subsequent analysis, and some of the primary contributions of this study to the field. With 37 years of follow‐up, a great strength of ARIC is the ability to evaluate risk factors in midlife; ARIC studies have supported an association of midlife hypertension, diabetes, physical inactivity, and other vascular risk factors with reduced dementia risk, even among those with increased genetic risk for dementia. ARIC studies have demonstrated associations between stroke and dementia, and have linked vascular risk factors with blood‐based and imaging biomarkers of AD‐related dementias. ARIC has demonstrated the importance of hearing loss in dementia risk, and a subset of ARIC participants were recruited into (and were those who most benefited from the intervention of) the ACHIEVE study of hearing aid use for reduction of dementia. Proteomic studies have identified markers of dementia risk when evaluated in midlife. Recently, ARIC data informed updated estimates on lifetime risk of dementia, where it was estimated that among individuals surviving beyond age 55, 42% would develop dementia over their lifetime through age 95. ARIC studies continue to focus on risk factors for dementia, particularly now in the oldest old, and on contributors to cognitive reserve and resilience. ARIC follows a model of data sharing and broad collaboration.

Abstract Background Tau‐PET imaging enables in vivo detection of tau pathology in Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with early detection being critical for tracking disease progression. Here, we compare [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 in individuals with low tau burden. Method 450 individuals from the HEAD study (22 cognitively unimpaired (CU) young (CUY), 242 CU old and 186 cognitively impaired (CI)) underwent [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 tau‐PET and amyloid‐PET scans. Scans were processed using identical pipelines with inferior cerebellar gray matter as the reference region. Individuals were categorized as low tau if both [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 meta‐temporal SUVR were lower than 1.5. For comparison, [ 18 F]MK6240 and [ 18 F]FTP were transformed into one another using linear and non‐linear models; additionally, images were also z‐scored relative to the CUYs. Result Despite cognitive status and amyloid burden, several individuals showed elevated [ 18 F]FTP retention in temporal regions relative to [ 18 F]MK6240. As an example, Figure 1 shows [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240 in 16 participants (4 per cognitive and amyloid status). Across most subjects with SUVRs<1.5, [ 18 F]FTP presented higher retention in meta‐temporal region as compared to [ 18 F]MK6240, though [ 18 F]MK6240 increased sharply above this threshold (Figure 2). In Figure 3, group‐average images and their transformed counterparts are shown for each group by amyloid and cognitive status, the subset of low‐tau participants in Aβ+ groups are also shown. In low tau groups, [ 18 F]FTP meta‐temporal retention is high in comparison to [ 18 F]MK6240. Additionally, z‐scored [ 18 F]FTP images show broader spread into temporal regions than [ 18 F]MK6240, reinforcing differences in retention. Conclusion [ 18 F]FTP shows meta‐temporal retention not seen with [ 18 F]MK6240 in low tau individuals. This discrepancy persists across transformed and z‐scored images, suggesting that there is a difference in early tracer retention between [ 18 F]FTP and [ 18 F]MK6240. It is unclear if the early [ 18 F]FTP retention is related to early maturity levels of tau or off‐target signal. These findings have important implications for basic understanding of early tau retention, early diagnosis, and biomarker harmonization efforts.

Abstract Background Cognitive impairment often goes undetected by clinicians due to time constraints, limited expertise, and lack of standardized tools. Structured cognitive assessments improve detection accuracy compared to unstructured clinical judgment. In 2013, the Alzheimer’s Association published recommendations to help primary care clinicians incorporate cognitive assessments into the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Since then, advances in cognitive assessment tools, availability of disease‐modifying therapies, and shifting expectations around early diagnosis have highlighted the need for updated guidance. In response, the Alzheimer’s Association is developing an evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for cognitive testing in primary care, using the GRADE approach, informed by a systematic review of the best available evidence. Method A multidisciplinary panel formulated a clinical question to inform the development of this guideline. A systematic review was conducted (search range: 1999‐2024) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ten cognitive tests (5‐Cog, AD8, GPCOG, IQCODE, Mini‐Cog, MIS, MoCA, QDRS, RUDAS, and SLUMS) for the early detection of cognitive impairment (including MCI and dementia), in adults aged 55+ in ambulatory settings. The panel also narratively summarized data on emerging digital tools. Result Forty‐one studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review. Results were analyzed separately by test (including short‐IQCODE and short‐MoCA) and for primary care and for ambulatory clinic settings (e.g., neurology, memory disorder clinics), as well as for English and Spanish language, resulting in 21 separate analyses. Only three analyses, all related to MoCA, allowed for meta‐analysis. The panel will use the evidence to inform conditional recommendations for or against each specific test. Conclusion By evaluating the diagnostic performance of selected tests, this guideline aims to support healthcare professionals in primary care settings in effective triaging of individuals who may benefit from further cognitive evaluation. To enhance real‐world applicability, considerations such as administration time, ease of scoring, and diagnostic accuracy ‐ along with appropriate cut‐offs by race/ethnicity, education, and language ‐ should be prioritized. This guideline will be regularly updated over time to reflect emerging evidence and the needs of diverse populations.