Citations

Abstract INTRODUCTION Research into cognitive dispersion – a cognitive process score measuring the intra‐individual variability (IIV) across a single testing session – suggests utility in neurodegenerative populations. Given widespread deficits observed in sporadic early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD), however, it is unclear if examining cognitive dispersion shows benefit in this condition. METHODS A total of 309 participants (188 amyloid‐positive EOAD, 43 amyloid‐negative early‐onset dementia [EOnonAD], 78 cognitively normal [CN]) completed neuropsychological testing twice over 12 months. Dispersion‐related differences among groups were assessed, as was cognitive dispersion's capacity to predict domain‐specific cognitive trajectories, and its convergence with imaging biomarkers. RESULTS EOAD participants displayed higher cognitive dispersion than EOnonAD participants, and associations with EOAD‐specific biomarkers. Additionally, cognitive dispersion was associated with 12‐month reliable change across several cognitive domains. DISCUSSION These preliminary results examine cognitive dispersion in sporadic EOAD. When used with baseline cognitive performance, cognitive dispersion measures may enrich future clinical trials in EOAD by enhancing treatment monitoring over time.

Abstract INTRODUCTION : Despite expanding use of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD), minimal examination has been undertaken in early‐onset AD (EOAD). Prior analyses assessed criterion and convergent validity of common plasma biomarkers in a well‐characterized sample with sporadic EOAD. METHODS : Plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40, tau phosphorylated at threonine 231 (p‐tau231), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light change (NfL) levels were obtained for 189 EOAD, 52 early‐onset non‐AD (EOnonAD), and 83 cognitively normal (CN) participants. Diagnostic group differences, convergence with imaging biomarkers, and the capacity to predict specific cognitive domains were investigated. RESULTS : After controlling for cognitive status, EOAD participants exhibited more pathologic levels of Aβ42/40, p‐tau231, and GFAP relative to EOnonAD participants. However, NfL displayed the greatest sensitivity to non‐amnestic cognitive impairment across the sample. DISCUSSION : These results establish criterion and convergent validity of plasma biomarkers in sporadic EOAD and highlight complementary roles that AD‐specific and non‐specific plasma markers may play across the course of AD care.

INTRODUCTION Recent work has identified unique cognitive profiles for early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) relative to late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD), however, examination has been limited in determining whether the association between age and cognitive severity at presentation also differs across conditions. METHODS A series of linear spline regression models was conducted across baseline cognitive data from 325 EOAD and 314 LOAD participants, after accounting for education, sex, and apolipoprotein ε4 status. RESULTS Significant differences existed in the relationship between baseline age and cognitive performance between EOAD and LOAD samples for Processing Speed/Attention, Executive Functioning, and Episodic Immediate Memory. Younger participants from both EOAD and LOAD groups performed disproportionately worse on non‐amnestic cognitive domains, with this occurring to a greater extent in EOAD than LOAD. DISCUSSION In the age of disease‐modifying treatments, results highlight the importance of assessing for cognitive declines in individuals starting much earlier than age 65. Highlights Early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) and late‐onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) participants each displayed cognitive impairments relative to same‐aged peers across most domains. Both groups displayed positive relationships between impairment among non‐amnestic cognitive domains and baseline age. This relationship displayed a significantly greater effect in EOAD than LOAD, with domains of Processing Speed/Attention and Executive Functioning skills being the most pronounced. Of those participants developing AD, age displayed a disproportionate impact on their symptom onset.

Importance An estimated 70% to 80% of older adults develop delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Objective To determine if a slow-tempo music (60-80 beats/min) listening intervention decreases delirium duration, delirium severity, pain, or anxiety in older adults undergoing mechanical ventilation. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter randomized clinical trial with concealed outcomes assessments was conducted in older adults undergoing mechanical ventilation from February 2020 to December 2023. Patients were enrolled from the ICUs of 2 hospitals affiliated with the Indiana University School of Medicine and from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. Intervention A music intervention comprising classical and contemporary tracks, delivered twice daily through noise-canceling headphones and tablets for up to 7 days, was compared to active control listening to a silence track delivered under identical conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was delirium/coma-free days during the 7-day intervention period assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. The secondary outcomes were delirium severity assessed by the CAM-ICU-7, pain assessed by the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool, and anxiety assessed by the visual analog scale for anxiety (VAS-A). Results A total of 158 patients were randomized (mean [SD] age, 68 (9.2) years; 72 [45.5%] female and 86 [54.4%] male). In an intention-to-treat analysis, no differences were found in the number of delirium/coma-free days in the music intervention group compared with control (median [IQR] days, 2.5 [0-5] vs 3 [0-5]; P = .66). There were also no statistically significant differences in the mean CAM-ICU-7 scores, mean pain scores, or mean VAS-A scores over the 7-day intervention period. By end of the 7-day period, both music intervention and control groups had similar mean (SD) CAM-ICU-7 scores (2.72 [2.80] vs 2.56 [2.72]), Critical Care Pain Observation Tool scores (0.20 [0.55] vs 0.61 [1.29]), and VAS-A scores (43.6 [24.7] vs 28.8 [38.4]). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial among older adults undergoing mechanical ventilation, a slow-tempo music intervention did not demonstrate a statistically significant decrease in delirium duration, delirium severity, pain, or anxiety symptoms. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04182334

Abstract INTRODUCTION We investigated associations of plasma proteins with blood‐based amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration/inflammation (A/T/N/I) biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS Plasma proteomics and clinical data from the Indiana AD Research Center ( N = 498) were used. Association analysis of plasma proteins with blood A/T/N/I biomarkers as well as diagnosis was performed, followed by replication in an independent cohort ( N = 323), network analysis, pathway enrichment, and machine learning classification to identify proteins and pathways related to AD risk. RESULTS We identified 35 proteins associated with AD, 20 of which were replicated in the independent cohort. We identified 150, 448, and 219 proteins associated with T/N/I biomarkers, respectively, revealing biomarker‐specific pathways. Network analysis identified two modules associated with T/N/I biomarkers, preserved in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and their enriched pathways. The classification model of proteins effectively differentiated AD (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.930). CONCLUSION Our findings suggest dysregulated plasma proteins and pathways in AD, enhancing our understanding of molecular mechanisms and diagnostic strategies for AD. Highlights Plasma proteins were identified as being associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and plasma biomarkers. The identified proteins were replicated in both plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) proteomics. The identified proteins were associated with AD biomarker‐specific pathways. The identified proteins improved the performance of the AD classification. Protein network analysis identified network modules and their enriched pathways.

AbstractBackgroundEarly‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) occurs before age 65 and has more diverse disease presentations than late‐onset AD. To improve our understanding of phenotypic heterogeneity among EOAD individuals, we analyzed cognitive scores using data‐driven statistical analysis.MethodBaseline cognitive data from 286 sporadic EOAD individuals from the Longitudinal EOAD study (LEADS) were transformed to z‐scores using data from 95 cognitively normal (CN) individuals. Cognitive composites were generated for domains of memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Residuals from linear regression models on Z‐scores adjusted for age, sex, and education were obtained. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the cognitive domain residuals was performed and scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared determined the optimal number of clusters for the EOAD sample. We also compared gray matter density (GMD) of each EOAD cluster to CN participants using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions.ResultsThree clusters of cognitive performance were identified from the EOAD sample. Disease duration was not significantly different across clusters. Using a z‐score of ‐1.5 SD as the impairment threshold, all clusters were impaired across most domains (Table 1). Cluster‐3 was more impaired than cluster‐2 in all domains (Table 2; all p<.0001), and in all domains except episodic memory compared to cluster‐1 (all p<.01). Cluster‐1 (n = 71; 85.9% amnestic) was most impaired in executive function, visuospatial, and speed/attention. Cluster‐2 (n = 133; 88.7% amnestic) was most impaired in episodic memory. Cluster‐3 (n = 82; 69.5% amnestic) was most impaired in executive function, visuospatial, and speed/attention (Table 1). 3D‐comparisons showed all EOAD clusters had reduced GMD compared to CN. Cluster‐1 and cluster‐3 both showed widespread atrophy, with cluster‐3 being more severe. Cluster‐2 showed the most atrophy in the temporal and parietal lobes (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among sporadic EOAD individuals. Cluster‐3 appeared to reflect widespread impairment, and cluster‐2 represented an amnestic‐only presentation. Despite comparable disease duration, some EOAD patients progress faster, while some are more resilient. 3D‐comparisons showed neurodegenerative changes affecting brain regions responsible for respective impaired cognitive functions in each cluster (e.g., cluster‐2 is primarily amnestic‐impaired and has temporoparietal atrophy). Future work should explore amyloid‐PET and tau‐PET burden.

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.

AbstractBackgroundWe examined neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) and psychotropic medication use at the midway point of data collection of the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study (LEADS). We compared amyloid‐positive early‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) participants and amyloid‐negative early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s disease [EOnonAD]) participants across NPS domains and psychotropic medication categories.Method282 participants enrolled in LEADS were compared across diagnostic groups – amyloid‐positive EOAD (n = 212) and amyloid‐negative EOnonAD (n = 70). All participants were between ages 40 and 64 at baseline. NPS were measured with the Neuropsychiatric Inventory – Questionnaire (NPI‐Q) and Geriatric Depression Scale – Short Form (GDS‐SF). Medications were categorized into psychotropic category (e.g., antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines). Groups were compared on NPI‐Q using binary logistic regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, on GDS‐SF using linear regression adjusting for sex and disease severity, and on psychotropic medication use using Chi square or Fisher’s exact test.ResultDemographic data are presented in Table 1. Average total NPI‐Q score was higher in EOnonAD than EOAD (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). Regardless of diagnostic group, informants endorsed Affective behaviors most frequently (76.2%). EOAD informants endorsed fewer Distress‐Tension behaviors (p = .02, OR = .498) and Impulse Control behaviors (p = .01, OR = .438). EOAD informants also endorsed apathy (p < .001, OR = .316), irritability (p = .02, OR = .498), and disinhibition (p = .04, OR = .476) at lower frequency than EOnonAD. GDS‐SF showed that the EOnonAD participants self‐reported more symptoms of depression than the EOAD group (p = .002, ŋp 2 = .03). (Table 2A). A minority of participants, regardless of diagnostic group, reported psychotropic medication use (35%). There was higher use in EOnonAD (38%) than EOAD (24%) (p = .03, Cohen W = .14) (Table 2B).ConclusionNPS burden and psychotropic medication use were higher in EOnonAD than EOAD participants, despite EOnonAD being less severely impaired. LEADS continues to collect data. Future studies will examine etiologies that may be larger drivers of NPS than AD neuropathology, mediators (e.g., race, ethnicity) in the association between NPS and diagnostic group classication, compare NPS in EOAD vs. LOAD, and examine longitudinal changes in neuropsychiatric profiles.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10‐25% of amnestic early‐onset dementia are negative for amyloid (Early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s Disease, EOnonAD). EOnonAD is a heterogenous group with various etiologies. In order to better understand the traits of EOnonAD, we clustered amnestic EOnonAD individuals according to cognitive patterns.MethodCognitive data of 62 EOnonAD individuals from the Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) were Z‐normalized to 91 intact individuals after adjusting for age, sex, and education. This led to domain‐averaged composite Z‐scores for memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the residuals for the five composites was performed. We used Scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared to determine the optimal number of clusters. We compared demographics, imaging biomarkers (amyloid and tau PET SUVR, hippocampal volume), plasma (pTau231, Aß40, Aß42, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light chain (NfL)), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aß42/40, NfL, Neurogranin, Visinin‐like protein, YKL‐40, and Synaptosome Associated Protein 25) across the clusters after adjusting for age, sex, and education. We compared gray matter density of each EOnonAD cluster to controls (n = 84) using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions in SPM12, adjusting for age, sex, education, and intracranial volume.ResultScree plot using the pseudo‐T‐squared suggested three clusters. Cluster 1 (38/62, 61.3%) was characterized by having the mildest cognitive impairment in all domains. Cluster 2 (19/62, 30.6%) was characterized by more severe memory and language impairment. Cluster 3 (5/62, 8.1%) was characterized by more severe impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function (Table 1). Cluster 3 showed significantly higher NfL for both plasma (Cluster 1 vs 3, p<0.001; Cluster 2 vs 3, p < 0.004) and CSF (Cluster 1 vs 3, p = 0.001). Other biomarkers did not show significant difference (Table 1). Only Cluster 3 showed significant atrophy in the bilateral fronto‐parietal areas at p<0.01, uncorrected (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among amnestic EOnonAD individuals. Cluster 1 had mildest cognitive impairment; Cluster 2 had predominant impairment in memory and language; and Cluster 3 had predominant impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function, with significant fronto‐parietal atrophy and high NfL indicating active neurodegeneration.