Aisen, Paul

Abstract Mixed model repeated measures (MMRM) is the most common analysis approach used in clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease and other progressive diseases measured with continuous outcomes over time. The model treats time as a categorical variable, which allows an unconstrained estimate of the mean for each study visit in each randomized group. Categorizing time in this way can be problematic when assessments occur off‐schedule, as including off‐schedule visits can induce bias, and excluding them ignores valuable information and violates the intention to treat principle. This problem has been exacerbated by clinical trial visits which have been delayed due to the COVID19 pandemic. As an alternative to MMRM, we propose a constrained longitudinal data analysis with natural cubic splines that treats time as continuous and uses test version effects to model the mean over time. Compared to categorical‐time models like MMRM and models that assume a proportional treatment effect, the spline model is shown to be more parsimonious and precise in real clinical trial datasets, and has better power and Type I error in a variety of simulation scenarios.

AbstractBackgroundPreviously, we found that female sex is associated with greater pathology burden in early‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) in the Longitudinal EOAD Study (LEADS). Here, we have expanded our analyses by adding APOE‐ε4 carrier status as a further predictor of EOAD pathologic burden.MethodWe included 180 EOAD LEADS participants with available APOE genotype, Flortaucipir PET, Florbetaben PET, and MRI data. Demographic and biomarker differences were analyzed using ANOVA. EOAD participants were split by sex and APOE‐ε4 carrier status. Box plots were created in R and a voxel‐wise multiple linear regression in SPM12 yielded statistical brain maps of gray matter density (GMD), amyloid and tau burden.ResultCompared to males, EOAD females showed significantly greater global amyloid uptake (mean SUVR, p=0.002) and greater tau SUVR in the MetaROI, Braak 3&4 and 5&6 regions (p=0.0007, p=0.001, p=0.01, resp., Table 1). Female APOE‐ε4 carriers showed greater tau SUVR in Braak regions 1&2 than female non‐carriers (p<0.01, Figure 2B). Male APOE‐ε4 carriers showed trend‐level thinner entorhinal cortex than male non‐carriers (p=0.06, Figure 1). Interestingly however, femaleAPOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed greater global amyloid SUVR than female carriers (p<0.01, Figure 2A). Further, APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed significantly thinner medial temporal cortices than carriers in both sexes (M, p<0.05; F, p<0.01). Male APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers also showed significantly lower mean cortical thickness than male carriers (p<0.05, Figure 1). Female APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed trend‐level lower mean cortical thickness than female carriers (p=0.06, Figure 1). The FWE corrected SPM12 maps showed significantly greater GM atrophy in the right temporal lobe and greater amyloid burden in a right lateralized occipitoparietal pattern in female APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers compared to female carriers. Further, male APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed greater tau uptake in the left frontal lobe than male carriers (Figure 3).ConclusionThese results suggest that APOE‐ε4 non‐carrier status is associated with greater atrophy, amyloid and tau deposition in EOAD. This might be due to the presence of other strong genetic drivers of disease pathology in EOAD.

AbstractBackgroundWe developed the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) to address the shortage of qualified investigators with adequate training and expertise to conduct Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and AD Related Dementias (ADRD) clinical trials.MethodWe describe the experience of the first two years of funding of the IMPACT‐AD course, specifically the rates of applications to the course, descriptive summaries of the accepted trainees, and the measures of participant satisfaction and learning.ResultOver the first two years of the course, we received 195 eligible applications to the course. Most (n = 121, 62%) applicants were female and nearly half self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and/or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Forty‐one applicants (21%) indicated that they were the first in their family to attend collegeOf 69 total trainees accepted to the course (36% acceptance rate), a majority (n = 44, 64%) were female. Twenty‐eight (41%) self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and eleven (16%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. Fourteen trainees (20%) identified as being the first person in their family to attend college. Among trainees, 24 (35%) were MDs, 30 (43%) were PhDs, and 9 (13%) held master’s degrees.Course lecture topics were rated, on average, as “essential” or “valuable” by 98% of trainees. Across lecture topics, on average, 48% of trainees rated their prior knowledge of topics as “very strong” or “strong,” and 11% of trainees rated their prior knowledge as “weak.” Overall, 52% of trainees evaluated their change in knowledge based on the lectures as “very much increased,” 46% as “somewhat” or “slightly” increased, and 2% as “no change.” Results were similar for the two tracks. Based on pre‐ and post‐course assessments, trainees improved their knowledge of covered content (from 62% to 79% correct responses on knowledge assessments).ConclusionThe IMPACT‐AD course is achieving its mission of educating and diversifying the next generation of ADRD trialists.We thank Dr. Laurie Ryan and Dr. Kristina McLinden from the National Institute on Aging for their key contributions in leadership and scientific guidance of IMPACT‐AD.

AbstractThe poor generalizability of clinical research data due to the enrollment of highly educated, non‐Latinx White participants hampers the development of therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Black and Latinx older adults have a greater risk for dementia, yet it is unclear how health‐care disparities and sociocultural factors influence potential AD therapies and prognosis. Low enrollment of under‐represented populations may be attributable to several factors including greater exclusion due to higher rates of comorbidities, lower access to AD clinics, and the legacy of unethical treatment in medical research. This perspective outlines solutions tested in the Brain Health Registry (BHR) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), including culturally‐informed digital research methods, community‐engaged research strategies, leadership from under‐represented communities, and the reduction of exclusion criteria based on comorbidities. Our successes demonstrate that it is possible to increase the inclusion and engagement of under‐represented populations into US‐based clinical studies, thereby increasing the generalizability of their results.

AbstractIntroductionAn analysis of the ethnocultural and socioeconomic composition of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants is needed to assess the generalizability of ADNI data to diverse populations.MethodsADNI data collected between October 2004 and November 2020 were used to determine ethnocultural and educational composition of the sample and differences in the following metrics: screening, screen fails, enrollment, biomarkers.ResultsOf 3739 screened individuals, 11% identified as being from ethnoculturally underrepresented populations (e.g., Black, Latinx) and 16% had <12 years of education. Of 2286 enrolled participants, 11% identified as ethnoculturally underrepresented individuals and 15% had <12 years of education. This participation is considerably lower than US Census data for adults 60+ (ethnoculturally underrepresented populations: 25%; <12 years of education: 4%). Individuals with <12 years of education failed screening at a higher rate.DiscussionOur findings suggest that ADNI results may not be entirely generalizable to ethnoculturally diverse and low education populations.

AbstractBackgroundThe overarching goal of the Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer Disease study (LEADS) is to optimally characterize early‐onset AD (EOAD) and establish an EOAD clinical trials network. Here we report the baseline demographic and imaging biomarker comparisons of the LEADS cohort to late‐onset AD (LOAD) subjects from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI3).Method123 amyloid‐positive EOAD, 47 amyloid‐negative EOnonAD, 60 cognitively normal young controls were compared to 130 amyloid‐positive LOAD, 110 amyloid‐negative LOnonAD and 286 amyloid‐negative cognitively normal older controls. To account for the effect of cognitive aging between EO and LO populations, each cognitive measure was Z‐transformed. Cortical and hippocampal atrophy were quantified using W‐scores adjusted for age, sex and total intracranial volume. Z‐scores and W‐scores were compared using t‐test or Wilcoxson rank test as appropriate. All p‐values were corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate correction.ResultEOAD showed greater pathology burden and greater cortical atrophy (AD signature) relative to LOAD. EOAD also showed greater cognitive impairment across all cognitive tests. EOAD showed greater functional impairment, more depression but less neuropsychiatric behaviors overall compared to LOAD (Table 1 and Figure 1, all ps<0.05). Repeating the analyses stratified by cognitive stage (MCI/dementia) or CDR global rating (0.5/1) did not result in any major differences.EOnonAD differed from LOnonAD by also showing greater impairment on all cognitive and functional measures There were no significant differences in amyloid and tau burden, or atrophy W‐scores between these groups. EOnonAD were more depressed and showed more functional impairment compared to LOnonAD (Table 2 and Figure 2, all ps<0.05). Repeating the analyses split by cognitive stage (MCI/dementia) or CDR global rating (0.5/1) did not result in any major differences.ConclusionConsistent with our preexisting hypotheses, EOAD and EOnonAD perform much worse relative to their LO counterparts. EOAD also show greater pathological burden as expected. The reported analyses were done in chronological rather than disease time (time since disease onset). Benchmarking individuals along the disease spectrum might prove to be a better strategy especially when conducting analyses on rate of disease progression.

AbstractBackgroundAn analysis of the ethnoracial and educational composition of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants, and the relationship between ethnoracial/education and screening, enrollment, dropout, and biomarkers is needed to assess the generalizability of ADNI data to diverse populations, and to inform efforts to increase diversity.MethodData from all 4 ADNI phases were used to determine ethnoracial and educational breakdown and differences of the following ADNI participation metrics: screening, screen fails, enrollment, as well as drop‐out within and between ADNI phases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between ethnoracial and educational group and either amyloid positivity or ApoE e4 status, adjusting for age, gender, and diagnostic group.ResultAcross the 4 ADNI phases (screened: n=3,739; enrolled: n=2,286), 11% of screened and enrolled participants identified as Latinx, non‐Latinx Black, or non‐Latinx‐Asian and 16% of the screened and 15% of the enrolled participants reported having =<12 years of education. In contrast, the 2019 US Census American Community Survey for adults 60+ reports 25% non‐White, and 44 % =< 12 years of education. There were no observed differences between participants from historically underrepresented ethnoracial groups and NLW participants in screen fail and dropout rates. We found that individuals with =<12 years of education failed screening at a significantly higher rate (p=.01) and rolled‐over significantly less to subsequent ADNI phases (p<.001) compared to individuals with an education >12 years. Identifying as non‐Latinx Asian was associated with lower odds of being amyloid positive (OR=0.36; p=.014) and an ApoE4 carrier (OR=0.36; p=.008) compared to NLW. Identifying as Latinx was associated with being less likely to be amyloid positive than NLW participants (OR=0.54; p=.031).ConclusionCompared to the US Census, ADNI underrepresents enrollment of Latinx, non‐Latinx Black, and non‐Latinx Asian participants and those with low educational attainment. Hence, ADNI reflects the on‐going challenges with recruiting and enrolling underrepresented populations into most AD research. Our findings highlight the need for ADNI to increase enrollment and engagement of underrepresented ethnoracial and educational populations. ADNI is actively undertaking steps to implement improved recruitment approaches aimed at increasing ethnoracial and socioeconomical representation in multi‐center cohort studies.

Background: There is a need for feasible, scalable assessments to detect cognitive impairment and decline. The Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) is validated for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and in unsupervised and bring your own device contexts. The CBB has shown usability for self-completion in the home but has not been employed in this way in a multisite clinical trial in AD. Objective: The objective of the pilot was to evaluate feasibility of at-home, self-completion of the CBB in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) over 24 months. Methods: The CBB was included as a pilot for cognitively normal (CN) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) participants in ADNI-2, invited to take the assessment in-clinic, then at at-home over a period of 24 months follow-up. Data were analyzed to explore acceptability/usability, concordance of in-clinic and at-home assessment, and validity. Results: Data were collected for 104 participants (46 CN, 51 MCI, and 7 AD) who consented to provide CBB data. Subsequent analyses were performed for the CN and MCI groups only. Test completion rates were 100%for both the first in-clinic supervised and first at-home unsupervised assessments, with few repeat performances required. However, available follow-up data declined sharply over time. Good concordance was seen between in-clinic and at-home assessments, with non-significant and small effect size differences (Cohen’s d between -0.04 and 0.28) and generally moderate correlations (r = 0.42 to 0.73). Known groups validity was also supported (11/16 comparisons with Cohen’s d≥0.3). Conclusion: These data demonstrate the feasibility of use for the CBB for unsupervised at-home, testing, including MCI groups. Optimal approaches to the application of assessments to support compliance over time remain to be determined.

AbstractPatients with early‐onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) are commonly excluded from large‐scale observational and therapeutic studies due to their young age, atypical presentation, or absence of pathogenic mutations. The goals of the Longitudinal EOAD Study (LEADS) are to (1) define the clinical, imaging, and fluid biomarker characteristics of EOAD; (2) develop sensitive cognitive and biomarker measures for future clinical and research use; and (3) establish a trial‐ready network. LEADS will follow 400 amyloid beta (Aβ)‐positive EOAD, 200 Aβ‐negative EOnonAD that meet National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer's Association (NIA‐AA) criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia, and 100 age‐matched controls. Participants will undergo clinical and cognitive assessments, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), [18F]Florbetaben and [18F]Flortaucipir positron emission tomography (PET), lumbar puncture, and blood draw for DNA, RNA, plasma, serum and peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and post‐mortem assessment. To develop more effective AD treatments, scientists need to understand the genetic, biological, and clinical processes involved in EOAD. LEADS will develop a public resource that will enable future planning and implementation of EOAD clinical trials.

Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is a key feature of late life depression (LLD), but the contribution of underlying neurodegenerative pathology remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate cognitive dysfunction in LLD relative to a sample of nondepressed (ND) older adults with matched levels of memory impairment and amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. Methods: Participants included 120 LLD and 240 ND older adults matched on age, education, sex, Mini-Mental State Exam, mild cognitive impairment diagnosis, and PET Aβ burden. Results: LLD showed higher rates of impairment relative to ND with 54.6% of the LLD sample demonstrating impairment in at least one cognitive domain compared to 42.9% of controls ( H = 7.13, p = 0.008). LLD had poorer performance and higher rates of impairment on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test learning and memory compared to controls. In the overall sample, Aβ positivity was associated with worse performance on Logical Memory I ( p = 0.044), Logical Memory II ( p = 0.011), and Trail Making Test –B ( p = 0.032), and APOE ɛ4 genotype was associated with worse performance on Logical Memory I ( p = 0.022); these relationships did not differ between LLD and ND. Conclusion: LLD showed higher rates of CI driven by focal deficits in verbal learning and memory. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers were associated with worse performance on timed set-shifting and story learning and memory, and these relationships were not impacted by depression status. These findings suggest that AD may account for a portion of previously reported multi-domain CI in LLD and highlight the potential for AD to confound studies of cognition in LLD.