Boeve, Bradley F.

AbstractBackgroundUp to 30% of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) cases are due to known pathogenic mutations (f‐FTD). Little is known about the factors that predict who will choose to learn their results. Upcoming clinical trials in f‐FTD may require disclosure prior to enrollment, even before symptom onset, and thus characterizing this sample is important. Furthermore, understanding the mood impacts of genetic disclosure may guide genetic counseling practice.MethodF‐FTD participants (n=568) from families with a known pathogenic mutation (MAPT, C9orf72, GRN) were enrolled through the ARTFL/LEFFTDS Longitudinal FTD Study (ALLFTD) and provided the opportunity for disclosure. Independent‐sample t‐tests compared demographic and psychosocial factors between participants who did and did not receive their results. In participants who were asymptomatic at baseline and follow up (n=199,177 with follow‐up), linear mixed effects modeling was used to investigate pre‐ to post‐disclosure changes in the 15‐item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).ResultOf participants from families with a known pathogenic genetic mutation, 47% received genetic disclosure. Of the asymptomatic subset (n=386), 36% know their mutation status. Of these asymptomatic learners, 46% received disclosure through the study, and the remainder learned their genetic status prior to study enrollment. None of the analyzed demographic or psychosocial factors (i.e., sex, age, education, having children) differed between learners and non‐learners (p’s > 0.05). In the longitudinal analysis of asymptomatic participants, learners showed a pre‐ to post‐increase of 0.31 GDS points/year (95%CI: ‐0.08, 0.69, p = 0.12), whereas non‐learners showed a slight decline (‐0.15 points/year, 95%CI: ‐0.36, 0.06, p = 0.16). This difference between slopes was statistically significant (0.46, 95%CI: 0.02, 0.89, p=0.04) but represents a small clinical effect. In asymptomatic learners, slopes did not differ based on mutation status (0.28, 95%CI: ‐0.66, 1.20, p=0.55). Conclusions were based on the estimates and full range of confidence intervals.ConclusionThe majority of asymptomatic research participants do not know their genetic status, which will be a consideration for clinical trials that require disclosure. No considered demographic factors were strongly associated with the decision to receive disclosure. The findings suggest that disclosure in asymptomatic participants has minimal impact on depressive symptoms regardless of genetic results.

AbstractBackgroundCaregiving for persons with dementia negatively impacts physical and mental health, including increased risk for chronic loneliness and isolation. This Phase I study aimed to recruit former and current dementia caregivers as engaged partners in the design of a unique, technology‐assisted pairing platform to match caregivers to one another for meaningful connection and support based on characteristics chosen by the caregivers themselves.MethodWe recruited thirty‐two caregivers to participate in two semi‐structured focus groups (audio recorded for qualitative analyses) and complete a survey to understand the characteristics desired in another caregiver for the purpose of emotional support. Participants interacted with a website prototype on their personal device and completed a user experience feedback form. An iterative process was used to design the website and matching questionnaire allowing participants to validate preferences and concerns. Website analytics were captured (e.g. time to answer each question, total time spent on the website).ResultThe efforts culminated in a website ‘look and feel’ that addressed the preferences and criticisms of study participants. Figure 1 shows the home page slider inviting caregivers to join (images 1‐3) and describes the matching process (4); the caregiver answers up to 34 questions to create a profile (5‐7) and the website provides a list of caregivers that best match criteria (8). Overall, 87% of study participants rated a high level of comfort with completing the personal profile questions; 82% felt confident the questions asked would lead to a good match. An algorithm to match caregivers was created using the profile questions which asked participants to self‐select and then rank the characteristics of highest importance. Good and poor matches are scored by the algorithm, with 1 being a “perfect” match (Figure 2). In the current cohort, each participant had at least one match that scored 0.708 or higher.ConclusionOur study established interest in a technology assisted peer‐to‐peer caregiver matching program that is a potential low‐cost, high‐impact resource. The study resulted in a set of matching characteristics and an algorithm prototype within a user influenced website and will be further tested in Phase 2. Research supported from NIA of the NIH.

AbstractBackgroundFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) refers to a group of neurodegenerative conditions, affecting the frontal and/or temporal lobes. Ongoing research has provided insight into developing clinical trials for FTLD and key clinical measures such as structural MRI. To inform clinical trial design and optimize participation, it is imperative to explore facilitators and barriers for potential candidates.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to explore facilitators and barriers to participating in future clinical trials for FTLD.MethodsAdvancing Research and Treatment for Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ARTFL) and Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS) are observational studies focused on characterizing FTLD syndromes in preparation for clinical trials. The 584 participants enrolled across 18 research sites in the United States and Canada completed a survey assessing interest in clinical trial participation.Results29% of respondents self‐reported as patients (63±10 years), 26% self‐reported as caregivers answering on behalf of patients (65±10 years), and 45% self‐reported as healthy but at risk for FTLD (48±14 years). Travel reimbursement was the most common factor reported to positively influence participation (≧66%), with the healthy but at risk group showing the strongest endorsement (83%). Cost and time involved in travel were possible barriers for about half of the patients (48%) and healthy but at risk respondents (53%). The respondents value receiving feedback on the study findings (≧80%) and being informed of their individual disease progression (≧75%). Particularly, keeping participation confidential was very important for the healthy but at risk group (62%). In regard to research assessments, most participants demonstrated a high interest in physical and neurological exams at a research center (≧87%) whereas only half were interested in doing more invasive procedures such as the lumbar puncture (≧52%). Overall, respondents showed a positive attitude and support for research participation (≧77%) and trusted that their health information would remain confidential in a clinical trial (≧53%).ConclusionsFavorable attitudes and interest towards medical research exist among participants. To optimize participation, clinical trials should allocate funding for travel and involve participants in feedback about study results and their disease progression. Alternatives to invasive assessments may increase participation.

AbstractBackgroundIsolated REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (iRBD) patients are known to be at high risk for developing an overt synucleinopathy – particularly Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Reduced nigrostriatal uptake on 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT reflects dopamine deficiency, which is common in the overt synucleinopathies. We sought to assess how 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT imaging in iRBD changes longitudinally and whether an abnormal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scan precedes and predicts future transition to an overt synucleinopathy.MethodParticipants with polysomnography‐confirmed iRBD from the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center database +/‐ North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS) Consortium who had two or more longitudinal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans and been followed prospectively for at least 24 months were included in this analysis. Striatonigral dopamine transporter uptake was evaluated semi‐quantitatively with 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT using DaTQUANT software (GE Healthcare) to calculate z‐scores of putamen uptake.ResultThirty‐five iRBD participants (86% male) were evaluated prospectively (mean 62.5 ± 19.4 months) and underwent two or more 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans at a minimum of 12 months intervals. Thirteen participants (37%) developed an overt synucleinopathy (11 DLB and 2 PD; phenoconverters) and 22 participants (63%) remained as iRBD (stable iRBD). Phenoconverters were older (mean 70.8 ± 7.0 vs 63.4 ± 6.0 years old) and had more negative DaTQUANT putamen z‐scores (mean ‐1.68 ± 1.42 vs ‐0.33 ± 1.52) than stable iRBD participants at baseline. Among phenoconverters, nine participants (69%) had one or more 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans with DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 prior to phenoconversion, and mean time from initial DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 to phenoconversion was 36.8 ± 28.7 months. In stable RBD participants, eight participants (36%) showed a decline in DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of >1 between the most recent and the baseline scan, and four participants (18%) presented DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 at the most recent scan.ConclusionThese findings suggest that a decline in putamen uptake on 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT in iRBD serves as a predictor and a surrogate biomarker for progression of iRBD to an overt synucleinopathy.

AbstractBackgroundClinical trials are underway to treat familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (f‐FTLD). This is a rare disease, and a limited number of mutation carriers have been identified; thus, efficient trial design is critical. Multimodal, latent disease progression models (DPM) can estimate time to symptom onset and define the temporal ordering of biomarker changes. DPMs can also be leveraged to select endpoints and potentially supplement analyses by integrating historical data. Recent draft FDA guidance for gene therapy trials in neurological disease supports these novel approaches to clinical trials.MethodParticipants included 1,049 members of families affected by f‐FTLD, due to mutations in GRN, MAPT, or C9orf72 genes, who were enrolled in ALLFTD or GENFI. A Bayesian repeated measures model incorporated multimodal data to estimate disease progression, conditional on latent disease age (proximity to symptom onset), in 677 mutations carriers (GRN (n=233), MAPT (n=151) and C9orf72 (n=293)). Family members without pathogenic mutations were used as the reference group. Mean follow‐up was 1.1 (SD=1.1) years. Jointly modeled longitudinal variables included neuropsychological scores, CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Box Score, MRI volumes of brain regions affected by f‐FTLD, and plasma levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL).ResultDisease progression curves were similar across ALLFTD and GENFI cohorts. Plasma NfL elevations occurred earliest, up to 10 years before symptom onset, and NfL was the most powerful endpoint in the asymptomatic stage. MRI abnormalities occurred next, closer to symptom onset. The earliest MRI changes relative to symptom onset were observed in C9orf72+. GRN mutation carriers showed the most rapid acceleration in all biomarkers, and this acceleration occurred in close proximity to symptom onset. Neuropsychological measures and CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Box Score were among the most promising endpoints in the symptomatic stage. Trial simulations indicated that using latent disease age as an enrollment criterion would allow some asymptomatic mutation carriers to be enrolled without sacrificing power.ConclusionSimilarity in disease progression across ALLFTD and GENFI participants suggests these models will apply to international trials. Model‐derived estimates of disease progression curves indicate that endpoint selection should be specific to disease stage and mutation, and DPMs would facilitate greater participant enrollment.

AbstractBackgroundNeurodegenerative disease (NDD) is associated with sleep disturbances, including decreased stage N3 and REM sleep and reduced spindle activity. Further, supine sleep position may impact NDD risk by altering glymphatic clearance. This study evaluated conventional and exploratory sleep metrics in the differentiation of subjects with normal cognition (NC) and patients with Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD) and alpha‐synucleinopathies (α‐Syn).MethodHome sleep data were acquired across multiple study sites using the self‐applied Sleep ProfilerTM, including 44 NC subjects (age=69+5.0), 22 patients diagnosed with AD (age=75+7.1) and 25 with α‐Syn (Parkinson’s disease=14, Parkinson’s disease with Dementia or Dementia with Lewy Bodies=11; age=69+6.9). Recordings were auto‐staged and technically reviewed, with 86% of the records having two‐night averages. Logistic regression and Mann‐Whitney U tests were used to characterize group differences based on age, conventional sleep metrics (i.e., sleep efficiency, sleep onset (SO), awakenings, percent of sleep time (%) in REM,N1, N2 and N3, and sleep spindles) and exploratory sleep measures [i.e., % supine, % Light N2 (L2=N2 epochs absent of spindles with K‐complexes and/or alpha or EMG (>40 Hz) intrusion), % NREM sleep with hypertonia (NRSH=>4 consecutive epochs with persistently elevated EMG power relative to delta and theta power) and % atypical N3 (AN3=epochs staged N3 with low theta and sigma power relative to delta, alpha, beta and EMG)].ResultAD were older than both NC and α‐Syn patients (p<0.005). Both AD and α‐Syn had lower %REM and greater %supine than NC (p<0.005), and %NRSH was greater in α‐Syn than NC or AD (p<0.005). Based on logistic regression, AD was differentiated from NC based on age, %REM, %L2 (p<0.05) and %supine (p=0.06). α‐Syn was distinguished from NC using both conventional (%N3 and SO, p<0.05) and exploratory sleep metric (%AN3 and %NRSH, p<0.05; %supine, p=0.06). Age (p=0.05) and %NRSH (p<0.01) were the only metrics that differentiated α‐Syn from AD.ConclusionObjective home sleep profiles hold promise for differentiating NDD patients from NC. The sleep metrics that provided the greatest distinction between NDD and NC were %REM, %supine and NRSH, while only NRSH distinguished AD from α‐Syn patients. Further confirmatory studies are underway.

AbstractBackgroundResting state electroencephalography (rsEEG) is a neurophysiologic Alzheimer disease (AD) and alpha‐synucleinopathy (dementia with Lewy body (DLB) and Parkinson disease (PDD)) biomarker [1]–[5]. Background slowing (increased low frequency power, dominant rhythm (DR) slowing) is frequent in AD and DLB, more so in DLB. We sought to identify distinguishing rsEEG signatures between DLB and AD.MethodParticipants included dementia patients [AD (n=26), DLB (n=12), PD (PDD; n=5)] and controls (HC; n=56). 20‐channel rsEEG was collected in eyes‐closed/eyes‐open conditions (5‐min each). Power spectral densities and coherences were measured using established methods [6]. Individual rsEEG power (delta, 1‐3 Hz; theta, 3‐7 Hz; alpha, 8‐13 Hz), theta/alpha ratio (TAR), dominant rhythm (DR), and DR frequency domain prominence were measured and averaged across groups, and effect sizes were determined and compared using Hedges g.ResultAD, DLB, and PDD groups exhibited increased low frequency (delta‐theta, 1‐5 Hz) power and TAR compared to controls (p<4x10‐4), with higher effect sizes in the DLB and PDD groups compared to AD. DR frequency was also decreased in all patient groups (DLB>PDD>AD) compared to controls (p=3x10‐9, p=3x10‐5, p=4x10‐4).AD alpha power and DR frequency domain prominence were reduced compared to controls and PDD/DLB groups (p<0.003). Both AD patients and controls had comparable posterior power distribution predominance of DR, while DLB power of DR was more anteriorly distributed. Compared to controls, delta coherence was higher in AD, but lower in DLB. Delta power was positively correlated with cognitive fluctuation (CAF) in DLB (r(8)=+0.67, p=0.03), while negatively correlated with MMSE in AD (r(24)=‐0.64, p=10‐5).ConclusionDLB and AD had both common and distinct rsEEG signatures. Both had DR slowing and background slowing that was more severe in DLB than AD. Distinctive DLB findings included reduced posterior DR spatial dominance and decreased delta coherence. Conversely, distinct AD features were increased delta coherence, decreased alpha power, and decreased DR frequency prominence. Finally, the DLB and PDD groups had a similar magnitude of DR slowing, consistent with posteriorly dominant functional impairment in synucleinopathy reflected by corresponding regional rsEEG slowing, although future longitudinal prospective sequential rsEEG analyses are necessary to confirm these findings.

AbstractBackgroundIn preparation for treatment trials in frontotemporal dementia (FTD), sensitive assessments to detect early clinical deficits and track longitudinal changes are needed. Remote digital data collection using smartphones may improve sensitivity to detect and follow abnormalities by allowing novel methods of data capture and more frequent assessments. Furthermore, remote evaluations can reduce patient and staff burden. Despite these benefits, little is known about the reliability and validity of self‐administered cognitive testing completed on smartphones.MethodWe investigated self‐administered smartphone cognitive tests from the ALLFTD Mobile App in a mixed sample of 45 participants, including 10 functionally intact older adults, 24 participants from families harboring pathogenic FTD mutations (asymptomatic n=14; mildly symptomatic n=10;), and 11 symptomatic FTD‐spectrum participants. A subset (n=15) was missing CDR®+NACC‐FTLD data but consensus diagnoses were available. Participants were asked to complete five tests that were repeated three times over eight days. Tests included versions of N‐back, Stroop, Flanker, and Go/No‐Go paradigms, and an adaptive spatial working memory test. Reliability was assessed using split‐half reliability (first testing session, 100 simulations) and intraclass correlations (ICC) across the three testing sessions. Linear models were fitted to evaluate the association of test performance with age and disease severity (CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Global and Box Scores), covarying for sex and education level. Models evaluating age associations excluded symptomatic participants.ResultParticipants completed 72.4% of available instruments. Split‐half reliability (range: 0.76 to 0.97) and ICCs (0.70 to 0.92) suggested adequate‐to‐excellent internal consistency and test‐retest reliability. Across the five tests, negative associations were observed with CDR®+NACC‐FTLD Box Scores (ßs = ‐0.24 to ‐0.77), and in clinically asymptomatic individuals, negative associations were observed with age (ßs = ‐0.43 to ‐0.88). Performance on all measures was worse in symptomatic participants compared to asymptomatic (p‐values<.05). Mildly symptomatic cases (CDR®+NACC‐FTLD=0.5) performed worse on Stroop, Flanker, and spatial working memory than asymptomatic participants (p‐values<.03). Flanker and Stroop tasks consistently showed the strongest reliability and validity findings.ConclusionSmartphone adaptations of common neuropsychological tests produced promising preliminary results. Strong associations with disease severity and age suggest these metrics may be valid for detecting clinically relevant cognitive changes, even in mildly symptomatic FTD.

AbstractBackgroundThe Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo clinic has followed patients with degenerative speech and/or language disorders for over a decade. In this presentation I will present data from this cohort to inform a broader discussion about the importance of apraxia of speech (AOS) and its subtypes, heterogeneity within the agrammatic PPA variant, and perils of mixed phenotypes.MethodWe reviewed the NRG database to identify patients who initially presented with isolated (PPAOS), AOS in conjunction with agrammatic aphasia (AOS‐PAA), isolated agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and patients who had PAA or AOS overlapping with another degenerative diagnosis. Data from the following clinical instruments were abstracted: WAB AQ (aphasia severity), UPDRS III (parkinsonism), WAB Praxis (ideomotor apraxia), and the MoCA (cognitive ability). We assessed the effect of baseline diagnosis and AOS subtype on these outcomes over time using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. We qualitatively reviewed longitudinal diagnostic trajectories. Preliminary analyses were done on available autopsy data.ResultPAA was associated with greater aphasia at baseline and more rapid decline; PPAOS was associated with normal language at baseline and slow decline; and PAA‐AOS with intermediate baseline aphasia and decline. However, for those with AOS longitudinal decline differed based on AOS subtype: prosodic PPAOS was associated with the slowest decline and phonetic PAA‐AOS with the fastest. Some patients met criteria for non‐PPA disorders during follow up. However, compared to patients who met criteria for these disorders at enrollment, the speech/language‐first patients remained qualitatively distinct, and neither resembled the cases that were mixed at onset. Preliminary autopsy data suggests that AOS is predictive of tau and that the specific tauopathy may be related to the initial syndrome and AOS subtype.ConclusionThe differences between PAA, PAA‐AOS and PPAOS suggest that these disorders should not be lumped. In fact, the longitudinal trajectories are sufficiently different that doing so would add noise to observational and interventional studies. Instead, more detailed phenotyping, including AOS subtype, can aid prognostication and may improve prediction of the underlying pathology. Finally, caution should be exercised when considering PPAOS and PPA patients for other FTLD diagnostic categories.

AbstractBackgroundClinicopathologic studies reported that the NACC Uniform Dataset (UDS) 2.0 core measures do not adequately differentiate patients who ultimately died of Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) from Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The FTLD Module (FTLD‐MOD) assesses core features of behavioral variant FTD (bvFTD) and primary progressive aphasia (PPA). Initial investigations suggest that the FTLD‐MOD improves discrimination between biomarker‐supported bvFTD and typical late‐onset AD, and that clinically diagnosed PPA participants performed worse than bvFTD on all FTLD‐MOD language tasks. However, the utility of these measures in the differential diagnosis of AD vs. major FTLD syndromes in young‐onset cases remains underexplored.MethodWe examined participants with age‐of‐onset < 65 years in the ARTFL‐LEFFTDS Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ALLFTD) consortium and the Longitudinal Early Onset AD Study (LEADS). 115 bvFTD, 53 semantic variant PPA (svPPA), 29 non‐fluent variant PPA (nfvPPA) and 124 early‐onset AD (eoAD) cases completed the UDS3 and FLTD‐MOD. Linear regression analyses measured group differences in FLTD‐MOD raw scores and UDS3 neuropsychological z‐scores after accounting for group differences in demographic variables and global severity ratings. Alpha was 0.05 with Bonferroni corrections.ResultsParticipants with eoAD demonstrated the most impaired scores on tasks of attention, working memory, and processing speed, including Digit Span Backward (z=‐1.87) and Trails A (z=‐3.82). They also demonstrated difficulty on FTLD‐MOD language tasks with a working memory requirement (sentence repetition raw=3.68/5) and, as expected, memory (story delayed recall z=‐2.4z). svPPA performed the worst on FTLD‐MOD and UDS3 tasks assessing semantic memory, especially naming (all p’s ≤ 0.03). nfvPPA performed worst on sentence reading, sentence repetition, and letter fluency (all p’s ≤ 0.02). Consistent with previous work, these measures differentiate between bvFTD and PPA variants. However, relative to eoAD, bvFTD was equivalent (Trails B: bvFTDz=‐3.8, eoADz=‐3.82; p=0.12) or outperformed (sentence repetition: bvFTD=4.22/5, eoAD=3.68/5; p<0.001) the eoAD group on all tasks.ConclusionsWe undertook this analysis to compare performance of the major young‐onset sporadic AD and FTLD clinical syndromes in the ALLFTD and LEADS studies. Results demonstrate relatively distinct cognitive profiles among eoAD, svPPA, and nfvPPA, but not in bvFTD. Future analyses will include FTLD‐MOD behavioral symptom questionnaires to assess their utility in differentiating bvFTD.