Fagan, Anne M.

AbstractBackgroundFrontotemporal dementia spectrum disorders (FTD) display complex neuropathological substrates and poor clinicopathological correlations, which hinders therapy development. Plasma P‐tau217 is an emerging tool to screen for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology and may have diagnostic value in FTD.MethodPlasma P‐tau217 was measured cross‐sectionally by electrochemiluminescence in FTD patients referred to ALLFTD from ARTFL (n = 628, 45.7% female, median age 66 ± 12 years). P‐tau217 differences by baseline phenotype, disease severity and genotype were determined with non‐parametric tests and general linear models. Associations between P‐tau217 and measures of disease severity and neuropsychological performance were determined with linear regressions corrected for age, sex, phenotype and APOE.ResultThe sample included 33% behavioral variant FTD, 23.6% primary progressive aphasia (PPA), 28.5% atypical parkinsonism, 1.6% amnestic dementia (AmDem), 2.8% FTD/motoneuron disease, 3% mild cognitive/behavioral impairment and 7.5% healthy controls. Only 1.6% carried FTD‐causing mutations. P‐tau217 was not related to age (r = 0.034, 95%CI ‐0.03 – 0.12, p = 0.4). Compared to controls (0.18 ± 0.07 pg/mL), P‐tau217 was elevated only in AmDem (0.58 ± 0.9 pg/mL, p = 0.001) and logopenic PPA (lvPPA, 0.71 ± 0.62 pg/mL p < 0.001). P‐tau217 ≥ 0.42 pg/mL effectively discriminated AmDem and lvPPA from all other phenotypes (AUC 0.87, 95%CI 0.77 – 0.96, p = 0.001, 77% sensitivity, 92% specificity). AmDem (60%) and lvPPA (91.7%) had the highest prevalence of high (≥ 0.42 pg/mL) P‐tau217, and the highest prevalence of APOE4 (AmDem 40%, lvPPA 63.6%). APOE4 carriers (0.23 ± 0.22 pg/mL) had higher P‐tau217, than non‐carriers (0.19 ± 0.09 pg/mL), regardless of phenotype (APOE effect p = .002, APOE x phenotype, p = 0.44). P‐tau217 was associated with worse clinical severity, mood, memory and executive function, but not with worse motor symptoms or social cognition.ConclusionWhen FTD is suspected, high plasma P‐tau217 is strongly associated with amnestic dementia and logopenic PPA phenotypes. Pending completion of ongoing neuropathological, CSF and molecular neuroimaging analyses, the data support the use of plasma P‐tau217 to identify atypical AD as a cause or AD as a co‐pathology contributing to FTD clinical presentation.

AbstractBackgroundBlood neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a robust predictor of phenoconversion in familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (fFTLD). The comparative value of CSF NfL and other CSF markers of degeneration in fFTLD remains unexplored.MethodFLTD‐causing mutation carriers were recruited through ALLFTD (n = 113, 56.6% female, mean age 48.1 ± 13 years; 29 C9orf72, 16 GRN, 34 MAPT, 34 mutation non‐carriers) and prospectively evaluated for 3 years. Baseline CSF was analyzed for NfL, phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain (p‐NfH), tau, phosphorylated tau181 (p‐tau) and neurogranin using fit‐for‐purpose immunoassays. Mixed effect linear models, with random slopes, corrected for age, sex, genotype and total intracranial volume related CSF biomarkers to longitudinal clinical variables.ResultNfL (β = 0.64, p < 0.001), p‐NfH (β = 0.68, p < 0.001) and tau (β = 0.46, p < 0.001) correlated with age. There were no differences in biomarker concentrations by phenotype or severity, except for higher NfL and p‐NfH in full phenotype, compared to prodromal disease and asymptomatic carriers. Low neurogranin (β = ‐0.39, p < 0.001), low p‐tau (β = ‐0.33, p < 0.001) and high NfL (β = 0.42, p < 0.001) correlated with worse baseline disease severity measured by the CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument plus behavior and language domains from the National Alzheimer’s Disease Coordinating Center FTLD module sum of boxes (CDR®+NACC‐FTLDsb), and with other measures of global cognition, instrumental and daily function, and frontal and temporal brain volumes. Regardless of genotype, the predicted annualized rate of CDR®+NACC‐FTLDsb score worsenings per higher baseline CSF biomarker Log pg/mL were tau: 3.0 ± 0.2, NfL: 2.8 ± 0.2 and p‐NfH: 2.8 ± 0.2. High tau, NfL and p‐NfH also predicted worsening in other measures of global cognition and instrumental and daily function. Neurogranin and p‐tau did not predict clinical decline.ConclusionCSF tau, p‐tau, neurogranin, NfL and p‐NfH reflect important aspects of disease severity in fFTLD. In contrast to Alzheimer’s disease, low p‐tau and neurogranin are inversely related to clinical severity, which suggests a distinctive pathophysiological process and has implications for therapeutic development. CSF NfL, p‐NfH and tau have strong prognostic value in fFTLD.

AbstractBackgroundThough pathogenic variations in PSEN1 leading to Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) are all highly penetrant, there is substantial inter‐individual variability in the rates of cognitive decline and biomarker change observed in ADAD. We hypothesized that this inter‐individual variability may be associated with the location of the pathogenic variant within PSEN1. We tested this hypothesis using biomarker and cognitive data from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study.MethodPSEN1 pathogenic variant carriers [grouped based on whether their ADAD genotype affected transmembrane (PSEN1 TM; N = 125) or cytoplasmic (PSEN1 CY; N = 62) domains] and non‐carriers [NC; N = 176] enrolled in DIAN underwent clinical evaluation, multimodal neuroimaging, and lumbar puncture for collection of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Linear mixed effects models with a restricted cubic spline were used to determine cross‐sectional differences in clinical and biomarker measures between NC, PSEN1 TM, and PSEN1 CY groups, across the disease course (estimated years to symptom onset; EYO).ResultBackground characteristics are reported in Table 1. PSEN1 CY and PSEN1 TM groups had elevated β‐amyloid (PiB‐PET) and phosphorylated‐tau levels (CSF pTauT181) compared to NC, but these biomarker measures were not different between PSEN1 TM and CY groups (Figure 1a‐b). Additionally, the PSEN1 TM group had decreased glucose metabolism compared to NC but was similar to the PSEN1 CY group (Figure 1c). However, we observed that PSEN1 TM carriers had significantly smaller hippocampal volume, greater lateral ventricle volume, and greater cognitive impairment (Figure 1d‐f) across EYO as compared to PSEN1 CY carriers.ConclusionDespite similar β‐amyloid PET and CSF pTauT181 levels across EYO, individuals with pathogenic variants affecting transmembrane domains in PSEN1 may have more rapid progression of disease as measured by cognitive function and neurodegeneration as compared to those with variants affecting cytoplasmic domains. These results have implications both for understanding the heterogeneity in ongoing ADAD clinical trials and for better understanding the pathobiology of ADAD.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundRecent advances in the development of novel Alzheimer’s disease (AD) measures of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood have enabled a better understanding of the links between amyloid‐beta (Aβ), tau species and neurodegeneration in the brain, CSF, and blood. The discoveries of novel tau species in CSF and blood, including specific phospho‐tau (p‐tau) and truncated species containing the microtubule binding region of tau (MTBR‐tau) which aggregates in tau tangles, have greatly expanded our understanding of tau biology and tau target development. The longitudinal Aβ, tau, and neurofilament light chain (NfL) changes previously measured in CSF are now being measured accurately in blood, enabling interpretation and understanding of AD progression in much larger and more robust populations.MethodWe analyzed longitudinal CSF and/or blood plasma mass spectrometry measures of Aβ42/Aβ40, multiple p‐tau species (including p‐tau217, 231, 181, 205, etc.), total tau, MTBR‐tau (e.g., MTBR‐tau243, MTBR‐tau299, and MTBR‐tau354), and NfL in sporadic AD and dominantly inherited AD cohorts. Mass spectrometry results were compared to amyloid and tau aggregation measures by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans and clinical and cognitive measures in local and international clinical cohorts including ADNI, AIBL, BioFINDER, Mayo Clinic, the Knight ADRC, and the DIAN.ResultThe longitudinal results indicate that a pathophysiological cascade of events begin with altered CSF and blood plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, followed by increases in amyloid plaques as measured by amyloid PET, associated with increased phosphorylation of specific CSF tau species (e.g., p‐tau217, p‐tau181, etc.), before increases in p‐tau205, NfL, total tau concentrations, hypometabolism, and atrophy. Finally, some species of MTBR‐tau increase before or with tau aggregation by tau PET and onset of clinical symptoms and correlate with longitudinal tau aggregation and clinical progression.ConclusionThese findings indicate that CSF and blood plasma Aβ, p‐tau, MTBR‐tau and NfL measures are highly precise biomarkers of brain amyloidosis, tauopathy, and neurodegeneration and can accurately identify stages of preclinical and clinical AD.

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.

AbstractAs prevention trials advance with autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) participants, understanding the similarities and differences between ADAD and “sporadic” late‐onset AD (LOAD) is critical to determine generalizability of findings between these cohorts. Cognitive trajectories of ADAD mutation carriers (MCs) and autopsy‐confirmed LOAD individuals were compared to address this question. Longitudinal rates of change on cognitive measures were compared in ADAD MCs (n = 310) and autopsy‐confirmed LOAD participants (n = 163) before and after symptom onset (estimated/observed). LOAD participants declined more rapidly in the presymptomatic (preclinical) period and performed more poorly at symptom onset than ADAD participants on a cognitive composite. After symptom onset, however, the younger ADAD MCs declined more rapidly. The similar but not identical cognitive trajectories (declining but at different rates) for ADAD and LOAD suggest common AD pathologies but with some differences.

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.