Onyike, Chiadi U.

Abstract Limbic predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is highly prevalent in late life and a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC). LATE‐NC is a slowly progressive, amnestic clinical syndrome. Alternatively, when present with ADNC, LATE‐NC is associated with a more rapid course. With the emergence of anti‐amyloid therapeutics, discrimination of LATE‐NC from ADNC is critical and will lead to greater clinical recognition of amnestic patients without ADNC. Furthermore, co‐pathology with LATE‐NC may influence outcomes of these therapeutics. Thus there is a need to identify patients during life with likely LATE‐NC. We propose criteria for clinical diagnosis of LATE as an initial framework for further validation. In the context of progressive memory loss and substantial hippocampal atrophy, criteria are laid out for probable (amyloid negative) or possible LATE (amyloid biomarkers are unavailable or when amyloid is present, but hippocampal neurodegeneration is out of proportion to expected pure ADNC). Highlights Limbic‐predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy (LATE) is a highly prevalent driver of neuropathologic memory loss in late life. LATE neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) and may influence outcomes with emerging disease‐modifying medicines. We provide initial clinical criteria for diagnosing LATE during life either when LATE‐NC is the likely primary driver of symptoms or when observed in conjunction with AD. Definitions of possible and probable LATE are provided.

AbstractBackgroundAs new anti‐amyloid immunotherapies emerge for Alzheimer’s disease (AD), it is clear that early diagnosis of AD pathology is crucial for treatment success. This can be challenging in atypical presentations of AD and, together with our reliance on CSF or PET scans, can, at times, lead to delayed diagnosis. Here, we further explore the possible role of plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (P‐tau217) for the detection of primary AD or AD co‐pathology when frontotemporal dementia spectrum disorders are the main clinical presentation.MethodParticipants were recruited through ALLFTD, a North American multisite research consortium for the longitudinal assessment of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. After excluding cases with known FTD‐causing mutations, 573 participants with sporadic disease, mild cognitive/behavioral impairment, or healthy familial controls evaluated between 2014 and 2023 were included in this analysis (45.8% female, median age 66 years). 39 of those cases underwent neuropathological evaluation. Plasma P‐tau217 was measured with the Eli Lilly electrochemiluminescence‐based assay. P‐tau217 concentrations were compared by phenotype, disease severity, genotype, and, when available, neuropathological diagnosis with non‐parametric tests. Its diagnostic performance was tested with ROC curves. Associations between plasma P‐tau217 concentrations and clinical scales of global cognition, memory, executive function, motor function, and social cognition with linear regressions and non‐parametric tests.ResultPlasma P‐tau217 concentrations were higher in logopenic variant primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA) and amnestic dementia (AmDem), compared to participants with normal cognition or other FTD phenotypes. P‐tau217 concentrations were higher in APOE e4 carriers, compared to non‐carriers, regardless of phenotype, but were not affected by disease severity. P‐tau217 concentrations showed associations with clinical measures of global cognition, memory, and executive function, but had no associations with measures of motor function or social cognition. Plasma P‐tau217 concentrations were elevated in high and intermediate ADNC scoring, or more advanced Braak stages, even when AD was not the primary pathology.ConclusionEven when FTD is suspected, high plasma p‐tau 217 concentrations are strongly associated with underlying AD as primary pathology or contributing co‐pathology. Plasma P‐tau217 could be a tool to support the development of disease‐modifying therapies for atypical Alzheimer’s disease presentations or for FTD cases with Alzheimer’s disease co‐pathology.

AbstractBackgroundAutosomal dominant progranulin (GRN) mutations are a common genetic cause of frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Though clinical trials for GRN‐related therapies are underway, there is an unmet need for biomarkers that can predict symptom onset and track disease progression. We previously showed that presymptomatic GRN carriers exhibit thalamocortical hyperconnectivity that increases with age when they are presumably closer to symptom onset. However, whether hyperconnectivity arises concomitantly with markers of neurodegeneration remains unclear.MethodUtilizing T1 and task‐free functional magnetic resonance imaging (tf‐fMRI) from 49 presymptomatic and 26 symptomatic GRN mutation carriers, we determined the relationships between functional connectivity as measured by voxel‐wise whole brain degree and GRN‐relevant markers of disease progression, which included plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) concentrations, CSF complement C1q and C3b protein levels, grey matter atrophy, and OCD symptom severity.ResultNfL concentrations were associated with frontotemporoparietal and thalamic hyperconnectivity in presymptomatic GRN carriers and extensive regions of atrophy in symptomatic carriers. Complement levels were associated with regions of hyperconnectivity, but not gray matter, in symptomatic carriers. Presymptomatic carriers with thalamic hyperconnectivity tended to have lower grey matter volume in bilateral insula and left lateral parietal cortex, which are among regions that deteriorate in GRN‐FTD. OCD symptom severity was associated with hypoconnectivity across all GRN carriers.ConclusionIn presymptomatic carriers, the co‐occurrence of hyperconnectivity, high NfL, and low gray matter suggests that tf‐fMRI hyperconnectivity may portend the onset of the neurodegenerative phase. These findings point toward hyperconnectivity as an indicator of approaching symptomatic onset.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. Through a modified‐Delphi approach and guideline‐development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations, appropriate for any practice setting, forming core elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes specialist recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or a related dementia (ADRD) are two decades old. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. An expert workgroup conducted a review of 7374 publications (133 met inclusion criteria) and developed recommendations as steps in an evaluation process. This summary briefly reviews core recommendations and details specialist recommendations of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use the recommendations in this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings. Highlights US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. This summary focuses on recommendations appropriate for specialty practice settings, forming key elements of a high‐quality, evidence‐supported evaluation process aimed at characterizing, diagnosing, and disclosing the patient's cognitive functional status, cognitive–behavioral syndrome, and likely underlying brain disease so that optimal care plans to maximize patient/care partner dyad quality of life can be developed; a companion article summarizes primary care recommendations. If clinicians use this guideline and health‐care systems provide adequate resources, outcomes should improve in most patients in most practice settings.

Abstract US clinical practice guidelines for the diagnostic evaluation of cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's Disease (AD) or AD and related dementias (ADRD) are decades old and aimed at specialists. This evidence‐based guideline was developed to empower all—including primary care—clinicians to implement a structured approach for evaluating a patient with symptoms that may represent clinical AD/ADRD. As part of the modified Delphi approach and guideline development process (7374 publications were reviewed; 133 met inclusion criteria) an expert workgroup developed recommendations as steps in a patient‐centered evaluation process. The workgroup provided a summary of validated instruments to measure symptoms in daily life (including cognition, mood and behavior, and daily function) and to test for signs of cognitive impairment in the office. This article distills this information to provide a resource to support clinicians in the implementation of this approach in clinical practice. The companion articles provide context for primary care and specialty clinicians with regard to how to fit these instruments into the workflow and actions to take when integration of performance on these instruments with clinical profile and clinician judgment support potential cognitive impairment.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Psychotropic medication (PM) use in behavioral‐variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is higher than in other dementias. However, no information exists on whether PM use differs between sporadic and genetic bvFTD. METHODS We analyzed data from sporadic and genetic bvFTD participants with PM prescriptions in the Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration/Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects study. We estimated ordinal odds ratio (OOR) of having more PM comparing sporadic and genetic bvFTD. Finally, we explored the neuropsychiatric symptom (NPS) combinations using classification and regression trees (CART). RESULTS We included 263 with sporadic and 193 with genetic bvFTD. The OOR for sporadic bvFTD to be on PM was 1.75 (95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 2.53) for the fully adjusted model. CART revealed the most common NPS combination was apathy + personality changes in 18% of participants. DISCUSSION Participants with sporadic bvFTD were twice as likely to be on PM compared to genetic bvFTD. The reason for increased PM usage in sporadic bvFTD participants should be further investigated. Highlights We report on patients with behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD). We evaluated the psychotropic medication (PM) prescription at baseline in the cohort. Patients with sporadic bvFTD had more prescriptions for PM than genetic patients. The frequency of symptoms combination was different in sporadic and genetic bvFTD.

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.