Rabinovici, Gil D.

AbstractBackgroundLarge‐scale studies comparing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age<65) and late‐onset AD (LOAD, age = 65) are lacking. We compared amyloid‐PET outcomes (positivity rate and amyloid burden) between patients clinically diagnosed with sporadic EOAD vs LOAD, leveraging data from the Longitudinal Early‐Onset AD Study (LEADS) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3 (ADNI3).Method731 patients meeting the 2011 NIA‐AA criteria for AD dementia or MCI were included (505 early‐onset from LEADS, 226 late‐onset from ADNI3, Table 1). All participants underwent amyloid‐PET with [18F]Florbetaben or [18F]Florbetapir. Amyloid positivity was centrally determined by a process involving a visual read by a trained expert and PET‐only quantification; in case of a discrepancy, a read from an independent physician acted as a tiebreaker. Logistic regressions in each cohort examined relations between amyloid positivity and age, sex, MMSE and APOE4 genotype. Amyloid burden was independently quantified in Centiloids using an MRI‐based pipeline. Mean Centiloids in LEADS and ADNI were compared with two‐way ANOVA, for visually positive and visually negative scans.ResultAmyloid positivity rate was higher in LEADS (76%) than ADNI (64%, p<0.001, Figure 1A). Lower MMSE and APOE4 genotype increased odds of amyloid positivity in both cohorts, although the APOE4 effect was stronger in ADNI than LEADS (OR = 10.1 versus 2.4, p = 0.007, Table 2). Amyloid positivity was more common in females across cohorts, but this effect was only statistically significant in LEADS (Table 2). Centiloids were bimodally distributed in both cohorts, although the separation between positive and negative scans was more prominent in LEADS (Figure 1B). Visually positive scans had significantly higher Centiloids in LEADS than in ADNI, whereas no cohort difference was observed for visually negative scans (Figure 1C). Sensitivity analyses showed that this effect was driven by patients with MCI (CDR = 0.5; Figure 1D‐E).ConclusionThe lower amyloid positivity rate in ADNI might be due to AD‐mimicking pathologies being more common at an older age. The higher amyloid burden in early‐onset, amyloid‐positive patients could reflect younger patients being diagnosed later in the disease course compared to typical, late‐onset patients. Alternatively, younger patients might tolerate higher neuropathology burden due to higher brain reserve or fewer co‐pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundDiagnosing sporadic early‐onset AD (EOAD, age‐at‐onset<65) is challenging: in the multi‐center Longitudinal Early‐onset Alzheimer’s Disease Study, ∼25% of patients with clinically diagnosed EOAD are amyloid‐PET‐negative. Here we used FDG‐PET to characterize the heterogeneity of hypometabolic profiles in these patients and better identify underlying etiologies.MethodSeventy‐four amyloid‐PET‐negative patients with clinical diagnosis of sporadic EOAD (MCI or mild dementia stage) underwent FDG‐PET. Patients were classified as having normal or hypometabolic FDG‐PET based on a data‐driven approach that compared each patient to a group of 61 age‐matched amyloid‐PET‐negative controls using 12 methodological combinations (3 reference regions, 2 voxel‐level thresholds, 2 outlier detection methods). We then assessed clinical and demographic differences between patients with normal versus hypometabolic FDG‐PET, and further compared groups using independent biomarkers of neurodegeneration (structural MRI and fluid biomarkers). Finally, we applied hierarchical clustering to hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans to identify patterns of hypometabolism.ResultThirty‐six amyloid‐negative patients (49%) had hypometabolic FDG‐PET scans. They were older and more severely impaired across most cognitive domains than patients with normal FDG‐PET (Table 1). They also had reduced hippocampal volumes and cortical thickness (Figure 1A), higher plasma and CSF neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels, and elevated plasma GFAP compared to patients with normal FDG‐PET (Figure 1B). In contrast, the latter, who had intermediate cognitive scores between hypometabolic patients and controls, had MRI and fluid biomarker levels in the range of controls (Figure 1). In hypometabolic patients, hierarchical clustering identified four profiles: i) anterior temporal extending to temporo‐parietal and frontal regions (n = 5), ii) anterior temporal and orbitofrontal (n = 11), iii) occipito‐parietal (n = 6), and iv) lateral frontal and parietal (n = 14) (Figure 2). Genetic testing identified two patients with Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD)‐associated pathogenic variants, both considered hypometabolic and assigned to the first (MAPT) and second (c9orf72) metabolic profiles.ConclusionFifty‐one percent of amyloid‐negative patients had normal FDG‐PET: they had milder clinical impairment, normal MRI measures, and normal NfL values, suggesting non‐neurodegenerative etiologies. Patients with abnormal FDG showed heterogeneous hypometabolic patterns suggestive of multiple etiologies including Lewy body disease, FTLD or corticobasal degeneration. Longitudinal follow‐up to autopsy will ultimately clarify the amyloid‐negative clinical mimics of sporadic EOAD.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging convened a multidisciplinary workgroup to update appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. METHODS The workgroup identified key research questions that guided a systematic literature review on clinical amyloid/tau PET. Building on this review, the workgroup developed 17 clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be considered. A modified Delphi approach was used to rate each scenario by consensus as “rarely appropriate,” “uncertain,” or “appropriate.” Ratings were performed separately for amyloid and tau PET as stand‐alone modalities. RESULTS For amyloid PET, seven scenarios were rated as appropriate, two as uncertain, and eight as rarely appropriate. For tau PET, five scenarios were rated as appropriate, six as uncertain, and six as rarely appropriate. DISCUSSION AUC for amyloid and tau PET provide expert recommendations for clinical use of these technologies in the evolving landscape of diagnostics and therapeutics for Alzheimer's disease. Highlights A multidisciplinary workgroup convened by the Alzheimer's Association and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging updated the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and to develop AUC for tau PET. The goal of these updated AUC is to assist clinicians in identifying clinical scenarios in which amyloid or tau PET may be useful for guiding the diagnosis and management of patients who have, or are at risk for, cognitive decline These updated AUC are intended for dementia specialists who spend a significant proportion of their clinical effort caring for patients with cognitive complaints, as well as serve as a general reference for a broader audience interested in implementation of amyloid and tau PET in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundThe Uniform Data Set (UDS) neuropsychological battery, administered across Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADC), includes memory tests but lacks a list‐learning paradigm. ADCs often supplement the UDS with their own preferred list‐learning task. Given the importance of list‐learning for characterizing memory, we aimed to develop a harmonized memory score that incorporates UDS memory tests while allowing centers to contribute differing list‐learning tasks.MethodWe applied item‐banking confirmatory factor analysis to develop a composite memory score in 5,287 participants (mean age 67.1; SD = 12.2) recruited through 18 ADCs and four consortia (DiverseVCID, MarkVCID, ALLFTD, LEADS) who completed UDS memory tasks (used as linking‐items) and one of five list‐learning tasks. All analyses used linear regression. We tested whether memory scores were affected by which list‐learning task was administered. To assess construct validity, we tested associations of memory scores with demographics, disease severity (CDR Box Score), an independent memory task (TabCAT Favorites, n = 675), and hippocampal volume (n = 811). We compared performances between cognitively unimpaired (n = 279), AD‐biomarker+ MCI (n = 26), and AD‐biomarker+ dementia (n = 98). In a subsample with amyloid‐ and tau‐PET (n = 49), we compared memory scores from participants with positive vs negative scans determined using established quantitative cutoffs.ResultModel fit indices were excellent (e.g., CFI = 0.998) and factor loadings were strong (0.43‐0.93). Differences in list‐learning task had a negligible effect on scores (average Cohen’s d = 0.11). Higher memory scores were significantly (p’s<.001) correlated with younger age (β = ‐0.18), lower CDR Box Scores (β = ‐0.63), female sex (β = 0.12), higher education (β = 0.19), larger hippocampal volume (β = 0.42), and an independent memory task (β = 0.71, p<0.001). The memory composite declined in a stepwise fashion by diagnosis (cognitively unimpaired>MCI>AD dementia, p<0.001). On average, amyloid‐PET positivity was associated with lower composite scores, but was not statistically significant (β = ‐0.34; p = 0.25; d = 0.40). Tau‐PET positivity was associated with worse performance, demonstrating a large effect size (β = ‐0.75; p<0.002; d = 0.91).ConclusionThe harmonized memory score developed in a large national sample was stable regardless of contributing list‐learning task and its validity for cross‐cohort ADRD research is supported by expected associations with demographics, clinical measures, and Alzheimer’s biomarkers. A processing script will be made available to enhance cross‐cohort ADRD research.

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.

AbstractThe tauopathies are defined by pathological tau protein aggregates within a spectrum of clinically heterogeneous neurodegenerative diseases. The primary tauopathies meet the definition of rare diseases in the United States. There is no approved treatment for primary tauopathies. In this context, designing the most efficient development programs to translate promising targets and treatments from preclinical studies to early‐phase clinical trials is vital. In September 2022, the Rainwater Charitable Foundation convened an international expert workshop focused on the translation of tauopathy therapeutics through early‐phase trials. Our report on the workshop recommends a framework for principled drug development and a companion lexicon to facilitate communication focusing on reproducibility and achieving common elements. Topics include the selection of targets, drugs, biomarkers, participants, and study designs. The maturation of pharmacodynamic biomarkers to demonstrate target engagement and surrogate disease biomarkers is a crucial unmet need.Highlights Experts provided a framework to translate therapeutics (discovery to clinical trials). Experts focused on the “5 Rights” (target, drug, biomarker, participants, trial). Current research on frontotemporal degeneration, progressive supranuclear palsy, and corticobasal syndrome therapeutics includes 32 trials (37% on biologics) Tau therapeutics are being tested in Alzheimer's disease; primary tauopathies have a large unmet need.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Tau‐positron emission tomography (PET) outcome data of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) cannot currently be meaningfully compared or combined when different tracers are used due to differences in tracer properties, instrumentation, and methods of analysis. METHODS Using head‐to‐head data from five cohorts with tau PET radiotracers designed to target tau deposition in AD, we tested a joint propagation model (JPM) to harmonize quantification (units termed “CenTauR” [CTR]). JPM is a statistical model that simultaneously models the relationships between head‐to‐head and anchor point data. JPM was compared to a linear regression approach analogous to the one used in the amyloid PET Centiloid scale. RESULTS A strong linear relationship was observed between CTR values across brain regions. Using the JPM approach, CTR estimates were similar to, but more accurate than, those derived using the linear regression approach. DISCUSSION Preliminary findings using the JPM support the development and adoption of a universal scale for tau‐PET quantification. Highlights Tested a novel joint propagation model (JPM) to harmonize quantification of tau PET. Units of common scale are termed “CenTauRs”. Tested a Centiloid‐like linear regression approach. Using five cohorts with head‐to‐head tau PET, JPM outperformed linearregressionbased approach. Strong linear relationship was observed between CenTauRs values across brain regions.

Abstract Approximately 5% of Alzheimer’s disease patients develop symptoms before age 65 (early-onset Alzheimer’s disease), with either sporadic (sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease) or dominantly inherited (dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease) presentations. Both sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease are characterized by brain amyloid-β accumulation, tau tangles, hypometabolism and neurodegeneration, but differences in topography and magnitude of these pathological changes are not fully elucidated. In this study, we directly compared patterns of amyloid-β plaque deposition and glucose hypometabolism in sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease and dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease individuals. Our analysis included 134 symptomatic sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease amyloid-Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-positive cases from the University of California, San Francisco, Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center (mean ± SD age 59.7 ± 5.6 years), 89 symptomatic dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease cases (age 45.8 ± 9.3 years) and 102 cognitively unimpaired non-mutation carriers from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network study (age 44.9 ± 9.2). Each group underwent clinical and cognitive examinations, 11C-labelled Pittsburgh Compound B-PET and structural MRI. 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose-PET was also available for most participants. Positron Emission Tomography scans from both studies were uniformly processed to obtain a standardized uptake value ratio (PIB50–70 cerebellar grey reference and FDG30–60 pons reference) images. Statistical analyses included pairwise global and voxelwise group comparisons and group-independent component analyses. Analyses were performed also adjusting for covariates including age, sex, Mini-Mental State Examination, apolipoprotein ε4 status and average composite cortical of standardized uptake value ratio. Compared with dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease, sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease participants were older at age of onset (mean ± SD, 54.8 ± 8.2 versus 41.9 ± 8.2, Cohen’s d = 1.91), with more years of education (16.4 ± 2.8 versus 13.5 ± 3.2, d = 1) and more likely to be apolipoprotein ε4 carriers (54.6% ε4 versus 28.1%, Cramer’s V = 0.26), but similar Mini-Mental State Examination (20.6 ± 6.1 versus 21.2 ± 7.4, d = 0.08). Sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease had higher global cortical Pittsburgh Compound B-PET binding (mean ± SD standardized uptake value ratio, 1.92 ± 0.29 versus 1.58 ± 0.44, d = 0.96) and greater global cortical 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET hypometabolism (mean ± SD standardized uptake value ratio, 1.32 ± 0.1 versus 1.39 ± 0.19, d = 0.48) compared with dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. Fully adjusted comparisons demonstrated relatively higher Pittsburgh Compound B-PET standardized uptake value ratio in the medial occipital, thalami, basal ganglia and medial/dorsal frontal regions in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease versus sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease showed relatively greater 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET hypometabolism in Alzheimer’s disease signature temporoparietal regions and caudate nuclei, whereas dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease showed relatively greater hypometabolism in frontal white matter and pericentral regions. Independent component analyses largely replicated these findings by highlighting common and unique Pittsburgh Compound B-PET and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET binding patterns. In summary, our findings suggest both common and distinct patterns of amyloid and glucose hypometabolism in sporadic and dominantly inherited early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.

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.