Jack, Clifford R.

ObjectiveThe new criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD) proposed 3 stages: abnormal levels of β‐amyloid (stage 1), stage 1 plus evidence of brain injury (stage 2), and stage 2 plus subtle cognitive changes (stage 3). However, a large group of subjects with normal β‐amyloid biomarkers have evidence of brain injury; we labeled them as the “suspected non‐Alzheimer pathophysiology” (sNAP) group. The characteristics of the sNAP group are poorly understood.MethodsUsing the preclinical AD classification, 430 cognitively normal subjects from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who underwent brain magnetic resonance (MR), 18fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), and Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) were evaluated for FDG PET regional volumetrics, MR regional brain volumetrics, white matter hyperintensity volume, and number of infarcts. We examined cross‐sectional associations across AD preclinical stages, those with all biomarkers normal, and the sNAP group.ResultsThe sNAP group had a lower proportion (14%) with apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype than the preclinical AD stages 2 + 3. The sNAP group did not show any group differences compared to stages 2 + 3 of the preclinical AD group on measures of FDG PET regional hypometabolism, MR regional brain volume loss, cerebrovascular imaging lesions, vascular risk factors, imaging changes associated with α‐synucleinopathy, or physical findings of parkinsonism.InterpretationCognitively normal persons with brain injury biomarker abnormalities, with or without abnormal levels of β‐amyloid, were indistinguishable on a variety of imaging markers, clinical features, and risk factors. The initial appearance of brain injury biomarkers that occurs in cognitively normal persons with preclinical AD may not depend on β‐amyloidosis. ANN NEUROL 2013;73:472–480

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) three‐dimensional T1‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisitions provide a rich data set for developing and testing analysis techniques for extracting structural endpoints. To promote greater rigor in analysis and meaningful comparison of different algorithms, the ADNI MRI Core has created standardized analysis sets of data comprising scans that met minimum quality control requirements. We encourage researchers to test and report their techniques against these data. Standard analysis sets of volumetric scans from ADNI‐1 have been created, comprising screening visits, 1‐year completers (subjects who all have screening, 6‐ and 12‐month scans), 2‐year annual completers (screening, 1‐year and 2‐year scans), 2‐year completers (screening, 6‐months, 1‐year, 18‐months [mild cognitive impaired (MCI) only], and 2‐year scans), and complete visits (screening, 6‐month, 1‐year, 18‐month [MCI only], 2‐year, and 3‐year [normal and MCI only] scans). As the ADNI‐GO/ADNI‐2 data become available, updated standard analysis sets will be posted regularly.

AbstractBackgroundThere is epidemiological evidence that cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) also are risk factors for Alzheimer's disease, but there is limited information on this from neuropathological studies, and even less from in vivo studies. Therefore, we examined the relationship between CVRF and amyloid‐β (Aβ) brain burden measured by Pittsburgh Compound B‐positron emission tomography (PiB‐PET) studies in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.MethodsNinety‐nine subjects from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort who had a PiB‐PET study measure, apolipoprotein E genotyping data, and information available on CVRF (body mass index [BMI], systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure [DBP], and cholesterol and fasting glucose test results) were included. Eighty‐one subjects also had plasma cortisol, C‐reactive protein, and superoxide dismutase 1 measurements. Stepwise regression models were used to assess the relation between the CVRF and the composite PiB‐PET score.ResultsThe first model included the following as baseline variables: age, clinical diagnosis, number of apolipoprotein ε4 alleles, BMI (P = .023), and DBP (P = .012). BMI showed an inverse relation with PiB‐PET score, and DBP had a positive relation with PiB‐PET score. In the second adjusted model, cortisol plasma levels were also associated with PiB‐PET score (P = .004). Systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, or impaired fasting glucose were not found to be associated with PiB‐PET values.ConclusionIn this cross‐sectional study, we found an association between Aβ brain burden measured in vivo and DBP and cortisol, indicating a possible link between these CVRF and Aβ burden measured by PiB‐PET. These findings highlight the utility of biomarkers to explore potential pathways linking diverse Alzheimer's disease risk factors.

Background and purposePrimary progressive apraxia of speech, a motor speech disorder of planning and programming, is a tauopathy that has overlapping histological features with progressive supranuclear palsy. We aimed to compare, for the first time, atrophy patterns, as well as white matter tract degeneration, between these two syndromes.MethodsSixteen primary progressive apraxia of speech subjects were age‐ and gender‐matched to 16 progressive supranuclear palsy subjects and 20 controls. All subjects were prospectively recruited, underwent neurological and speech evaluations and 3.0‐Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Grey and white matter atrophy was assessed using voxel‐based morphometry and atlas‐based parcellation, and white matter tract degeneration was assessed using diffusion tensor imaging.ResultsAll progressive supranuclear palsy subjects had typical oculomotor/gait impairments, but none had speech apraxia. Both syndromes showed grey matter loss in supplementary motor area, white matter loss in posterior frontal lobes and degeneration of the body of the corpus callosum. Whilst lateral grey matter loss was focal, involving superior premotor cortex, in primary progressive apraxia of speech, loss was less focal extending into prefrontal cortex in progressive supranuclear palsy. Caudate volume loss and tract degeneration of superior cerebellar peduncles were also observed in progressive supranuclear palsy. Interestingly, area of the midbrain was reduced in both syndromes compared to controls, although this was greater in progressive supranuclear palsy.ConclusionsAlthough neuroanatomical differences were identified between these distinctive clinical syndromes, substantial overlap was also observed, including midbrain atrophy, suggesting these two syndromes may have common pathophysiological underpinnings.

Background and purposeThe European Federation of the Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines on the use of neuroimaging in the diagnosis and management of dementia are designed to revise and expand previous EFNS recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to provide an overview of the evidence for the use of neuroimaging techniques in non‐AD dementias, as well as general recommendations that apply to all types of dementia in clinical practice.MethodsThe task force working group reviewed evidence from original research articles, meta‐analyses and systematic reviews, published before April 2012. The evidence was classified, and consensus recommendations were given and graded according to the EFNS guidance regulations.ResultsStructural imaging, which should be performed at least once in the diagnostic work‐up of patients with cognitive impairment, serves to exclude other potentially treatable diseases, to recognize vascular lesions and to identify specific findings to help distinguish different forms of neurodegenerative types of dementia. Although typical cases of dementia may not benefit from routine functional imaging, these tools are recommended in those cases where diagnosis remains in doubt after clinical and structural imaging work‐up and in particular clinical settings. Amyloid imaging is likely to find clinical utility in several fields, including the stratification of patients with mild cognitive impairment into those with and without underlying AD and the evaluation of atypical AD presentations.ConclusionsA number of recommendations and good practice points are made to improve the diagnosis of AD and other dementias.