Mendez, Mario F.

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 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.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONCardiovascular health is important for brain aging, yet its role in the clinical manifestation of autosomal dominant or atypical forms of dementia has not been fully elucidated. We examined relationships between Life's Simple 7 (LS7) and clinical trajectories in individuals with autosomal dominant frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD).METHODSTwo hundred forty‐seven adults carrying FTLD pathogenic genetic variants (53% asymptomatic) and 189 non‐carrier controls completed baseline LS7, and longitudinal neuroimaging and neuropsychological testing.RESULTSAmong variant carriers, higher baseline LS7 is associated with slower accumulation of frontal white matter hyperintensities (WMHs), as well as slower memory and language declines. Higher baseline LS7 associated with larger baseline frontotemporal volume, but not frontotemporal volume trajectories.DISCUSSIONBetter baseline cardiovascular health related to slower cognitive decline and accumulation of frontal WMHs in autosomal dominant FTLD. Optimizing cardiovascular health may be an important modifiable approach to bolster cognitive health and brain integrity in FTLD.Highlights Better cardiovascular health associates with slower cognitive decline in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Lifestyle relates to the accumulation of frontal white matter hyperintensities in FTLD. More optimal cardiovascular health associates with greater baseline frontotemporal lobe volume. Optimized cardiovascular health relates to more favorable outcomes in genetic dementia.

ImportanceFrontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is relatively rare, behavioral and motor symptoms increase travel burden, and standard neuropsychological tests are not sensitive to early-stage disease. Remote smartphone-based cognitive assessments could mitigate these barriers to trial recruitment and success, but no such tools are validated for FTLD.ObjectiveTo evaluate the reliability and validity of smartphone-based cognitive measures for remote FTLD evaluations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this cohort study conducted from January 10, 2019, to July 31, 2023, controls and participants with FTLD performed smartphone application (app)–based executive functioning tasks and an associative memory task 3 times over 2 weeks. Observational research participants were enrolled through 18 centers of a North American FTLD research consortium (ALLFTD) and were asked to complete the tests remotely using their own smartphones. Of 1163 eligible individuals (enrolled in parent studies), 360 were enrolled in the present study; 364 refused and 439 were excluded. Participants were divided into discovery (n = 258) and validation (n = 102) cohorts. Among 329 participants with data available on disease stage, 195 were asymptomatic or had preclinical FTLD (59.3%), 66 had prodromal FTLD (20.1%), and 68 had symptomatic FTLD (20.7%) with a range of clinical syndromes.ExposureParticipants completed standard in-clinic measures and remotely administered ALLFTD mobile app (app) smartphone tests.Main Outcomes and MeasuresInternal consistency, test-retest reliability, association of smartphone tests with criterion standard clinical measures, and diagnostic accuracy.ResultsIn the 360 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.4] years; 209 [58.1%] women), smartphone tests showed moderate-to-excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.77-0.95). Validity was supported by association of smartphones tests with disease severity (r range, 0.38-0.59), criterion-standard neuropsychological tests (r range, 0.40-0.66), and brain volume (standardized β range, 0.34-0.50). Smartphone tests accurately differentiated individuals with dementia from controls (area under the curve [AUC], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.90-0.96]) and were more sensitive to early symptoms (AUC, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76-0.88]) than the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (AUC, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.59-0.78]) (z of comparison, −2.49 [95% CI, −0.19 to −0.02]; P = .01). Reliability and validity findings were highly similar in the discovery and validation cohorts. Preclinical participants who carried pathogenic variants performed significantly worse than noncarrier family controls on 3 app tasks (eg, 2-back β = −0.49 [95% CI, −0.72 to −0.25]; P < .001) but not a composite of traditional neuropsychological measures (β = −0.14 [95% CI, −0.42 to 0.14]; P = .32).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cohort study suggest that smartphones could offer a feasible, reliable, valid, and scalable solution for remote evaluations of FTLD and may improve early detection. Smartphone assessments should be considered as a complementary approach to traditional in-person trial designs. Future research should validate these results in diverse populations and evaluate the utility of these tests for longitudinal monitoring.

Abstract The pathophysiological mechanisms driving disease progression of frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and corresponding biomarkers are not fully understood. We leveraged aptamer-based proteomics (> 4,000 proteins) to identify dysregulated communities of co-expressed cerebrospinal fluid proteins in 116 adults carrying autosomal dominant FTLD mutations (C9orf72, GRN, MAPT) compared to 39 noncarrier controls. Network analysis identified 31 protein co-expression modules. Proteomic signatures of genetic FTLD clinical severity included increased abundance of RNA splicing (particularly in C9orf72 and GRN) and extracellular matrix (particularly in MAPT) modules, as well as decreased abundance of synaptic/neuronal and autophagy modules. The generalizability of genetic FTLD proteomic signatures was tested and confirmed in independent cohorts of 1) sporadic progressive supranuclear palsy-Richardson syndrome and 2) frontotemporal dementia spectrum syndromes. Network-based proteomics hold promise for identifying replicable molecular pathways in adults living with FTLD. ‘Hub’ proteins driving co-expression of affected modules warrant further attention as candidate biomarkers and therapeutic targets.

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.

AbstractBackgroundApproximately 10‐25% of amnestic early‐onset dementia are negative for amyloid (Early‐onset non‐Alzheimer’s Disease, EOnonAD). EOnonAD is a heterogenous group with various etiologies. In order to better understand the traits of EOnonAD, we clustered amnestic EOnonAD individuals according to cognitive patterns.MethodCognitive data of 62 EOnonAD individuals from the Longitudinal Early‐onset AD study (LEADS) were Z‐normalized to 91 intact individuals after adjusting for age, sex, and education. This led to domain‐averaged composite Z‐scores for memory, language, speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function. Cluster analysis using the Ward method on the residuals for the five composites was performed. We used Scree plot using the pseudo T‐squared to determine the optimal number of clusters. We compared demographics, imaging biomarkers (amyloid and tau PET SUVR, hippocampal volume), plasma (pTau231, Aß40, Aß42, glial fibrillary acidic protein, and neurofilament light chain (NfL)), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (Aß42/40, NfL, Neurogranin, Visinin‐like protein, YKL‐40, and Synaptosome Associated Protein 25) across the clusters after adjusting for age, sex, and education. We compared gray matter density of each EOnonAD cluster to controls (n = 84) using voxel‐wise multiple linear regressions in SPM12, adjusting for age, sex, education, and intracranial volume.ResultScree plot using the pseudo‐T‐squared suggested three clusters. Cluster 1 (38/62, 61.3%) was characterized by having the mildest cognitive impairment in all domains. Cluster 2 (19/62, 30.6%) was characterized by more severe memory and language impairment. Cluster 3 (5/62, 8.1%) was characterized by more severe impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function (Table 1). Cluster 3 showed significantly higher NfL for both plasma (Cluster 1 vs 3, p<0.001; Cluster 2 vs 3, p < 0.004) and CSF (Cluster 1 vs 3, p = 0.001). Other biomarkers did not show significant difference (Table 1). Only Cluster 3 showed significant atrophy in the bilateral fronto‐parietal areas at p<0.01, uncorrected (Figure 1).ConclusionWe identified heterogeneity in cognitive patterns among amnestic EOnonAD individuals. Cluster 1 had mildest cognitive impairment; Cluster 2 had predominant impairment in memory and language; and Cluster 3 had predominant impairment in speed/attention, visuospatial, and executive function, with significant fronto‐parietal atrophy and high NfL indicating active neurodegeneration.