Citations

Abstract Objective To evaluate the safety and outcomes of cochlear implantation (CI) in patients with ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunts to inform clinical practice. Study Design Historical cohort study. Setting Tertiary referral centers. Methods A multi‐institutional historical cohort of patients with VP shunts and CI was identified and analyzed. Results A total of 46 patients (median age 8 years [interquratile range, IQR: 2‐46]) with VP shunts and CI were identified. Of these, 41 (89%) patients had a VP shunt prior to CI. Based on institutional preference and individual patient factors, CI was performed contralateral to a pre‐existing VP shunt in 24 of these 41 cases (59%) and ipsilateral in 17 (41%). Furthermore, pre‐CI relocation of the VP shunt was performed in 3 cases (7%), and 2 patients (5%) underwent planned revision of their VP shunt concurrent with CI. In total, 2 of 27 pediatric patients (7%) required unanticipated revision shunt surgery, both contralateral to CI device placement, given VP shunt malfunction. One of 19 adult patients (5%) required shunt revision during CI due to shunt damage noted intraoperatively. Among 43 patients with available follow‐up, 38 (88%) are regular CI users, with a median consonant‐nucleus vowel‐consonant word: score of 58% (IQR: 28‐72). Conclusion CI can be performed at low risk, either contralateral or ipsilateral, to a VP shunt, and does not mandate shunt revision in most cases. Additional considerations regarding CI receiver‐stimulator placement are necessary with programmable shunts to mitigate device interaction. Preoperative planning, including coordination of care with neurosurgery, is important to achieving optimal outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.

ObjectiveTo characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States.Study DesignMulti‐institutional retrospective case series.SettingTertiary referral CI centers.MethodsPatients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients’ residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas.ResultsOver the 6‐year study period (2015‐2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21‐110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P <. 001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P <. 001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200‐mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100‐mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P <. 001, r2 = 0.2).ConclusionsWhile large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200‐mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.

Abstract Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRDs) are a global crisis facing the aging population and society as a whole. With the numbers of people with ADRDs predicted to rise dramatically across the world, the scientific community can no longer neglect the need for research focusing on ADRDs among underrepresented ethnoracial diverse groups. The Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART; alz.org/ISTAART ) comprises a number of professional interest areas (PIAs), each focusing on a major scientific area associated with ADRDs. We leverage the expertise of the existing international cadre of ISTAART scientists and experts to synthesize a cross‐PIA white paper that provides both a concise “state‐of‐the‐science” report of ethnoracial factors across PIA foci and updated recommendations to address immediate needs to advance ADRD science across ethnoracial populations.

Abstract Introduction Genetic loci for Alzheimer's disease (AD) have been identified in whites of European ancestry, but the genetic architecture of AD among other populations is less understood. Methods We conducted a transethnic genome‐wide association study (GWAS) for late‐onset AD in Stage 1 sample including whites of European Ancestry, African‐Americans, Japanese, and Israeli‐Arabs assembled by the Alzheimer's Disease Genetics Consortium. Suggestive results from Stage 1 from novel loci were followed up using summarized results in the International Genomics Alzheimer's Project GWAS dataset. Results Genome‐wide significant (GWS) associations in single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)–based tests ( P < 5 × 10 −8 ) were identified for SNPs in PFDN1/HBEGF , USP6NL/ECHDC3 , and BZRAP1‐AS1 and for the interaction of the (apolipoprotein E) APOE ε4 allele with NFIC SNP. We also obtained GWS evidence ( P < 2.7 × 10 −6 ) for gene‐based association in the total sample with a novel locus, TPBG ( P = 1.8 × 10 −6 ). Discussion Our findings highlight the value of transethnic studies for identifying novel AD susceptibility loci.