Citations

AbstractBackgroundPreviously, we found that female sex is associated with greater pathology burden in early‐onset Alzheimer’s disease (EOAD) in the Longitudinal EOAD Study (LEADS). Here, we have expanded our analyses by adding APOE‐ε4 carrier status as a further predictor of EOAD pathologic burden.MethodWe included 180 EOAD LEADS participants with available APOE genotype, Flortaucipir PET, Florbetaben PET, and MRI data. Demographic and biomarker differences were analyzed using ANOVA. EOAD participants were split by sex and APOE‐ε4 carrier status. Box plots were created in R and a voxel‐wise multiple linear regression in SPM12 yielded statistical brain maps of gray matter density (GMD), amyloid and tau burden.ResultCompared to males, EOAD females showed significantly greater global amyloid uptake (mean SUVR, p=0.002) and greater tau SUVR in the MetaROI, Braak 3&4 and 5&6 regions (p=0.0007, p=0.001, p=0.01, resp., Table 1). Female APOE‐ε4 carriers showed greater tau SUVR in Braak regions 1&2 than female non‐carriers (p<0.01, Figure 2B). Male APOE‐ε4 carriers showed trend‐level thinner entorhinal cortex than male non‐carriers (p=0.06, Figure 1). Interestingly however, femaleAPOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed greater global amyloid SUVR than female carriers (p<0.01, Figure 2A). Further, APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed significantly thinner medial temporal cortices than carriers in both sexes (M, p<0.05; F, p<0.01). Male APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers also showed significantly lower mean cortical thickness than male carriers (p<0.05, Figure 1). Female APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed trend‐level lower mean cortical thickness than female carriers (p=0.06, Figure 1). The FWE corrected SPM12 maps showed significantly greater GM atrophy in the right temporal lobe and greater amyloid burden in a right lateralized occipitoparietal pattern in female APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers compared to female carriers. Further, male APOE‐ε4 non‐carriers showed greater tau uptake in the left frontal lobe than male carriers (Figure 3).ConclusionThese results suggest that APOE‐ε4 non‐carrier status is associated with greater atrophy, amyloid and tau deposition in EOAD. This might be due to the presence of other strong genetic drivers of disease pathology in EOAD.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe ability to detect malformed prion proteins using real‐time quaking‐induced conversion (RT‐QuIC) assays has transformed the diagnostic approach to sporadic Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (CJD), facilitating earlier recognition of affected patients. Recognizing this, we evaluated the frequency of clinical features and biomarker results at initial evaluation in patients with CJD and determined the relationship between these early features and CJD diagnosis and prognosis.MethodClinical data were extracted from the electronic medical records of patients with probable or definite (pathologically confirmed) CJD assessed at Mayo Clinic from 2014‐2021. Diagnoses of probable CJD were established by clinical consensus, referencing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention diagnostic criteria. Clinical features and biomarkers results were evaluated at presentation, and associations with CJD diagnosis and symptomatic disease duration determined.ResultOne‐hundred fifteen patients were included (40, [35%] with definite CJD). Mean age‐at‐symptom onset was 64.8±9.4 years; 68 patients were female (59%). The sensitivity of clinical markers (myoclonus) and tests historically considered in patients with suspected CJD (e.g., stereotyped EEG abnormalities (16%), CSF 14‐3‐3 (60%)) was poor. Biomarkers with good diagnostic sensitivity included RT‐QuIC (93%), t‐tau levels >1149 pg/mL (88%), and characteristic signal abnormalities on MRI (77%). Multivariable linear regression confirmed shorter survival for patients with myoclonus (125.9 days, 95%CI 23.3‐15.5, p=0.026), visual/cerebellar signs (180.19 days, 95%CI 282.2‐78.2, p<0.001), positive 14‐3‐3 (193 days, 95%CI 304.9‐82.9; p<0.001), and elevated t‐tau levels (each 1000 pg/ml increase was associated with a nine‐day shorter time‐to‐death, 95%CI 1‐18; p=0.041).ConclusionCSF RT‐QuIC and elevated t‐tau levels, and stereotyped MRI abnormalities continue to be strongly associated with the diagnosis in the modern era, while other clinical findings (myoclonus) and biomarkers results traditionally ascribed to CJD (e.g., PSWC on EEG, 14‐3‐3) offered less value in the diagnostic evaluation. Detection of visual or cerebellar features, myoclonus, CSF 14‐3‐3, and t‐tau levels may predict disease duration, justifying inclusion in the evaluation of CJD‐suspected patients.

AbstractBackgroundReduced striatal uptake on ioflupane SPECT is considered an indicative biomarker for Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB), and has been proposed as an indicative biomarker for Mild Cognitive Impairment with Lewy Bodies (MCI‐LB). Little data exists on the profile of uptake on key striatal regions of interest (ROIs) in DLB or MCI‐LB.MethodParticipants with DLB or MCI‐LB at baseline based on the presence of ≥2 core clinical DLB features, and ≥2 ioflupane SPECT scans performed approximately annually, were identified from the Mayo ADRC database. Minimum brain laterality z‐score values for the putamen (whole, anterior and posterior), caudate and striatum were determined using DaTQUANT 2 software. Baseline clinical and scan data was used for all analyses, and the annualized minimum putamen z‐change was determined on serial scans. The scan was considered abnormal if the minimum putamen z‐score was <‐0.98 based on clinicopathologic data.Result27 participants were included (21 DLB and 6 MCI‐LB, 96% male). Compared to MCI‐LB, DLB had a lower mean MoCA score and a trend toward a higher UPDRS score compared to MCI‐LB; there were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, onset age or duration of cognitive decline, or presence of other core DLB features. The majority (89%) had an abnormal scan at baseline. All ROI z‐scores showed the expected general trend of DLB<MCI‐LB, and the annualized z‐change was more negative in DLB, but none of the findings reached statistical significance.ConclusionThese findings suggest in MCI‐LB and DLB that 1) an abnormal ioflupane SPECT scan is frequently present at diagnosis, 2) z‐scores become more negative over time, and 3) the annualized z‐change is similar. Similar findings in larger cohorts would support the use of ioflupane SPECT as a biomarker in both MCI‐LB and DLB clinical trials.

AbstractBackgroundOverlap in the presenting clinical features and test results in patients with rapidly progressive dementia (RPD) confounds the etiologic diagnoses of RPD, contributing to diagnostic delays, missed treatment opportunities, and poorer outcomes. There is a need to improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with RPD, with particular emphasis on identifying patients with potentially treatment‐responsive causes of RPD early in the symptomatic course.MethodPatients with RPD were prospectively enrolled and evaluated in inpatient settings and outpatient subspecialty (memory) clinics at Washington University (Saint Louis, MO; 2016–2019) and Mayo Clinic (Jacksonville, FL; 2020–2021). Etiologic diagnoses were independently assigned by two dementia specialists integrating clinical features and the results of widely accessible diagnostic testing and referencing established diagnostic criteria. Diagnostic disagreements were resolved via blinded review by a third specialist. Clinicopathologic correlation was evaluated using neuropathological and genetic data when available.Result160 patients with RPD were assessed, with average age‐at‐symptom onset 60.0±15.9 years; 50% were female. Diagnostic inter‐rater reliability (91% agreement; Cohen’s κ = 0.88, p<0.001) and clinicopathologic correlation were excellent (100% agreement in 24 patients with neuropathologic or genetic data). Autoimmune encephalitis was the leading cause of RPD (39%), followed by Alzheimer disease and related dementias (29%—i.e., frontotemporal dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular cognitive impairment), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (15%), and other causes (15%—e.g., neurosarcoid, metabolic disruptions, neoplastic disease). The average age of patients with potentially treatable causes (AE and selected “other” causes; 54.4±18.2) was younger than those with neurodegenerative dementing illnesses (67.3±9.5) or CJD (67.4±7.9; p<0.001). Patients with potentially treatable causes were more likely to present with altered level of consciousness and seizures (p<0.05). CSF pleocytosis (>5 WBC/hpf) was more common in AE patients (p<0.05).ConclusionEtiologic diagnoses can be reliably established in RPD patients using available clinical data. Treatment‐responsive causes of RPD are common warranting consideration, particularly in younger patients with altered consciousness, seizures, and CSF pleocytosis.

AbstractBackgroundMost series exploring the causes of rapidly progressive dementia (RPD) rely on clinical diagnoses, with limited pathological confirmation. This approach may underestimate the contributions of Alzheimer disease and related dementias to RPD, recognizing challenges associated with extrapolating clinical phenotypes to neuropathological diagnoses. A clearer understanding of the neuropathological causes of RPD is needed to inform the diagnosis and treatment of patients. To meet this need, we determined the neuropathological causes of RPD within the Mayo Clinic neurodegenerative brain bank.MethodPatients with disease duration <4.0 years (symptom‐onset to death due to dementia) were identified within the Mayo Clinic neurodegenerative brain bank (1998‐2020). Available clinical records were reviewed, and details extracted including demographics, family history, dominant symptoms/signs at onset, and common comorbidities (depression, psychoses, sleep disturbance). Neuropathological diagnoses were assigned following standard protocols.Result310/8586 (3.6%) cases met RPD criteria. Relative to typically progressive cases, prion disease most commonly presented as RPD (74%, 32/43), followed by progressive supranuclear palsy/corticobasal degeneration (PSP/CBD: 7.5%, 142/1894), other frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD: 5.7%, 32/561), Lewy body disease (LBD: 4.1%, 49/1202), and Alzheimer disease (AD: 1.8%, 48/2687). Average age‐at‐symptom onset was 69.5±10.4 years. Patients with rapidly progressive AD were older than others (p<0.01), except LBD. Patients with FTLD were younger than others (p<0.05), except prion disease. Average disease duration was 2.9±1.0 years: prion diseases had the most rapid disease course (1.6±1.3 years). Comorbid cerebrovascular disease (25.5%), and clinically symptomatic depression (41.3%), psychoses (37.1%) and sleep disturbances (39.4%) were common across groups. Only psychosis was associated with shorter disease duration (β=‐0.31 years, CI95% [‐0.53, ‐0.082]; controlling for age‐at‐symptom onset).ConclusionRapidly progressive neurodegenerative diseases accounted for 3.6% of cases in this neurodegenerative brain bank. Although prion disease commonly presented as RPD, atypical presentations of more prevalent neurodegenerative diseases accounted for most cases. Atypical (rapidly progressive) variants of typical neurodegenerative diseases warrant consideration in clinical practice.

AbstractBackgroundMore than 300 variants in the presenilin 1 (PSEN1), presenilin 2 (PSEN2), or amyloid precursor protein (APP) genes have been reported to cause Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Disease (DIAD). However, most of these reports come from non‐Hispanic whites and the full extent of DIAD remains understudied in Latin American (LatAm) countries. Here we describe five AD affected families from LatAm carrying novel DIAD variants.MethodsFive novel variants in the presenilin1 (PSEN1) gene were identified in Brazilian (p.Val103_Ser104delinsGly, p.Lys395Ile, p.Pro264Se and p.Ala275Thr) and Mexican families (p.Ile414Thr). To assign the likelihood of pathogenicity among these variants of unknown significance, we report pedigree information, frequency in control populations, in silico predictions, and cell‐based models.ResultThe mean age at onset in newly identified families was 43.5 years (range 36‐54). The novel variants were absent from gnomAD genome and exome databases. Two PSEN1 variants (p.Val103_Ser104delinsGly and p.Lys395Ile) showed segregation with the disease status; segregation studies were not possible in the other three families. Additionally, PSEN1 p.Val103_Ser104delinsGly, p.Lys395Ile, p.Pro264Se, p.Ala275Thr produced Aβ profiles consistent with known AD pathogenic mutations (i.e. increased extracellular Aβ42/40); thus, we consider them as likely pathogenic. PSEN1 p.Ile414Thr did not alter Aβ in a manner consistent with a known pathogenic mutation; therefore, PSEN1 p.Ile414Thr likely represents an AD risk factor or benign polymorphism.ConclusionOur study provides further insights into the genetics of AD in LatAm by identifying novel DIAD pathogenic variants in Brazil and Mexico, two countries with distinct genetic admixtures. Expanding the families eligible to participate in observational and clinical trials of DIAD enhances the generalizability of diagnosis and treatment approaches.

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.

An estimated 6.1 million Americans live with cognitive impairment—a number that is expected to triple by 2050. Alzheimer disease (AD) is the most common cause of impairment. The development of blood-based biomarkers capable of detecting pathological changes of AD in living patients has the potential to revolutionize the diagnostic approach to cognitive impairment by enabling screening for AD using accessible, non-invasive measures of amyloid and tau neuropathology, with accuracy that increasingly approaches that seen with “gold standard” positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid measures. Demand for biomarker testing is expected to intensify with the emergence of effective treatments for AD and related dementias. Clinicians in all fields must prepare to meet this demand. Primary care practitioners are well positioned to support dementia diagnosis and management, including the application and interpretation of biomarkers. This article reviews the current uses of AD biomarkers and the potential applications of emerging blood-based AD biomarkers in clinical practice.