Citations

AbstractBackgroundWe developed the Institute on Methods and Protocols for Advancement of Clinical Trials in ADRD (IMPACT‐AD) to address the shortage of qualified investigators with adequate training and expertise to conduct Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) and AD Related Dementias (ADRD) clinical trials.MethodWe describe the experience of the first two years of funding of the IMPACT‐AD course, specifically the rates of applications to the course, descriptive summaries of the accepted trainees, and the measures of participant satisfaction and learning.ResultOver the first two years of the course, we received 195 eligible applications to the course. Most (n = 121, 62%) applicants were female and nearly half self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and/or Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. Forty‐one applicants (21%) indicated that they were the first in their family to attend collegeOf 69 total trainees accepted to the course (36% acceptance rate), a majority (n = 44, 64%) were female. Twenty‐eight (41%) self‐reported as being African American/Black, Asian, or Pacific Islander race and eleven (16%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. Fourteen trainees (20%) identified as being the first person in their family to attend college. Among trainees, 24 (35%) were MDs, 30 (43%) were PhDs, and 9 (13%) held master’s degrees.Course lecture topics were rated, on average, as “essential” or “valuable” by 98% of trainees. Across lecture topics, on average, 48% of trainees rated their prior knowledge of topics as “very strong” or “strong,” and 11% of trainees rated their prior knowledge as “weak.” Overall, 52% of trainees evaluated their change in knowledge based on the lectures as “very much increased,” 46% as “somewhat” or “slightly” increased, and 2% as “no change.” Results were similar for the two tracks. Based on pre‐ and post‐course assessments, trainees improved their knowledge of covered content (from 62% to 79% correct responses on knowledge assessments).ConclusionThe IMPACT‐AD course is achieving its mission of educating and diversifying the next generation of ADRD trialists.We thank Dr. Laurie Ryan and Dr. Kristina McLinden from the National Institute on Aging for their key contributions in leadership and scientific guidance of IMPACT‐AD.

AbstractThe poor generalizability of clinical research data due to the enrollment of highly educated, non‐Latinx White participants hampers the development of therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Black and Latinx older adults have a greater risk for dementia, yet it is unclear how health‐care disparities and sociocultural factors influence potential AD therapies and prognosis. Low enrollment of under‐represented populations may be attributable to several factors including greater exclusion due to higher rates of comorbidities, lower access to AD clinics, and the legacy of unethical treatment in medical research. This perspective outlines solutions tested in the Brain Health Registry (BHR) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), including culturally‐informed digital research methods, community‐engaged research strategies, leadership from under‐represented communities, and the reduction of exclusion criteria based on comorbidities. Our successes demonstrate that it is possible to increase the inclusion and engagement of under‐represented populations into US‐based clinical studies, thereby increasing the generalizability of their results.

AbstractIntroductionAn analysis of the ethnocultural and socioeconomic composition of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants is needed to assess the generalizability of ADNI data to diverse populations.MethodsADNI data collected between October 2004 and November 2020 were used to determine ethnocultural and educational composition of the sample and differences in the following metrics: screening, screen fails, enrollment, biomarkers.ResultsOf 3739 screened individuals, 11% identified as being from ethnoculturally underrepresented populations (e.g., Black, Latinx) and 16% had <12 years of education. Of 2286 enrolled participants, 11% identified as ethnoculturally underrepresented individuals and 15% had <12 years of education. This participation is considerably lower than US Census data for adults 60+ (ethnoculturally underrepresented populations: 25%; <12 years of education: 4%). Individuals with <12 years of education failed screening at a higher rate.DiscussionOur findings suggest that ADNI results may not be entirely generalizable to ethnoculturally diverse and low education populations.

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Association hosted the second Latinos & Alzheimer's Symposium in May 2021. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the meeting was held online over 2 days, with virtual presentations, discussions, mentoring sessions, and posters. The Latino population in the United States is projected to have the steepest increase in Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the next 40 years, compared to other ethnic groups. Latinos have increased risk for AD and other dementias, limited access to quality care, and are severely underrepresented in AD and dementia research and clinical trials. The symposium highlighted developments in AD research with Latino populations, including advances in AD biomarkers, and novel cognitive assessments for Spanish‐speaking populations, as well as the need to effectively recruit and retain Latinos in clinical research, and how best to deliver health‐care services and to aid caregivers of Latinos living with AD.

AbstractBackgroundAn analysis of the ethnoracial and educational composition of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants, and the relationship between ethnoracial/education and screening, enrollment, dropout, and biomarkers is needed to assess the generalizability of ADNI data to diverse populations, and to inform efforts to increase diversity.MethodData from all 4 ADNI phases were used to determine ethnoracial and educational breakdown and differences of the following ADNI participation metrics: screening, screen fails, enrollment, as well as drop‐out within and between ADNI phases. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze the association between ethnoracial and educational group and either amyloid positivity or ApoE e4 status, adjusting for age, gender, and diagnostic group.ResultAcross the 4 ADNI phases (screened: n=3,739; enrolled: n=2,286), 11% of screened and enrolled participants identified as Latinx, non‐Latinx Black, or non‐Latinx‐Asian and 16% of the screened and 15% of the enrolled participants reported having =<12 years of education. In contrast, the 2019 US Census American Community Survey for adults 60+ reports 25% non‐White, and 44 % =< 12 years of education. There were no observed differences between participants from historically underrepresented ethnoracial groups and NLW participants in screen fail and dropout rates. We found that individuals with =<12 years of education failed screening at a significantly higher rate (p=.01) and rolled‐over significantly less to subsequent ADNI phases (p<.001) compared to individuals with an education >12 years. Identifying as non‐Latinx Asian was associated with lower odds of being amyloid positive (OR=0.36; p=.014) and an ApoE4 carrier (OR=0.36; p=.008) compared to NLW. Identifying as Latinx was associated with being less likely to be amyloid positive than NLW participants (OR=0.54; p=.031).ConclusionCompared to the US Census, ADNI underrepresents enrollment of Latinx, non‐Latinx Black, and non‐Latinx Asian participants and those with low educational attainment. Hence, ADNI reflects the on‐going challenges with recruiting and enrolling underrepresented populations into most AD research. Our findings highlight the need for ADNI to increase enrollment and engagement of underrepresented ethnoracial and educational populations. ADNI is actively undertaking steps to implement improved recruitment approaches aimed at increasing ethnoracial and socioeconomical representation in multi‐center cohort studies.

Introduction: "Mild" stroke is not well defined, but is a relative contraindication for the administration of IV rtPA. Advances in telemedicine have allowed for specialized practitioners to observe the examination, rather than rely on the on-scene examiner. We investigated whether there were differences in rates of identification, treatment, and outcomes of mild stroke patients in the phone compared to the video arms of a telestroke network. Methods: The STRokE DOC trials were prospective, randomized, outcome-blinded trials comparing video telemedicine to phone-only evaluations, which assessed eligibility for IV rtPA and correctness of decision-making for 2 hubs and 6 spokes. This analysis included all adult acute ischemic stroke patients from the STRokE DOC trials who were defined as “mild” using a recent definition from the TREAT Task Force. Rates of ICH, mortality, and dichotomized 90-day mRS scores were compared between the video and phone arms. Results: Mild stroke accounted for 32% and 29% of the video and phone arms, respectively. The two groups had similar baseline characteristics except hypertension (higher rate in video arm). Of the video mild stroke patients, 13% had poor outcome (mRS>1) compared to 24% of the phone arm (p=0.45). There were no symptomatic ICH or deaths. Among IV rtPA treated mild stroke patients, all of the video arm had good outcome, versus 25% of the phone arm. Of 100 non-treated patients, 34 were excluded because of "too mild" a deficit (TMT). In the phone arm, 7 of these did not meet the TREAT-derived criteria for mild stroke (p=0.03). One TMT patient in the phone arm had poor outcome. Conclusions: Mild stroke made up a third of the patients in each group. Some TMT patients in the phone arm did not meet the criteria for mild stroke; their subtle findings may not have been conveyed adequately over the phone. Among IV rtPA treated patients, the phone arm had worse outcomes. The results raise concern regarding accuracy of predicting outcomes for mild stroke patients, especially when based on a phone description. The study numbers were small, so conclusions cannot be definitively made. Future studies are necessary to determine decision making factors within the telemedicine process that influence treatment outcomes among mild stroke patients.

Background: Cognitive impairment (CI) is a key feature of late life depression (LLD), but the contribution of underlying neurodegenerative pathology remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate cognitive dysfunction in LLD relative to a sample of nondepressed (ND) older adults with matched levels of memory impairment and amyloid-β (Aβ) burden. Methods: Participants included 120 LLD and 240 ND older adults matched on age, education, sex, Mini-Mental State Exam, mild cognitive impairment diagnosis, and PET Aβ burden. Results: LLD showed higher rates of impairment relative to ND with 54.6% of the LLD sample demonstrating impairment in at least one cognitive domain compared to 42.9% of controls ( H = 7.13, p = 0.008). LLD had poorer performance and higher rates of impairment on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test learning and memory compared to controls. In the overall sample, Aβ positivity was associated with worse performance on Logical Memory I ( p = 0.044), Logical Memory II ( p = 0.011), and Trail Making Test –B ( p = 0.032), and APOE ɛ4 genotype was associated with worse performance on Logical Memory I ( p = 0.022); these relationships did not differ between LLD and ND. Conclusion: LLD showed higher rates of CI driven by focal deficits in verbal learning and memory. Alzheimer’s disease (AD) biomarkers were associated with worse performance on timed set-shifting and story learning and memory, and these relationships were not impacted by depression status. These findings suggest that AD may account for a portion of previously reported multi-domain CI in LLD and highlight the potential for AD to confound studies of cognition in LLD.