Stephanie J.B. Vos

Preclinical Alzheimer's disease and its outcome: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND New research criteria for preclinical Alzheimers disease have been proposed, which include stages for cognitively normal individuals with abnormal amyloid markers (stage 1), abnormal amyloid and neuronal injury markers (stage 2), or abnormal amyloid and neuronal injury markers and subtle cognitive changes (stage 3). We aimed to investigate the prevalence and long-term outcome of preclinical Alzheimers disease according to these criteria. METHODS Participants were cognitively normal (clinical dementia rating [CDR]=0) community-dwelling volunteers aged at least 65 years who were enrolled between 1998 and 2011 at the Washington University School of Medicine (MO, USA). CSF amyloid-β1-42 and tau concentrations and a memory composite score were used to classify participants as normal (both markers normal), preclinical Alzheimers disease stage 1-3, or suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology (SNAP, abnormal injury marker without abnormal amyloid marker). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each preclinical AD stage. Secondary outcomes included progression to CDR at least 0·5, symptomatic Alzheimers disease (score of at least 0·5 for memory and at least one other domain and cognitive impairments deemed to be due to Alzheimers disease), and mortality. We undertook survival analyses using subdistribution and standard Cox hazards models and linear mixed models. FINDINGS Of 311 participants, 129 (41%) were classed as normal, 47 (15%) as stage 1, 36 (12%) as stage 2, 13 (4%) as stage 3, 72 (23%) as SNAP, and 14 (5%) remained unclassified. The 5-year progression rate to CDR at least 0·5, symptomatic Alzheimers disease was 2% for participants classed as normal, 11% for stage 1, 26% for stage 2, 56% for stage 3, and 5% for SNAP. Compared with individuals classed as normal, participants with preclinical Alzheimers disease had an increased risk of death after adjusting for covariates (hazard ratio 6·2, 95% CI 1·1-35·0; p=0·040). INTERPRETATION Preclinical Alzheimers disease is common in cognitively normal elderly people and is associated with future cognitive decline and mortality. Thus, preclinical Alzheimers disease could be an important target for therapeutic intervention. FUNDING National Institute of Aging of the National Institutes of Health (P01-AG003991, P50-AG05681, P01-AG02676), Internationale Stichting Alzheimer Onderzoek, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine project LeARN, the EU/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer Research Initiative.

Prevalence and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage.

Three sets of research criteria are available for diagnosis of Alzheimers disease in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: the International Working Group-1, International Working Group-2, and National Institute of Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria. We compared the prevalence and prognosis of Alzheimers disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage according to these criteria. Subjects with mild cognitive impairment (n = 1607), 766 of whom had both amyloid and neuronal injury markers, were recruited from 13 cohorts. We used cognitive test performance and available biomarkers to classify subjects as prodromal Alzheimers disease according to International Working Group-1 and International Working Group-2 criteria and in the high Alzheimers disease likelihood group, conflicting biomarker groups (isolated amyloid pathology or suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology), and low Alzheimers disease likelihood group according to the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria. Outcome measures were the proportion of subjects with Alzheimers disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage and progression to Alzheimers disease-type dementia. We performed survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards models. According to the International Working Group-1 criteria, 850 (53%) subjects had prodromal Alzheimers disease. Their 3-year progression rate to Alzheimers disease-type dementia was 50% compared to 21% for subjects without prodromal Alzheimers disease. According to the International Working Group-2 criteria, 308 (40%) subjects had prodromal Alzheimers disease. Their 3-year progression rate to Alzheimers disease-type dementia was 61% compared to 22% for subjects without prodromal Alzheimers disease. According to the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria, 353 (46%) subjects were in the high Alzheimers disease likelihood group, 49 (6%) in the isolated amyloid pathology group, 220 (29%) in the suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology group, and 144 (19%) in the low Alzheimers disease likelihood group. The 3-year progression rate to Alzheimers disease-type dementia was 59% in the high Alzheimers disease likelihood group, 22% in the isolated amyloid pathology group, 24% in the suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology group, and 5% in the low Alzheimers disease likelihood group. Our findings support the use of the proposed research criteria to identify Alzheimers disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage. In clinical settings, the use of both amyloid and neuronal injury markers as proposed by the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria offers the most accurate prognosis. For clinical trials, selection of subjects in the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association high Alzheimers disease likelihood group or the International Working Group-2 prodromal Alzheimers disease group could be considered.

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology — concept and controversy

Suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP) is a biomarker-based concept that applies to individuals with normal levels of amyloid-β biomarkers in the brain, but in whom biomarkers of neurodegeneration are abnormal. The term SNAP has been applied to clinically normal individuals (who do not meet criteria for either mild cognitive impairment or dementia) and to individuals with mild cognitive impairment, but is applicable to any amyloid-negative, neurodegeneration-positive individual regardless of clinical status, except when the pathology underlying neurodegeneration can be reliably inferred from the clinical presentation. SNAP is present in ∼23% of clinically normal individuals aged >65 years and in ∼25% of mildly cognitively impaired individuals. APOE*ε4 is underrepresented in individuals with SNAP compared with amyloid-positive individuals. Clinically normal and mildly impaired individuals with SNAP have worse clinical and/or cognitive outcomes than individuals with normal levels of neurodegeneration and amyloid-β biomarkers. In this Perspectives article, we describe the available data on SNAP and address topical controversies in the field.

Biomarkers as Predictors for Conversion from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Alzheimer-Type Dementia: Implications for Trial Design

Disease modifying drugs for Alzheimers disease (AD) are likely to be most effective when given in non-demented subjects. In this review we summarized biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood that can predict AD-type dementia in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). In addition, we investigated whether these markers could reduce sample size and costs if used to select subjects for trials on the prevention of AD in subjects with MCI. A meta-analysis of markers that had been investigated in multiple studies showed that the combination of amyloid-beta (Abeta1-42 and tau in CSF had the best predictive accuracy for AD (odds ratio (OR) 18.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.6-32.4). Abeta1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau in CSF also predicted conversion, but with lower accuracy (OR 7.5 to 8.1). Plasma levels of Abeta1-40, Abeta1-42, the ratio Abeta1-42/Abeta1-40 and homocysteine did not predict outcome. In a fictive trial design, the use of the combination of Abeta1-42 and tau in CSF in the selection of subjects could reduce sample size by 67% and trial costs by 60% compared to a trial in which unselected subjects with MCI would be enrolled. In conclusion, the combination of Abeta1-42 and tau in CSF is useful to select subjects for trials that aim to slow down the progression from MCI to AD-type dementia.

Injury markers predict time to dementia in subjects with MCI and amyloid pathology

Objectives: Alzheimer disease (AD) can now be diagnosed in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using biomarkers. However, little is known about the rate of decline in those subjects. In this cohort study, we aimed to assess the conversion rate to dementia and identify prognostic markers in subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology. Methods: We pooled subjects from the VU University Medical Center Alzheimer Center and the Development of Screening Guidelines and Criteria for Predementia Alzheimers Disease (DESCRIPA) study. We included subjects with MCI, an abnormal level of β-amyloid1−42 (Aβ1–42) in the CSF, and at least one diagnostic follow-up visit. We assessed the effect of APOE genotype, CSF total tau (t-tau) and tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau) and hippocampal volume on time to AD-type dementia using Cox proportional hazards models and on decline on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) using linear mixed models. Results: We included 110 subjects with MCI with abnormal CSF Aβ1–42 and a mean MMSE score of 26.3 ± 2.8. During a mean follow-up of 2.2 ± 1.0 (range 0.4–5.0) years, 63 subjects (57%) progressed to AD-type dementia. Abnormal CSF t-tau (hazard ratio [HR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1–4.6, p = 0.03) and CSF p-tau (HR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3–9.2, p = 0.01) concentration and hippocampal atrophy (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1–5.6, p = 0.02) predicted time to dementia. For subjects with both abnormal t-tau concentration and hippocampal atrophy, HR was 7.3 (95% CI 1.0–55.9, p = 0.06). Furthermore, abnormal CSF t-tau and p-tau concentrations and hippocampal atrophy predicted decline in MMSE score. Conclusions: In subjects with MCI and evidence of amyloid pathology, the injury markers CSF t-tau and p-tau and hippocampal atrophy can predict further cognitive decline.

Prediction of Alzheimer disease in subjects with amnestic and nonamnestic MCI

Objective: To compare the predictive accuracy of β-amyloid (Aβ)1–42 and total tau in CSF, hippocampal volume (HCV), and APOE genotype for Alzheimer disease (AD)-type dementia in subjects with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI) and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI). Methods: We selected 399 subjects with aMCI and 226 subjects with naMCI from a multicenter memory clinic–based cohort. We measured CSF Aβ1–42 and tau by ELISA (n = 231), HCV on MRI (n = 388), and APOE ε4 (n = 523). Follow-up was performed annually up to 5 years. Outcome measures were progression to AD-type dementia and cognitive decline. Results: At least 1 follow-up was available for 538 subjects (86%). One hundred thirty-two subjects with aMCI (38%) and 39 subjects with naMCI (20%) progressed to AD-type dementia after an average follow-up of 2.5 years. CSF Aβ1–42, tau, Aβ1–42/tau ratio, HCV, and APOE ε4 predicted AD-type dementia in each MCI subgroup with the same overall diagnostic accuracy. However, CSF Aβ1–42 concentration was higher and hippocampal atrophy less severe in subjects with naMCI compared with aMCI. This reduced the sensitivity but increased the specificity of these markers for AD-type dementia in subjects with naMCI. Conclusions: AD biomarkers are useful to predict AD-type dementia in subjects with aMCI and naMCI. However, biomarkers might not be as sensitive for early diagnosis of AD in naMCI compared with aMCI. This may have implications for clinical implementation of the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimers Association criteria.

Test sequence of CSF and MRI biomarkers for prediction of AD in subjects with MCI

Our aim was to identify the best diagnostic test sequence for predicting Alzheimers disease (AD)-type dementia in subjects with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) using cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers. We selected 153 subjects with mild cognitive impairment from a multicenter memory clinic-based cohort. We tested the CSF beta amyloid (Aβ)1-42/tau ratio using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and hippocampal volumes (HCVs) using the atlas-based learning embeddings for atlas propagation (LEAP) method. Outcome measure was progression to AD-type dementia in 2 years. At follow-up, 48 (31%) subjects converted to AD-type dementia. In multivariable analyses, CSF Aβ1-42/tau and HCV predicted AD-type dementia regardless of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype and cognitive scores. Test sequence analyses showed that CSF Aβ1-42/tau increased predictive accuracy in subjects with normal HCV (p < 0.001) and abnormal HCV (p = 0.025). HCV increased predictive accuracy only in subjects with normal CSF Aβ1-42/tau (p = 0.014). Slope analyses for annual cognitive decline yielded similar results. For selection of subjects for a prodromal AD trial, the best balance between sample size and number of subjects needed to screen was obtained with CSF markers. These results provide further support for the use of CSF and magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers to identify prodromal AD.

Comparison of International Working Group criteria and National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer’s Association criteria for Alzheimer’s disease

Two sets of research criteria for Alzheimers disease are now available: those published by an International Working Group in 2007, and the recommendations published by the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimers Association (NIA–AA) in 2011. They both provide guidelines for the diagnosis of asymptomatic and symptomatic Alzheimers disease. The coexistence of two sets of criteria for the same disorder raises the question of which set of criteria should be preferred. A comparison of the criteria revealed differences in approach, terminology, and use of cognitive markers and biomarkers. Most persons who meet the International Working Group criteria will also meet the NIA–AA criteria and vice versa. However, the NIA–AA criteria allow for a subclassification of persons based on biomarker results within each diagnostic category. Further research is needed to validate the criteria. Modifications are likely to be made before the criteria can be used in daily practice.

Variability of CSF Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers: Implications for Clinical Practice

Background Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are increasingly being used for diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Objective We investigated the influence of CSF intralaboratory and interlaboratory variability on diagnostic CSF-based AD classification of subjects and identified causes of this variation. Methods We measured CSF amyloid-β (Aβ) 1-42, total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) by INNOTEST enzyme-linked-immunosorbent assays (ELISA) in a memory clinic population (n = 126). Samples were measured twice in a single or two laboratories that served as reference labs for CSF analyses in the Netherlands. Predefined cut-offs were used to classify CSF biomarkers as normal or abnormal/AD pattern. Results CSF intralaboratory variability was higher for Aβ1-42 than for t-tau and p-tau. Reanalysis led to a change in biomarker classification (normal vs. abnormal) of 26% of the subjects based on Aβ1-42, 10% based on t-tau, and 29% based on p-tau. The changes in absolute biomarker concentrations were paralleled by a similar change in levels of internal control samples between different assay lots. CSF interlaboratory variability was higher for p-tau than for Aβ1-42 and t-tau, and reanalysis led to a change in biomarker classification of 12% of the subjects based on Aβ1-42, 1% based on t-tau, and 22% based on p-tau. Conclusions Intralaboratory and interlaboratory CSF variability frequently led to change in diagnostic CSF-based AD classification for Aβ1-42 and p-tau. Lot-to-lot variation was a major cause of intralaboratory variability. This will have implications for the use of these biomarkers in clinical practice.

NIA-AA staging of preclinical Alzheimer disease: discordance and concordance of CSF and imaging biomarkers

The National Institute of Aging and Alzheimers Association (NIA-AA) criteria for Alzheimer disease (AD) treat neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers of AD pathology as if they would be interchangeable. We tested this assumption in 212 cognitively normal participants who have both neuroimaging and CSF measures of β-amyloid (CSF Aβ1-42 and positron emission tomography imaging with Pittsburgh Compound B) and neuronal injury (CSF t-tau and p-tau and structural magnetic resonance imaging) with longitudinal clinical follow-up. Participants were classified in preclinical AD stage 1 (β-amyloidosis) or preclinical AD stage 2+ (β-amyloidosis and neuronal injury) using the NIA-AA criteria, or in the normal or suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology group (neuronal injury without β-amyloidosis). At baseline, 21% of participants had preclinical AD based on CSF and 28% based on neuroimaging. Between modalities, staging was concordant in only 47% of participants. Disagreement resulted from low concordance between biomarkers of neuronal injury. Still, individuals in stage 2+ using either criterion had an increased risk for clinical decline. This highlights the heterogeneity of the definition of neuronal injury and has important implications for clinical trials using biomarkers for enrollment or as surrogate end point measures.