Search

Here we highlight the Alzheimer's Association's role since its inception, as a strategic collaborator with National Institutes of Health–National Institute on Aging in the development of the modern era of the Alzheimer's Movement and in making Alzheimer's disease (AD) a national priority in the United States by developing several initiatives to advance knowledge about the cause, diagnosis, and treatment of dementia. Among these collaborative undertakings, the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an exemplary case, launched with groundwork by the Neuroimaging Working Group sponsored by the Association's Ronald and Nancy Reagan Research Institute on AD. The unique contribution of the Association to the development of ADNI includes participation as a member of ADNI's Private Partner Scientific Board and involvement in developing an AD biomarker standardization and validation subproject, which has led to a conceptual shift in the field to define AD based on its underlying biology. Furthermore, the creation of Worldwide ADNI (WW‐ADNI) is highlighted, underscoring the global impact of these efforts. Highlights: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is a keystone undertaking in the evolving landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) research, and is now in its fourth iteration.The Alzheimer's Association has partnered with ADNI since its inception.ADNI 4 and the Association continue to collaborate, ensuring representation within the study population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened three separate work groups in 2011 and single work groups in 2012 and 2018 to create recommendations for the diagnosis and characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The present document updates the 2018 research framework in response to several recent developments. Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine (e.g., oncology), and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases, not just AD. The present document is consistent with this principle. Our intent is to present objective criteria for diagnosis and staging AD, incorporating recent advances in biomarkers, to serve as a bridge between research and clinical care. These criteria are not intended to provide step‐by‐step clinical practice guidelines for clinical workflow or specific treatment protocols, but rather serve as general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of AD that reflect current science. Highlights: We define Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be a biological process that begins with the appearance of AD neuropathologic change (ADNPC) while people are asymptomatic. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms.Early‐changing Core 1 biomarkers (amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], approved cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and accurate plasma biomarkers [especially phosphorylated tau 217]) map onto either the amyloid beta or AD tauopathy pathway; however, these reflect the presence of ADNPC more generally (i.e., both neuritic plaques and tangles).An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of AD and to inform clinical decision making throughout the disease continuum.Later‐changing Core 2 biomarkers (biofluid and tau PET) can provide prognostic information, and when abnormal, will increase confidence that AD is contributing to symptoms.An integrated biological and clinical staging scheme is described that accommodates the fact that common copathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biological AD stages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Federal policies and guidelines have expanded the return of individual results to participants and expectations for data sharing between investigators and through repositories. Here, we report investigators' and study participants' views and experiences with data stewardship practices within frontotemporal lobal degeneration (FTLD) research, which reveal unique ethical challenges. METHODS: Semi‐structured interviews with (1) investigators conducting FTLD research that includes genetic data collection and/or analysis and (2) participants enrolled in a single site longitudinal FTLD study. RESULTS: Analysis of the interviews identified three meta themes: perspectives on data sharing, experiences with enrollment and participation, and data management and security as mechanisms for participant protections. DISCUSSION: This study identified a set of preliminary gaps and needs regarding data stewardship within FTLD research. The results offer initial insights on ethical challenges to data stewardship aimed at informing future guidelines and policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This editorial summarizes advances from the Clearance of Interstitial Fluid and Cerebrospinal Fluid (CLIC) group, within the Vascular Professional Interest Area (PIA) of the Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART). The overarching objectives of the CLIC group are to: (1) understand the age‐related physiology changes that underlie impaired clearance of interstitial fluid (ISF) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) (CLIC); (2) understand the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying intramural periarterial drainage (IPAD) in the brain; (3) establish novel diagnostic tests for Alzheimer's disease (AD), cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), retinal amyloid vasculopathy, amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) of spontaneous and iatrogenic CAA‐related inflammation (CAA‐ri), and vasomotion; and (4) establish novel therapies that facilitate IPAD to eliminate amyloid β (Aβ) from the aging brain and retina, to prevent or reduce AD and CAA pathology and ARIA side events associated with AD immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. study to protect brain health through lifestyle intervention to reduce risk (U.S. POINTER) is conducted to confirm and expand the results of the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) in Americans. METHODS: U.S. POINTER was planned as a 2‐year randomized controlled trial of two lifestyle interventions in 2000 older adults at risk for dementia due to well‐established factors. The primary outcome is a global cognition composite that permits harmonization with FINGER. RESULTS: U.S. POINTER is centrally coordinated and conducted at five clinical sites (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03688126). Outcomes assessments are completed at baseline and every 6 months. Both interventions focus on exercise, diet, cognitive/social stimulation, and cardiovascular health, but differ in intensity and accountability. The study partners with a worldwide network of similar trials for harmonization of methods and data sharing. DISCUSSION: U.S. POINTER is testing a potentially sustainable intervention to support brain health and Alzheimer's prevention for Americans. Impact is strengthened by the targeted participant diversity and expanded scientific scope through ancillary studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiovascular risk factors and depressive symptoms have both been independently shown to be negatively associated with cognitive function. However, the nature of the influence of comorbid depressive symptoms and cardiovascular risk on cognitive function is unclear, and there have been inconsistent findings as to which cognitive domains may be most associated with this relationship. Method: U.S. POINTER is a randomized controlled trial of two multidomain lifestyle interventions. We examined the baseline relationship between cardiovascular risk, depressive symptoms, and cognitive function in 2103 U.S. POINTER participants (mean age = 68.19±5.16y). The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) using lipids was used to calculate the 10‐year risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and depressive symptoms were assessed using the 15‐item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Cognitive function was measured using composite scores (global, episodic memory, executive function, and processing speed) derived from the U.S. POINTER modified Neuropsychological Test Battery. After computing correlations, generalized linear regression models were used to determine the presence of an interaction between GDS (using a median split of 0‐1 and 2+) and FRS for each cognitive composite while controlling for demographic variables. Result: Higher GDS was significantly associated with lower global cognition (r = ‐0.04, p = 0.04) and slower processing speed (r = ‐0.06, p = 0.01) but not episodic memory (r = ‐0.03, p = 0.17) or executive function (r = ‐0.02, p = 0.37). FRS was negatively associated with global cognition (r = ‐0.25, p<0.01), episodic memory (r = ‐0.27, p<0.01), executive function (r = ‐0.13, p<0.01), and processing speed (r = ‐0.20, p<0.01). Regression models identified the presence of an interaction between FRS and GDS with global cognition (p<0.01). Specifically, participants with lower GDS scores (0‐1) had higher global cognition at lower levels of FRS than those with higher GDS scores (2+), but as FRS approached 16%, participants with lower GDS scores had lower global cognition than those with higher GDS scores. The presence of an interaction between FRS and GDS was also found with the executive function (p<0.01) and processing speed (p = 0.04) composites, but not with the episodic memory (p = 0.12) composite. Conclusion: In U.S. POINTER participants at baseline, the effect of cardiovascular risk on global cognition, executive function, and processing speed may vary depending on the presence and severity of depressive symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The WHO estimates that 55 million people worldwide have dementia and this number is expected to increase to 139 million by 2050. Founded in 1980, the Alzheimer's Association is the world's leading voluntary health organization in AD/ADRD care, support and research. Methods: Alzheimer's Association‐led funding opportunities and awards, conferences and other activities beginning with the COVID‐19 pandemic were reviewed. Results: The Association remains committed to funding, convening, leading and implementing research studies that accelerate the global effort to eliminate Alzheimer's and all other dementia. Discussion: This manuscript describes funding, convening and other global initiatives, influenced in part by the COVID‐19 pandemic, to strengthen and drive research forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Delay in diagnosis of posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) syndrome is common, and the lack of familiarity with assessment tools for identifying visual cortical dysfunction is a contributing factor. We propose recommendations for the approach to the evaluation of PCA clinical features during the office visit, the neuropsychological evaluation, and the research setting. A recommended screening battery for eye clinics is also proposed. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using results from a web‐based survey of members of Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART) Atypical Alzheimer's Disease Professional Interest Area (PIA), literature review, and consensus by the PCA assessment working party of the Atypical Alzheimer's Disease PIA. RESULTS: Survey results revealed robust agreement for assessment tool preferences for PCA features, and many respondents indicated that they reserve assessment tools for use only when PCA is suspected. For some PCA features, curated tools were preferred over validated battery tools, particularly for the office visit. Consensus recommendations superseded survey preferences for two core cognitive features within the 2017 PCA diagnostic criteria. DISCUSSION: These consensus recommendations provide an evaluation framework for PCA clinical features and can facilitate timely and accurate recognition and diagnosis of PCA. Broader use of these tools should be sought, and development and validation of novel PCA clinical outcome assessments are needed to improve our understanding of atypical AD and other dementias and support the inclusion of those with PCA in treatment trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 7T MRI allows implementation of high‐resolution quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) which can be used to assess the cerebral microvascular/hypoperfusion pathogenic hypothesis in Alzheimer's disease (AD) and in the post‐SARS‐CoV2 setting to explore if there may be similarities in brain changes in these two conditions. The magnetic susceptibility (reflective of tissue iron) of hippocampal subfields was assessed in patients with 1) CSF‐Amyloidß‐status AD; 2) mild COVID‐19 over 6 months previously (Cv); 3) severe COVID‐19 with ICU admission >6 months previously (ICU‐Cv); and 4) age‐matched healthy controls (HC). Methods: 33 participants (10 HC, 14 Cv, 9 ICU‐Cv) for the COVID study and 24 participants (14 AD, 11HC) from AD patients with confirmed CSF‐Amyloidß levels, aged 42‐79, were scanned on a 7T scanner with the following protocol T2* GRE for the AD groups (0.7×0.7×0.7mm3,TE/TR = 20/31ms) and T2* multi‐echo GRE for the Cv groups (0.38×0.38×0.75mm3,TE1/TE2/TR = 8.2/18.4/24ms). Data were processed using QSMbox1 to produce susceptibility maps. PSIR (0.55×0.55×0.55mm3,TE/TR = 3.1/6.9ms) and T2‐weighted FSE (0.38×0.39×1.5mm3, TE/TR = 117/5900ms) images were used to segment the hippocampal subfields (Figure 1)2. One‐way analyses were used in SPSS for comparison between the HC group and each of the Cv, ICU‐Cv, and AD groups. Results: There was no change in susceptibility for the whole hippocampus between AD and HC, but there was a significant difference for the DG subfield (p = 0.045), Figure 2. For COVID patients, there was a significant difference between the susceptibility of the whole hippocampus in the ICU‐Cv group (p = 0.035), but not in the Cv group (p = 0.788), Figure 3, compared to HC. In subfield analyses there was a trend towards decreased susceptibility in the subiculum, an area known to be affected by Alzheimer pathology, in the ICU‐Cv group (p = 0.032) compared to HC. Conclusion: The lower susceptibility within the hippocampal structures observed in AD and ICU‐Cv patients may reflect less iron either from cerebral hypoperfusion or vascular injuries in AD or additionally result from sequelae of hypoxaemia in ICU‐Cv. The study provides preliminary evidence of detectable in vivo microstructural changes in hippocampal subfields in both AD and post‐COVID settings. Funding: Medical Research Council, UK (MR/T005580/1); National Institute of Health, USA (1R56AG074467‐01) References: 1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.07.065 2. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.22627 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) will determine whether interventions that simultaneously include multiple risk reduction strategies can protect cognitive health in older adults. The primary outcome, a global cognitive composite score derived from the POINTER‐Modified Neuropsychological Test Battery (PmNTB), was developed to allow for outcome harmonization with its forerunner, the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) and other large trials (e.g., A4, EXERT). Here we describe the PmNTB and its initial validation in the baseline U.S. POINTER sample. Method: U.S. POINTER is a Phase 3, multicenter, randomized 2‐year clinical trial of two interventions varying in intensity and format, in older adults at increased risk for cognitive decline and dementia. The PmNTB includes performance from 7 cognitive tests and is computed as the mean of three domain‐specific composites: Episodic Memory, Processing Speed, and Executive Function. The Episodic Memory Composite includes Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, Story Recall, and Visual Paired Associates. The Processing Speed Composite includes Trail Making Test (TMTA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test. The Executive Function Composite includes Number Span, Word Fluency, and TMTB. PmNTB was assessed in relation to age, clinical status (Clinical Dementia Rating‐CDR), and other cognitive composites able to be computed in the current sample using overlapping measures (i.e., FINGER NTB, Preclinical Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite‐PACC‐5). Result: 2094 participants completed the baseline assessment (mean age = 68.2±5.2 years; 68.8% female, 69.1% non‐hispanic white, mean MMSE = 28.9± 1.3). Global CDR was 0 for 79.5% of participants, and 0.5 for 20.5% of participants. After adjusting for education, race, ethnicity, and sex, each additional year in age was associated with a drop in PmNTB z‐score by ‐0.064 (95%CI = ‐0.071,‐0.056, p<0.001). Likewise, global CDR = 0.5 (questionable dementia) was associated with a lower PmNTB score (z = ‐0.549) compared with global CDR = 0 (‐0.134 z‐scores). PmNTB correlated with the FINGER NTB (r = 0.858, p<0.001) and the PACC‐5 (r = 0.876, p<0.001). Conclusion: The PmNTB is a valid measure of cognitive functioning, capturing age‐related cognitive decrements and is associated with clinically relevant, functional outcomes. It also exhibits convergent validity with established cognitive outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has disproportionately affected ethno‐racial minority populations and people with greater social deprivation. It is unknown whether such disparities influence research participation for investigations of long‐term neuro‐cognitive effects of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Method: Across 3 US and 1 UK sites, we are enrolling a multi‐racial cohort of SARS‐CoV‐2 infected individuals and age, sex, race‐matched non‐infected controls. Utilizing harmonized protocols for cognitive assessments and 7‐Tesla MRI, we aim to provide ultra‐high‐field data on natural history of COVID‐19 driven microstructural and microvascular cerebral changes and associated cognitive trajectories. We will also compare the imaging markers to those observed in an existing cohort of early onset Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). We analyzed screening and enrollment data to determine potential age, sex, race, ethnicity, and social deprivation disparities in research participation. We derived address‐based Area Deprivation Index (ADI) (scale 1 ‐10), with higher ADI indicating greater deprivation. Logistic regression models were fit to evaluate associates of non‐response and refusal. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Result: Over a 11‐month period, at a single US site, a total of 1,046 SARS‐CoV‐2 infected people and their controls were contacted, and 379 (36.2%) responded. In univariable analyses, non‐response was associated with younger age, male sex, non‐White race, and higher ADI (Table 1). In the fully adjusted model, non‐White race was independently associated with higher likelihood of non‐response [OR (CI) for Black vs. White: 1.49 (1.04, 2.12) and for Asian vs. White: 1.88 (1.28, 2.76)]., Independent of race, higher ADI was also associated with likelihood of non‐response (Table 2 and Figure 1). Among the responders, 228 (60.2%) refused. Although, no socio‐demographic factors were significantly associated with likelihood of refusal, the point estimates in the fully adjusted model suggest potential racial disparities in providing consent (Tables 1 and 2). Aggregated data from all sites will be presented. Conclusion: It is imperative to recognize and mitigate persistent disparities in the COVID‐19 pandemic, particularly pertaining to participation in long‐COVID research. Mechanisms of such persistent disparities need to be studied in context of cultures, beliefs, access, and clinical factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A key focus of the U.S. Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk (U.S. POINTER) is recruitment of unimpaired older individuals at risk for cognitive decline with heterogeneous characteristics (under‐represented racial and ethnicity groups (URG), family history of cognitive decline, hypertension, geographic diversity), and a subset of individuals undergo PET and MRI. Method: To examine effects of heterogeneity on relationships between risk factors, AD biomarkers (Aß and entorhinal tau PET, hippocampal volume (HV)) and cognition (global, executive function, and memory) were examined from U.S. POINTER neuroimaging participants (N = 602, about 65% of the anticipated total sample) and a subset of Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants (N = 503). Neuroimaging data were processed and analyzed using harmonized methods across studies. Some cohort‐specific measurements were standardized using a within‐cohort reference group (Aß‐negative individuals <70yrs and with global CDR = 0). Result: U.S. POINTER imaging participants are younger than those in ADNI (68.6+/‐5.0yrs vs 70.7+/‐4.4yrs), more likely to be female (65% vs 58%) and from URG (27% vs 15%), and had lower education (14.7+/‐3.3yrs vs 16.7+/‐2.3yrs) and higher Framingham Cardiovascular Risk scores (9.9+/‐8.3 vs 7.7+/‐5.3). The groups differed on several AD biomarkers and cognitive measures (Table). In regression models, AD biomarkers were stronger predictors of cognitive performance in ADNI compared to POINTER. Specifically, Aß+ individuals with elevated tau had disproportionately poorer cognitive performance in ADNI, and this relationship remained consistent across cognitive measures (Figure). Conversely, demographic/risk variables were stronger predictors in POINTER. Demographic/risk predictors (age, sex, education, race, and FRS) together explained twice as much variance in global cognition in POINTER compared to ADNI (Adjusted R2 = 29% vs 14%). The addition of AD biomarkers to the model further increased the amount of variance in global cognition explained from 14% to 34% in ADNI, but addition of AD biomarkers did not increase variance explained in the POINTER model. Conclusion: Heterogeneity among study participants appears to influence baseline biomarker‐cognition relationships such that AD biomarkers explain more variability in cognitive performance in ADNI than POINTER. These findings further suggest that cohort characteristics may affect the potential influence of amyloid‐ and tau‐modifying treatments on cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Poor sleep during hospitalization is common and implicated in worse patient outcomes. Despite implementation of non-pharmacologic techniques, medications are still frequently required. The study objective is to assess the frequency of new medications administered for sleep in hospitalized patients and to review literature evaluating these drug therapies in the inpatient setting. Methods: This retrospective study included adult inpatients if they received a new medication for sleep during a 5-day period. Patients were excluded if the medication was continued from home or if sleep was not the documented indication. For the literature review, a MEDLINE search was conducted to identify studies pertaining to pharmacotherapy for sleep in hospitalized patients. Results: Of 1,968 patient-days reviewed, a medication for sleep was given for 166 patient-days (8.4%) in 78 patients. Melatonin was most commonly received (70.5%), followed by benzodiazepines (9.6%). A review of antihistamines, benzodiazepines, melatonin, quetiapine, trazodone, and Z-drugs (non-benzodiazepine hypnotics) was conducted and 23 studies were included. Conclusions: Despite widespread use of pharmacotherapy for sleep, there is a paucity of data evaluating use in the inpatient setting. Although there is significant heterogeneity among studies, melatonin has the strongest evidence for use and is an attractive option given its lack of adverse reactions and drug interactions. Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs were also frequently utilized; however, their reduced clearance in the elderly and potential for compounded sedative effects should be weighed heavily against potential sleep benefits. Antipsychotic agents cannot be recommended for routine use due to limited data and the potential for significant adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The introduction of safe and highly effective direct acting antivirals (DAAs) has significantly improved hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment outcomes after transplant. The solid organ transplant community has sought to identify strategies aimed at increasing the donor pool including the utilization of HCV‐viremic organs in HCV‐negative recipients. We will review the existing literature to evaluate DAA use for the treatment of HCV viremia post‐liver transplant in patients who receive HCV‐viremic allografts. A PubMed search was conducted and references for each study were also reviewed to identify additional articles. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included if: published in English language, evaluated DAA treatment outcomes after liver only or simultaneous liver‐kidney transplantation with HCV‐viremic allografts in HCV‐negative recipients, and had full‐text article availability. Our review included 16 studies and 2 case reports. The majority of liver transplant recipients were treated with a pangenotypic DAA for 12 weeks with a heterogeneous median time to initiation (range 1.7–118 days). Sustained virologic response was assessed in 253 liver transplant patients with 99.6% achieving cure with minimal DAA‐attributed adverse drug events. There were 23 reported episodes of rejection, 12 deaths, and 1 graft loss among all studies. Treatment with DAA after transplantation of HCV‐viremic livers into HCV‐negative recipients appears to be safe and effective; however, long‐term outcomes remain unknown. Transplant pharmacists play a key role in the development of center‐specific protocols to optimize post‐transplant outcomes in this unique patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]