Search

Abstract Alzheimer’s disease (AD) risk is increased in carriers of the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele and decreased in ε2 allele carriers compared with the ε3ε3 genotype. The aim of this study was to determine whether: the APOE genotype affects brain grey (GM) or white matter (WM) structure; and if differences exist, the age when they become apparent and whether there are differential effects by sex. We used cross-sectional magnetic resonance imaging data from ~43,000 (28,494 after pre-processing) white British cognitively healthy participants (7,446 APOE ε4 carriers) aged 45–80 years from the UK Biobank cohort and investigated image-derived phenotypes (IDPs). We observed no statistically significant effects of APOE genotype on GM structure volumes or median T2* in subcortical structures, a measure related to iron content. The volume of white matter hyperintensities differed significantly between APOE genotype groups with higher volumes in APOE ε4ε4 (effect size 0.14 standard deviations [SD]) and ε3ε4 carriers (effect size 0.04 SD) but no differences in ε2 carriers compared with ε3ε3 carriers. WM integrity measures in the dorsal (mean diffusivity [MD]) and ventral cingulum (MD and intracellular volume fraction), posterior thalamic radiation (MD and isotropic volume fraction) and sagittal stratum (MD) indicated lower integrity in APOE ε4ε4 carriers (effect sizes around 0.2–0.3 SD) and ε3ε4 (effect sizes around 0.05 SD) carriers but no differences in ε2 carriers compared with the APOE ε3ε3 genotype. Effects did not differ between men and women. APOE ε4 homozygotes had lower WM integrity specifically at older ages with a steeper decline of WM integrity from the age of 60 that corresponds to around 5 years greater “brain age”. APOE genotype affects various white matters measures, which might be indicative of preclinical AD processes. This hypothesis can be assessed in future when clinical outcomes become available.

Abstract Background Ascertainment of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in cardiovascular trials is costly and complex, involving processes that could be streamlined by using routinely collected healthcare data (RCD). The utility of coded RCD for HF outcome ascertainment in randomized trials requires assessment. We systematically reviewed studies assessing RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against “gold standard” (GS) methods to study the feasibility of using such methods in clinical trials. Methods Studies assessing International Classification of Disease (ICD) coded RCD-based HF outcome ascertainment against GS methods and reporting at least one agreement statistic were identified by searching MEDLINE and Embase from inception to May 2021. Data on study characteristics, details of RCD and GS data sources and definitions, and test statistics were reviewed. Summary sensitivities and specificities for studies ascertaining acute and prevalent HF were estimated using a bivariate random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I 2 statistics and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves. Results A total of 58 studies of 48,643 GS-adjudicated HF events were included in this review. Strategies used to improve case identification included the use of broader coding definitions, combining multiple data sources, and using machine learning algorithms to search free text data, but these methods were not always successful and at times reduced specificity in individual studies. Meta-analysis of 17 acute HF studies showed that RCD algorithms have high specificity (96.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 91.5–98.3), but lacked sensitivity (63.5%, 95% CI 51.3–74.1) with similar results for 21 prevalent HF studies. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies. Conclusions RCD can correctly identify HF outcomes but may miss approximately one-third of events. Methods used to improve case identification should also focus on minimizing false positives.