Search

Sporadic early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (sEOAD) exhibits the symptoms of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease but lacks the familial aspect of the early-onset familial form. The genetics of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) identifies APOE ε4 to be the greatest risk factor; however, it is a complex disease involving both environmental risk factors and multiple genetic loci. Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) accumulate the total risk of a phenotype in an individual based on variants present in their genome. We determined whether sEOAD cases had a higher PRS compared to controls. A cohort of sEOAD cases was genotyped on the NeuroX array, and PRSs were generated using PRSice. The target data set consisted of 408 sEOAD cases and 436 controls. The base data set was collated by the International Genomics of Alzheimer’s Project consortium, with association data from 17,008 late-onset Alzheimer’s disease cases and 37,154 controls, which can be used for identifying sEOAD cases due to having shared phenotype. PRSs were generated using all common single nucleotide polymorphisms between the base and target data set, PRS were also generated using only single nucleotide polymorphisms within a 500 kb region surrounding the APOE gene. Sex and number of APOE ε2 or ε4 alleles were used as variables for logistic regression and combined with PRS. The results show that PRS is higher on average in sEOAD cases than controls, although there is still overlap among the whole cohort. Predictive ability of identifying cases and controls using PRSice was calculated with 72.9% accuracy, greater than the APOE locus alone (65.2%). Predictive ability was further improved with logistic regression, identifying cases and controls with 75.5% accuracy.

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, The development of disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease requires innovative trials with large numbers of subjects and long observation periods. The use of blood, cerebrospinal fluid or neuroimaging biomarkers is critical for the demonstration of disease-modifying therapy effects on the brain. Suitable biomarkers are those which reflect the progression of AD related molecular mechanisms and neuropathology, including amyloidogenic processing and aggregation, hyperphosphorylation, accumulation of tau and neurofibrillary tangles, progressive functional, metabolic and structural decline, leading to neurodegeneration, loss of brain tissue and cognitive symptoms. Biomarkers should be used throughout clinical trial phases I–III of AD drug development. They can be used to enhance inclusion and exclusion criteria, or as baseline predictors to increase the statistical power of trials. Validated and qualified biomarkers may be used as outcome measures to detect treatment effects in pivotal clinical trials. Finally, biomarkers can be used to identify adverse effects. Questions regarding which biomarkers should be used in clinical trials, and how, are currently far from resolved. The Oxford Task Force continues and expands the work of our previous international expert task forces on disease-modifying trials and on endpoints for Alzheimer's disease clinical trials. The aim of this initiative was to bring together a selected number of key international opinion leaders and experts from academia, regulatory agencies and industry to condense the current knowledge and state of the art regarding the best use of biological markers in Alzheimer's disease therapy trials and to propose practical recommendations for the planning of future AD trials., GW was partly funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Center Programme, Oxford, UK.

Early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) can be familial (FAD) or sporadic EOAD (sEOAD); both have a disease onset ≤65 years of age. A total of 451 sEOAD samples were screened for known causative mutations in exons 16 and 17 of the amyloid precursor protein (APP) gene. Four samples were shown to be heterozygous for 1 of 3 known causative mutations: p.A713T, p.V717I, and p.V717G; this highlights the importance of screening EOAD patients for causative mutations. Additionally, we document an intronic 6 base pair (bp) deletion located 83 bp downstream of exon 17 (rs367709245, IVS17 83-88delAAGTAT), which has a nonsignificantly increased minor allele frequency in our sEOAD cohort (0.006) compared to LOAD (0.002) and controls (0.002). To assess the effect of the 6-bp deletion on splicing, COS-7 and BE(2)-C cells were transfected with a minigene vector encompassing exon 17. There was no change in splicing of exon 17 from constructs containing either wild type or deletion inserts. Sequencing of cDNA generated from cerebellum and temporal cortex of a patient harboring the deletion found no evidence of transcripts with exon 17 removed.

Background/Aims: To identify prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) subjects using a data-driven approach to determine cognitive profiles in mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: A total of 881 MCI subjects were recruited from 20 memory clinics and followed for up to 5 years. Outcome measures included cognitive variables, conversion to AD, and biomarkers (e.g. CSF, and MRI markers). Two hierarchical cluster analyses (HCA) were performed to identify clusters of subjects with distinct cognitive profiles. The first HCA included all subjects with complete cognitive data, whereas the second one selected subjects with very mild MCI (MMSE ≥28). ANOVAs and ANCOVAs were computed to examine whether the clusters differed with regard to conversion to AD, and to AD-specific biomarkers. Results: The HCAs identified 4-cluster solutions that best reflected the sample structure. One cluster (aMCIsingle) had a significantly higher conversion rate (19%), compared to subjective cognitive impairment (SCI, p < 0.0001), and non-amnestic MCI (naMCI, p = 0.012). This cluster was the only one showing a significantly different biomarker profile (Aβ42, t-tau, APOE ε4, and medial temporal atrophy), compared to SCI or naMCI. Conclusion: In subjects with mild MCI, the single-domain amnestic MCI profile was associated with the highest risk of conversion, even if memory impairment did not necessarily cross specific cut-off points. A cognitive profile characterized by isolated memory deficits may be sufficient to warrant applying prevention strategies in MCI, whether or not memory performance lies below specific z-scores. This is supported by our preliminary biomarker analyses. However, further analyses with bigger samples are needed to corroborate these findings.

Objectives.—To determine the effects of cholinesterase inhibition with tacrine hydrochloride for the symptoms of Alzheimer disease in terms of cognitive performance, clinical global impression, behavior, and functional autonomy.Data Sources.—The Cochrane Dementia Group registry of trials.Study Selection.—Unconfounded, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in which tacrine had been given for more than 1 day and that were completed before January 1, 1996.Data Extraction.—Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion and individual patient data were sought.Data Synthesis.—Data were analyzed from 12 trials that included 1984 patients with Alzheimer disease. At 12 weeks, cognitive performance, as measured by the Mini-Mental State Examination (score range, 0-30), was better in patients receiving tacrine than in patients receiving placebo by 0.62 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-1.00; P=.002). Compared with similar untreated patients who would be expected to deteriorate by 0.50 to 1.00 points on the Mini-Mental State Examination during 12 weeks, the progress of patients receiving tacrine would be expected to range between an improvement of 0.12 and a deterioration of 0.38 points. The odds ratio for improvement on the Clinical Global Impression of Change scale (range, 1-7) for patients receiving tacrine compared with those receiving placebo was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.18-2.11; P=.002). The behavioral noncognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (range, 0-50) showed a difference in favor of tacrine of 0.58 points (95% CI, 0.17-1.00; P=.006). Improvement on the Progressive Deterioration Scale, largely an index of functional activities, was not significant (0.75; 95% CI, −0.43 to 1.93; P=.21). Age, severity of dementia, and exposure to tacrine prior to randomization had no clear influence on the treatment effect. There was a nonsignificant trend toward increasing effect with increasing dose for cognitive function and the Clinical Global Impression of Change. For patients without prior exposure to tacrine, the odds of patients' withdrawing during the study while they were receiving tacrine compared with placebo was 3.63 (95% CI, 2.80-4.71; P