Susan M Landau1, Andy Horng2, Allison Fero2, William J Jagust2. 1. From Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (S.M.L., A.H., W.J.J.), University of California, Berkeley; and Life Sciences Division (S.M.L., A.F., W.J.J.), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA. slandau@berkeley.edu. 2. From Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute (S.M.L., A.H., W.J.J.), University of California, Berkeley; and Life Sciences Division (S.M.L., A.F., W.J.J.), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical and biomarker characteristics of patients with amyloid-negative Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a prospective cohort study. METHODS: We first investigated the reliability of florbetapir- PET in patients with AD and patients with MCI using CSF-Aβ1-42 as a comparison amyloid measurement. We then compared florbetapir- vs florbetapir+ patients with respect to several AD-specific biomarkers, baseline and longitudinal cognitive measurements, and demographic and clinician report data. RESULTS: Florbetapir and CSF-Aβ1-42 +/- status agreed for 98% of ADs (89% of MCIs), indicating that most florbetapir- scans were a reliable representation of amyloid status. Florbetapir- AD (n = 27/177; 15%) and MCI (n = 74/217, 34%) were more likely to be APOE4-negative (MCI 83%, AD 96%) than their florbetapir+ counterparts (MCI 30%, AD 24%). Florbetapir- patients also had less AD-specific hypometabolism, lower CSF p-tau and t-tau, and better longitudinal cognitive performance, and were more likely to be taking medication for depression. In MCI only, florbetapir- participants had less hippocampal atrophy and hypometabolism and lower functional activity questionnaire scores compared to florbetapir+ participants. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, image analysis problems do not appear to be a primary explanation of amyloid negativity. Florbetapir- ADNI patients have a variety of clinical and biomarker features that differ from their florbetapir+ counterparts, suggesting that one or more non-AD etiologies (which may include vascular disease and depression) account for their AD-like phenotype.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the clinical and biomarker characteristics of patients with amyloid-negative Alzheimer disease (AD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), a prospective cohort study. METHODS: We first investigated the reliability of florbetapir- PET in patients with AD and patients with MCI using CSF-Aβ1-42 as a comparison amyloid measurement. We then compared florbetapir- vs florbetapir+ patients with respect to several AD-specific biomarkers, baseline and longitudinal cognitive measurements, and demographic and clinician report data. RESULTS:Florbetapir and CSF-Aβ1-42 +/- status agreed for 98% of ADs (89% of MCIs), indicating that most florbetapir- scans were a reliable representation of amyloid status. Florbetapir- AD (n = 27/177; 15%) and MCI (n = 74/217, 34%) were more likely to be APOE4-negative (MCI 83%, AD 96%) than their florbetapir+ counterparts (MCI 30%, AD 24%). Florbetapir- patients also had less AD-specific hypometabolism, lower CSF p-tau and t-tau, and better longitudinal cognitive performance, and were more likely to be taking medication for depression. In MCI only, florbetapir- participants had less hippocampal atrophy and hypometabolism and lower functional activity questionnaire scores compared to florbetapir+ participants. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, image analysis problems do not appear to be a primary explanation of amyloid negativity. Florbetapir- ADNIpatients have a variety of clinical and biomarker features that differ from their florbetapir+ counterparts, suggesting that one or more non-AD etiologies (which may include vascular disease and depression) account for their AD-like phenotype.
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Matt Gregas; John A Becker; Catherine Kinnecom; David H Salat; Erin K Moran; Erin E Smith; Jonathan Rosand; Dorene M Rentz; William E Klunk; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Steven T Dekosky; Alan J Fischman; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: E C Mormino; J T Kluth; C M Madison; G D Rabinovici; S L Baker; B L Miller; R A Koeppe; C A Mathis; M W Weiner; W J Jagust Journal: Brain Date: 2008-11-28 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: R Mayeux; A M Saunders; S Shea; S Mirra; D Evans; A D Roses; B T Hyman; B Crain; M X Tang; C H Phelps Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-02-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan M Landau; Allison Fero; Suzanne L Baker; Robert Koeppe; Mark Mintun; Kewei Chen; Eric M Reiman; William J Jagust Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Stefanie Schreiber; Frank Schreiber; Samuel N Lockhart; Andy Horng; Alexandre Bejanin; Susan M Landau; William J Jagust Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Cutter A Lindbergh; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Adam M Staffaroni; Renaud La Joie; Leonardo Iaccarino; Lauren Edwards; Elena Tsoy; Fanny Elahi; Samantha M Walters; Devyn Cotter; Michelle You; Alexandra C Apple; Breton Asken; John Neuhaus; Jessica E Rexach; Kevin J Wojta; Gil Rabinovici; Joel H Kramer Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Joshua D Grill; Chelsea G Cox; Sarah Kremen; Mario F Mendez; Edmond Teng; Jill Shapira; John M Ringman; Liana G Apostolova Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2017-02-04 Impact factor: 21.566