IMPORTANCE: Clinical trials testing treatments for Alzheimer disease (AD) are increasingly focused on cognitively normal individuals in the preclinical phase of the disease. To optimize observing a treatment effect, such trials need to enroll cognitively normal individuals likely to show cognitive decline over the duration of the trial. OBJECTIVE: To identify which group of cognitively normal individuals shows the greatest cognitive decline over time based on their cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, cognitively normal participants were classified into 1 of the following 4 hypothetical preclinical AD groups using baseline cerebrospinal fluid levels of Aβ and tau or Aβ and phosphorylated tau (p-tau): stage 0 (high Aβ and low tau), stage 1 (low Aβ and low tau), stage 2 (low Aβ and high tau), and suspected non-AD pathology (SNAP) (high Aβ and high tau). The data presented herein were collected between August 1995 and August 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: An a priori cognitive composite score based on the following 4 tests previously shown to predict progression from normal cognition to symptom onset of mild cognitive impairment or dementia: Paired Associates immediate recall, Logical Memory delayed recall, Boston Naming, and Digit-Symbol Substitution. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare the cognitive composite scores across the 4 groups over time, adjusting for baseline age, sex, education, and their interactions with time. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two cognitively normal participants were included in the analyses (mean follow-up, 11.0 years [range, 0-18.3 years] and mean baseline age, 56.9 years [range, 22.1-85.8 years]). Of these, 102 were stage 0, 46 were stage 1, 28 were stage 2, and 46 were SNAP. Individuals in stage 2 (low Aβ and high tau [or p-tau]) had lower baseline cognitive scores and a greater decline in the cognitive composite score relative to the other 3 groups (β ≤ -0.06 for all and P ≤ .001 for the rate of decline for all). Individuals in stage 0, stage 1, and SNAP did not differ from one another in cognitive performance at baseline or over time (11.0 years) and showed practice-related improvement in performance. The APOE ε4 genotype was not associated with baseline cognitive composite score or the rate of change in the cognitive composite score. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated.
IMPORTANCE: Clinical trials testing treatments for Alzheimer disease (AD) are increasingly focused on cognitively normal individuals in the preclinical phase of the disease. To optimize observing a treatment effect, such trials need to enroll cognitively normal individuals likely to show cognitive decline over the duration of the trial. OBJECTIVE: To identify which group of cognitively normal individuals shows the greatest cognitive decline over time based on their cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profile. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, cognitively normal participants were classified into 1 of the following 4 hypothetical preclinical AD groups using baseline cerebrospinal fluid levels of Aβ and tau or Aβ and phosphorylated tau (p-tau): stage 0 (high Aβ and low tau), stage 1 (low Aβ and low tau), stage 2 (low Aβ and high tau), and suspected non-AD pathology (SNAP) (high Aβ and high tau). The data presented herein were collected between August 1995 and August 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: An a priori cognitive composite score based on the following 4 tests previously shown to predict progression from normal cognition to symptom onset of mild cognitive impairment or dementia: Paired Associates immediate recall, Logical Memory delayed recall, Boston Naming, and Digit-Symbol Substitution. Linear mixed-effects models were used to compare the cognitive composite scores across the 4 groups over time, adjusting for baseline age, sex, education, and their interactions with time. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-two cognitively normal participants were included in the analyses (mean follow-up, 11.0 years [range, 0-18.3 years] and mean baseline age, 56.9 years [range, 22.1-85.8 years]). Of these, 102 were stage 0, 46 were stage 1, 28 were stage 2, and 46 were SNAP. Individuals in stage 2 (low Aβ and high tau [or p-tau]) had lower baseline cognitive scores and a greater decline in the cognitive composite score relative to the other 3 groups (β ≤ -0.06 for all and P ≤ .001 for the rate of decline for all). Individuals in stage 0, stage 1, and SNAP did not differ from one another in cognitive performance at baseline or over time (11.0 years) and showed practice-related improvement in performance. The APOE ε4 genotype was not associated with baseline cognitive composite score or the rate of change in the cognitive composite score. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that, to optimize observing a treatment effect, clinical trials enrolling cognitively normal individuals should selectively recruit participants with abnormal levels of both amyloid and tau (ie, stage 2) because this group would be expected to show the greatest cognitive decline over time if untreated.
Authors: Stephanie Jb Vos; Chengjie Xiong; Pieter Jelle Visser; Mateusz S Jasielec; Jason Hassenstab; Elizabeth A Grant; Nigel J Cairns; John C Morris; David M Holtzman; Anne M Fagan Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Ge Li; Steven P Millard; Elaine R Peskind; Jing Zhang; Chang-En Yu; James B Leverenz; Cynthia Mayer; Jane S Shofer; Murray A Raskind; Joseph F Quinn; Douglas R Galasko; Thomas J Montine Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: David S Knopman; Clifford R Jack; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Prashanthi Vemuri; Val J Lowe; Kejal Kantarci; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; Bradley F Boeve; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2013-02-19 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Miranka Wirth; Cindee M Madison; Gil D Rabinovici; Hwamee Oh; Susan M Landau; William J Jagust Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: D S Knopman; J E Parisi; A Salviati; M Floriach-Robert; B F Boeve; R J Ivnik; G E Smith; D W Dickson; K A Johnson; L E Petersen; W C McDonald; H Braak; R C Petersen Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Miranka Wirth; Hwamee Oh; Elizabeth C Mormino; Candace Markley; Susan M Landau; William J Jagust Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Marilyn Albert; Anja Soldan; Rebecca Gottesman; Guy McKhann; Ned Sacktor; Leonie Farrington; Maura Grega; Raymond Turner; Yi Lu; Shanshan Li; Mei-Cheng Wang; Ola Selnes Journal: Curr Alzheimer Res Date: 2014 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Prashanthi Vemuri; Timothy G Lesnick; Scott A Przybelski; David S Knopman; Greg M Preboske; Kejal Kantarci; Mekala R Raman; Mary M Machulda; Michelle M Mielke; Val J Lowe; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Walter A Rocca; Rosebud O Roberts; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Brain Date: 2015-01-15 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Philip S Insel; Niklas Mattsson; R Scott Mackin; John Kornak; Rachel Nosheny; Duygu Tosun-Turgut; Michael C Donohue; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: David S Knopman; Samantha Budd Haeberlein; Maria C Carrillo; James A Hendrix; Geoff Kerchner; Richard Margolin; Paul Maruff; David S Miller; Gary Tong; Maria B Tome; Melissa E Murray; Peter T Nelson; Mary Sano; Niklas Mattsson; David L Sultzer; Thomas J Montine; Clifford R Jack; Hartmuth Kolb; Ronald C Petersen; Prashanthi Vemuri; Megan Zoschg Canniere; Julie A Schneider; Susan M Resnick; Gary Romano; Argonde Corien van Harten; David A Wolk; Lisa J Bain; Eric Siemers Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: A A Thaker; B D Weinberg; W P Dillon; C P Hess; H J Cabral; D A Fleischman; S E Leurgans; D A Bennett; B T Hyman; M S Albert; R J Killiany; B Fischl; A M Dale; R S Desikan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Julien Dumurgier; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Frances B Hatling; Kelly A Judge; Aaron P Schultz; Jasmeer P Chhatwal; Deborah Blacker; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Bradley T Hyman; Teresa Gómez-Isla Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Murat Bilgel; Yang An; Jessica Helphrey; Wendy Elkins; Gabriela Gomez; Dean F Wong; Christos Davatzikos; Luigi Ferrucci; Susan M Resnick Journal: Brain Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Yujing Zhao; Dana L Tudorascu; Oscar L Lopez; Ann D Cohen; Chester A Mathis; Howard J Aizenstein; Julie C Price; Lewis H Kuller; M Ilyas Kamboh; Steven T DeKosky; William E Klunk; Beth E Snitz Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 18.302