Elizabeth C Mormino1, Kathryn V Papp2, Dorene M Rentz2, Aaron P Schultz3, Molly LaPoint1, Rebecca Amariglio2, Bernard Hanseeuw1, Gad A Marshall2, Trey Hedden4, Keith A Johnson5, Reisa A Sperling6. 1. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown. 2. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown2Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown3Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown4Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 4. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown4Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 5. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown2Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston5Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 6. Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Charlestown2Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts4Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: A substantial proportion of clinically normal (CN) older individuals are classified as having suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP), defined as biomarker negative for β-amyloid (Aβ-) but positive for neurodegeneration (ND+). The etiology of SNAP in this population remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CN individuals with SNAP show evidence of early Alzheimer disease (AD) processes (ie, elevated tau levels and/or increased risk for cognitive decline). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This longitudinal observational study performed in an academic medical center included 247 CN participants from the Harvard Aging Brain Study. Participants were classified into preclinical AD stages using measures of Aβ (Pittsburgh Compound B [PIB]-labeled positron emission tomography) and ND (hippocampal volume or cortical glucose metabolism from AD-vulnerable regions). Classifications included stages 0 (Aβ-/ND-), 1 (Aβ+/ND-), and 2 (Aβ+/ND+) and SNAP (Aβ-/ND+). Continuous levels of PiB and ND, tau levels in the medial and inferior temporal lobes, and longitudinal cognition were examined. Data collection began in 2010 and is ongoing. Data were analyzed from 2015 to 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Evidence of amyloid-independent tau deposition and/or cognitive decline. RESULTS: Of the 247 participants (142 women [57.5%]; 105 men [42.5%]; mean age, 74 [range, 63-90] years), 64 (25.9%) were classified as having SNAP. Compared with the stage 0 group, the SNAP group was not more likely to have subthreshold PiB values (higher values within the Aβ- range), suggesting that misclassification due to the PiB cutoff was not a prominent contributor to this group (mean [SD] distribution volume ratio, 1.08 [0.05] for the SNAP group; 1.09 [0.05] for the stage 1 group). Tau levels in the medial and inferior temporal lobes were indistinguishable between the SNAP and stage 0 groups (entorhinal cortex, β = -0.005 [SE, 0.036]; parahippocampal gyrus, β = -0.001 [SE, 0.027]; and inferior temporal lobe, β = -0.004 [SE, 0.027]; P ≥ .88) and were lower in the SNAP group compared with the stage 2 group (entorhinal cortex, β = -0.125 [SE, 0.041]; parahippocampal gyrus, β = -0.074 [SE, 0.030]; and inferior temporal lobe, β = -0.083 [SE, 0.031]; P ≤ .02). The stage 2 group demonstrated greater cognitive decline compared with all other groups (stage 0, β = -0.239 [SE, 0.042]; stage 1, β = -0.242 [SE, 0.051]; and SNAP, β = -0.157 [SE, 0.044]; P ≤ .001), whereas the SNAP group showed a diminished practice effect over time compared with the stage 0 group (β = -0.082 [SE, 0.037]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, clinically normal adults with SNAP did not exhibit evidence of elevated tau levels, which suggests that this biomarker construct does not represent amyloid-independent tauopathy. At the group level, individuals with SNAP did not show cognitive decline but did show a diminished practice effect. SNAP is likely heterogeneous, with a subset of this group at elevated risk for short-term decline. Future refinement of biomarkers will be necessary to subclassify this group and determine the biological correlates of ND markers among Aβ- CN individuals.
IMPORTANCE: A substantial proportion of clinically normal (CN) older individuals are classified as having suspected non-Alzheimer disease pathophysiology (SNAP), defined as biomarker negative for β-amyloid (Aβ-) but positive for neurodegeneration (ND+). The etiology of SNAP in this population remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether CN individuals with SNAP show evidence of early Alzheimer disease (AD) processes (ie, elevated tau levels and/or increased risk for cognitive decline). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This longitudinal observational study performed in an academic medical center included 247 CN participants from the Harvard Aging Brain Study. Participants were classified into preclinical AD stages using measures of Aβ (Pittsburgh Compound B [PIB]-labeled positron emission tomography) and ND (hippocampal volume or cortical glucose metabolism from AD-vulnerable regions). Classifications included stages 0 (Aβ-/ND-), 1 (Aβ+/ND-), and 2 (Aβ+/ND+) and SNAP (Aβ-/ND+). Continuous levels of PiB and ND, tau levels in the medial and inferior temporal lobes, and longitudinal cognition were examined. Data collection began in 2010 and is ongoing. Data were analyzed from 2015 to 2016. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Evidence of amyloid-independent tau deposition and/or cognitive decline. RESULTS: Of the 247 participants (142 women [57.5%]; 105 men [42.5%]; mean age, 74 [range, 63-90] years), 64 (25.9%) were classified as having SNAP. Compared with the stage 0 group, the SNAP group was not more likely to have subthreshold PiB values (higher values within the Aβ- range), suggesting that misclassification due to the PiB cutoff was not a prominent contributor to this group (mean [SD] distribution volume ratio, 1.08 [0.05] for the SNAP group; 1.09 [0.05] for the stage 1 group). Tau levels in the medial and inferior temporal lobes were indistinguishable between the SNAP and stage 0 groups (entorhinal cortex, β = -0.005 [SE, 0.036]; parahippocampal gyrus, β = -0.001 [SE, 0.027]; and inferior temporal lobe, β = -0.004 [SE, 0.027]; P ≥ .88) and were lower in the SNAP group compared with the stage 2 group (entorhinal cortex, β = -0.125 [SE, 0.041]; parahippocampal gyrus, β = -0.074 [SE, 0.030]; and inferior temporal lobe, β = -0.083 [SE, 0.031]; P ≤ .02). The stage 2 group demonstrated greater cognitive decline compared with all other groups (stage 0, β = -0.239 [SE, 0.042]; stage 1, β = -0.242 [SE, 0.051]; and SNAP, β = -0.157 [SE, 0.044]; P ≤ .001), whereas the SNAP group showed a diminished practice effect over time compared with the stage 0 group (β = -0.082 [SE, 0.037]; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, clinically normal adults with SNAP did not exhibit evidence of elevated tau levels, which suggests that this biomarker construct does not represent amyloid-independent tauopathy. At the group level, individuals with SNAP did not show cognitive decline but did show a diminished practice effect. SNAP is likely heterogeneous, with a subset of this group at elevated risk for short-term decline. Future refinement of biomarkers will be necessary to subclassify this group and determine the biological correlates of ND markers among Aβ- CN individuals.
Authors: Bruce Fischl; David H Salat; Evelina Busa; Marilyn Albert; Megan Dieterich; Christian Haselgrove; Andre van der Kouwe; Ron Killiany; David Kennedy; Shuna Klaveness; Albert Montillo; Nikos Makris; Bruce Rosen; Anders M Dale Journal: Neuron Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 17.173
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: Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca E Amariglio; Elizabeth C Mormino; Trey Hedden; Maria Dekhytar; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Dorene M Rentz Journal: Neuropsychologia Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 3.139
Authors: David T Chien; Shadfar Bahri; A Katrin Szardenings; Joseph C Walsh; Fanrong Mu; Min-Ying Su; William R Shankle; Arkadij Elizarov; Hartmuth C Kolb Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2013 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Peter T Nelson; Irina Alafuzoff; Eileen H Bigio; Constantin Bouras; Heiko Braak; Nigel J Cairns; Rudolph J Castellani; Barbara J Crain; Peter Davies; Kelly Del Tredici; Charles Duyckaerts; Matthew P Frosch; Vahram Haroutunian; Patrick R Hof; Christine M Hulette; Bradley T Hyman; Takeshi Iwatsubo; Kurt A Jellinger; Gregory A Jicha; Enikö Kövari; Walter A Kukull; James B Leverenz; Seth Love; Ian R Mackenzie; David M Mann; Eliezer Masliah; Ann C McKee; Thomas J Montine; John C Morris; Julie A Schneider; Joshua A Sonnen; Dietmar R Thal; John Q Trojanowski; Juan C Troncoso; Thomas Wisniewski; Randall L Woltjer; Thomas G Beach Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.685
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: Keith A Josephs; Jennifer L Whitwell; Nirubol Tosakulwong; Stephen D Weigand; Melissa E Murray; Amanda M Liesinger; Leonard Petrucelli; Matthew L Senjem; Robert J Ivnik; Joseph E Parisi; Ronald C Petersen; Dennis W Dickson Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Rachel F Buckley; Elizabeth C Mormino; Rebecca E Amariglio; Michael J Properzi; Jennifer S Rabin; Yen Ying Lim; Kathryn V Papp; Heidi I L Jacobs; Samantha Burnham; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Vincent Doré; Annette Dobson; Colin L Masters; Michael Waller; Christopher C Rowe; Paul Maruff; Michael C Donohue; Dorene M Rentz; Dylan Kirn; Trey Hedden; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Aaron P Schultz; Keith A Johnson; Victor L Villemagne; Reisa A Sperling Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 21.566
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: Jennifer S Rabin; Rodrigo D Perea; Rachel F Buckley; Taylor E Neal; Randy L Buckner; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling; Trey Hedden Journal: Cereb Cortex Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.357
Authors: Sandhitsu R Das; Long Xie; Laura E M Wisse; Ranjit Ittyerah; Nicholas J Tustison; Bradford C Dickerson; Paul A Yushkevich; David A Wolk Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 4.673
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