Ingrid S van Maurik1,2, Marissa D Zwan1, Betty M Tijms1, Femke H Bouwman1, Charlotte E Teunissen3, Philip Scheltens1, Mike P Wattjes4, Frederik Barkhof4,5, Johannes Berkhof2, Wiesje M van der Flier1,2. 1. Department of Neurology and Alzheimer Center, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Neurochemistry Laboratory, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Institutes of Neurology and Healthcare Engineering, University College London, London, England.
Abstract
Importance: Biomarkers do not determine conversion to Alzheimer disease (AD) perfectly, and criteria do not specify how to take patient characteristics into account. Consequently, biomarker use may be challenging for clinicians, especially in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objective: To construct biomarker-based prognostic models that enable determination of future AD dementia in patients with MCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is part of the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) project. A total of 525 patients with MCI from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (longitudinal cohort, tertiary referral center) were studied. All patients had their baseline visit to a memory clinic from September 1, 1997, through August 31, 2014. Prognostic models were constructed by Cox proportional hazards regression with patient characteristics (age, sex, and Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers (hippocampal volume, normalized whole-brain volume), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (amyloid-β1-42, tau), and combined biomarkers. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2015, to October 1, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical end points were AD dementia and any type of dementia after 1 and 3 years. Results: Of the 525 patients, 210 (40.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (8.4) years. On the basis of age, sex, and MMSE score only, the 3-year progression risk to AD dementia ranged from 26% (95% CI, 19%-34%) in younger men with MMSE scores of 29 to 76% (95% CI, 65%-84%) in older women with MMSE scores of 24 (1-year risk: 6% [95% CI, 4%-9%] to 24% [95% CI, 18%-32%]). Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal. Conversely, 3- and 1-year progression risks were 18% (95% CI, 13%-27%) and 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%) after normal MRI results, 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%) and 1% (95% CI, 0.5%-2%) after normal CSF test results, and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1%) after combined normal MRI and CSF test results. The prognostic value of models determining any type of dementia were in the same order of magnitude although somewhat lower. External validation in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 showed that our models were highly robust. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides biomarker-based prognostic models that may help determine AD dementia and any type of dementia in patients with MCI at the individual level. This finding supports clinical decision making and application of biomarkers in daily practice.
Importance: Biomarkers do not determine conversion to Alzheimer disease (AD) perfectly, and criteria do not specify how to take patient characteristics into account. Consequently, biomarker use may be challenging for clinicians, especially in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Objective: To construct biomarker-based prognostic models that enable determination of future AD dementia in patients with MCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is part of the Alzheimer's Biomarkers in Daily Practice (ABIDE) project. A total of 525 patients with MCI from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort (longitudinal cohort, tertiary referral center) were studied. All patients had their baseline visit to a memory clinic from September 1, 1997, through August 31, 2014. Prognostic models were constructed by Cox proportional hazards regression with patient characteristics (age, sex, and Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] score), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers (hippocampal volume, normalized whole-brain volume), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers (amyloid-β1-42, tau), and combined biomarkers. Data were analyzed from November 1, 2015, to October 1, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinical end points were AD dementia and any type of dementia after 1 and 3 years. Results: Of the 525 patients, 210 (40.0%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 67.3 (8.4) years. On the basis of age, sex, and MMSE score only, the 3-year progression risk to AD dementia ranged from 26% (95% CI, 19%-34%) in younger men with MMSE scores of 29 to 76% (95% CI, 65%-84%) in older women with MMSE scores of 24 (1-year risk: 6% [95% CI, 4%-9%] to 24% [95% CI, 18%-32%]). Three- and 1-year progression risks were 86% (95% CI, 71%-95%) and 27% (95% CI, 17%-41%) when MRI results were abnormal, 82% (95% CI, 73%-89%) and 26% (95% CI, 20%-33%) when CSF test results were abnormal, and 89% (95% CI, 79%-95%) and 26% (95% CI, 18%-36%) when the results of both tests were abnormal. Conversely, 3- and 1-year progression risks were 18% (95% CI, 13%-27%) and 3% (95% CI, 2%-5%) after normal MRI results, 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%) and 1% (95% CI, 0.5%-2%) after normal CSF test results, and 4% (95% CI, 2%-7%) and 0.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-1%) after combined normal MRI and CSF test results. The prognostic value of models determining any type of dementia were in the same order of magnitude although somewhat lower. External validation in Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 showed that our models were highly robust. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides biomarker-based prognostic models that may help determine AD dementia and any type of dementia in patients with MCI at the individual level. This finding supports clinical decision making and application of biomarkers in daily practice.
Authors: F H Bouwman; S N M Schoonenboom; W M van der Flier; E J van Elk; A Kok; F Barkhof; M A Blankenstein; Ph Scheltens Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2006-06-19 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Cees Mulder; Nicolaas A Verwey; Wiesje M van der Flier; Femke H Bouwman; Astrid Kok; Evert J van Elk; Philip Scheltens; Marinus A Blankenstein Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: G C Román; T K Tatemichi; T Erkinjuntti; J L Cummings; J C Masdeu; J H Garcia; L Amaducci; J M Orgogozo; A Brun; A Hofman Journal: Neurology Date: 1993-02 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: K B Walhovd; A M Fjell; J Brewer; L K McEvoy; C Fennema-Notestine; D J Hagler; R G Jennings; D Karow; A M Dale Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Arno de Wilde; Ingrid S van Maurik; Marleen Kunneman; Femke Bouwman; Marissa Zwan; Eline A J Willemse; Geert Jan Biessels; Mirella Minkman; Ruth Pel; Niki S M Schoonenboom; Ellen M A Smets; Mike P Wattjes; Frederik Barkhof; Andrew Stephens; Erik J van Lier; Richard Batrla-Utermann; Philip Scheltens; Charlotte E Teunissen; Bart N M van Berckel; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2017-01-23
Authors: Daniela Bertens; Betty M Tijms; Philip Scheltens; Charlotte E Teunissen; Pieter Jelle Visser Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Rosalinde E R Slot; Sietske A M Sikkes; Johannes Berkhof; Henry Brodaty; Rachel Buckley; Enrica Cavedo; Efthimios Dardiotis; Francoise Guillo-Benarous; Harald Hampel; Nicole A Kochan; Simone Lista; Tobias Luck; Paul Maruff; José Luis Molinuevo; Johannes Kornhuber; Barry Reisberg; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Shannon L Risacher; Susanne Roehr; Perminder S Sachdev; Nikolaos Scarmeas; Philip Scheltens; Melanie B Shulman; Andrew J Saykin; Sander C J Verfaillie; Pieter Jelle Visser; Stephanie J B Vos; Michael Wagner; Steffen Wolfsgruber; Frank Jessen; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Silvia Ingala; Ingrid S van Maurik; Daniele Altomare; Raphael Wurm; Ellen Dicks; Ronald A van Schijndel; Marissa Zwan; Femke Bouwman; Niki Schoonenboom; Leo Boelaarts; Gerwin Roks; Rob van Marum; Barbera van Harten; Inge van Uden; Jules Claus; Viktor Wottschel; Hugo Vrenken; Mike P Wattjes; Wiesje M van der Flier; Frederik Barkhof Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wan-Hsuan Lu; Kelly Virecoulon Giudici; John E Morley; Sophie Guyonnet; Angelo Parini; Geetika Aggarwal; Andrew D Nguyen; Yan Li; Randall J Bateman; Bruno Vellas; Philipe de Souto Barreto Journal: Geroscience Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 7.581
Authors: Tobey J Betthauser; Karly A Cody; Matthew D Zammit; Dhanabalan Murali; Alexander K Converse; Todd E Barnhart; Charles K Stone; Howard A Rowley; Sterling C Johnson; Bradley T Christian Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: A Leuzy; N J Ashton; N Mattsson-Carlgren; A Dodich; M Boccardi; J Corre; A Drzezga; A Nordberg; R Ossenkoppele; H Zetterberg; K Blennow; G B Frisoni; V Garibotto; O Hansson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Samantha L Allison; Erin M Jonaitis; Rebecca L Koscik; Bruce P Hermann; Kimberly D Mueller; Robert P Cary; Yue Ma; Howard A Rowley; Cynthia M Carlsson; Sanjay Asthana; Henrik Zetterberg; Kaj Blennow; Barbara B Bendlin; Sterling C Johnson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 5.133
Authors: Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Oskar Hansson; Nicholas C Cullen; Antoine Leuzy; Shorena Janelidze; Sebastian Palmqvist; Anna L Svenningsson; Erik Stomrud; Jeffrey L Dage Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 14.919