| Literature DB >> 30153858 |
Roy W E Van Hooren1, Joost M Riphagen2,3, Heidi I L Jacobs2,4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amyloid-beta (Aβ) has a dose-response relationship with cognition in healthy adults. Additionally, the levels of functional connectivity within and between brain networks have been associated with cognitive performance in healthy adults. Aiming to explore potential synergistic effects, we investigated the relationship of inter-network functional connectivity, Aβ burden, and memory decline among healthy individuals and individuals with preclinical, prodromal, or clinical Alzheimer's disease.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; Amyloid-β; Clinical trials; Cognitively normal; Inter-network functional connectivity; Longitudinal; Memory performance; Mild cognitive impairment; Preclinical; Prodromal
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30153858 PMCID: PMC6114059 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-018-0420-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Fig. 1Linear effects of functional connectivity on memory decline over time per group. The effect of baseline functional connectivity between networks on memory performance over time was investigated in three network pairs in all groups. Functional connectivity values were standardized to ensure that the mean reflects a z-value of 0. Red, green, and blue lines indicate the estimated marginal means for the moderation by negative (–1 standard deviation (SD)), positive (+1 SD), and no (mean) correlation between networks, respectively, but the analyses were performed using functional connectivity measures continuously. Network combinations from top to bottom: DMN-DAN, DMN-SN, and DMN-FPN. The DMN is shown in dark blue, the DAN in green, the SN in yellow, and the FPN in light blue. The brain images give a superior viewpoint of the brain; top = anterior, L = left, R = right, bottom = posterior. The AD group only had a maximum follow-up time of 2 years (Table 1). All p values are corrected for multiple comparisons using FDR. Significant effects are indicated by an asterisk and bold font. a DMN-DAN: significant effects were found in the cognitively normal and MCI+ groups. b DMN-SN: significant effects were found in the cognitively normal and MCI+ groups. c DMN-FPN: no significant effects were found for this network pair
Summary table of participant characteristics at baseline
| Variable | CN ( | MCI– ( | MCI+ ( | AD ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AV45 SUVR | 1.16 (0.21) | 1.01 (0.05) | 1.39 (0.17) | 1.50 (0.15) | < 0.001 |
| Age (years) | 74 (5.71) | 71.36 (8.03) | 72.58 (5.79) | 74 (7.32) | 0.42 |
| Education (years) | 16.43 (1.93) | 16.48 (2.68) | 15.86 (2.46) | 15.46 (2.50) | 0.36 |
| Females | 15 (54%) | 12 (44%) | 14 (39%) | 12 (50%) | 0.67 |
| ICV (mm3) | 1,572,034 (153,316.20) | 1,545,103 (168,923.10) | 1,568,839 (174,101.60) | 1,574,218 (210,862) | 0.94 |
| APOE ε4 | 10 (36%) | 4 (15%) | 24 (66%) | 20 (83%) | < 0.001a |
| ADNI-Mem | 0.89 (0.52) | 0.37 (0.49) | 0.15 (0.60) | −1.10 (0.56) | < 0.001 |
| ADNI-EF | 0.80 (0.56) | 0.25 (0.80) | 0.34 (0.86) | −0.94 (0.62) | < 0.001 |
| CDR-SB | 0.05 (0.16) | 1.26 (0.92) | 1.90 (1.06) | 4.41 (1.31) | < 0.001 |
| FC DMN-DAN | −0.12 (0.28) | 0.00 (0.33) | −0.03 (0.24) | −0.15 (0.30) | 0.17 |
| FC DMN-SN | −0.15 (0.29) | −0.11 (0.28) | −0.08 (0.28) | −0.18 (0.27) | 0.56 |
| FC DMN-FPN | 0.31 (0.23) | 0.20 (0.30) | 0.26 (0.23) | 0.17 (0.29) | 0.24 |
| Follow-up time (years) | 1.63 (1.24) | 1.30 (0.96) | 1.46 (1.09) | 0.90 (0.53) | 0.001 |
Data are presented as the mean (standard deviation) for the continuous variables and as n (%) for the categorical variable
The APOE ε4 row gives the number of participants in this group with one or more APOE ε4 alleles
Statistical significance was tested with analysis of variance for continuous variables and chi-squared test for the categorical variables
APOE ε4 apolipoprotein ε4, AD Alzheimer’s disease, ADNI-EF Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative executive functions score composite, ADNI-Mem Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative memory score composite, AV45 18F-AV-45 florbetapir, CDR-SB Clinical Dementia Rating scale—sum of boxes, CN cognitively normal, DAN dorsal attention network, DMN default mode network, FC functional connectivity, FPN frontoparietal network, ICV intracranial volume, MCI mild cognitive impairment, SN salience network, SUVR standardized uptake value ratio
a All groups were significantly different from each other, except CN versus MCI– and MCI+ versus AD
Associations between group, inter-network functional connectivity, and memory decline
| Fitted model | Est. | SE | 95% CI | DF | T value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMN-DAN ( | |||||||
| Time × MCI– × DMN-DAN | −0.43 | 0.22 | −0.68 to −0.01 | 310 | −2.00 | 0.047 | 0.14 |
| Time × MCI+ × DMN-DAN | −0.79 | 0.23 | −1.25 to −0.34 | 310 | −3.43 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Time × AD × DMN-DAN | −0.24 | 0.30 | −0.84 to 0.36 | 310 | −0.79 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| DMN-SN ( | |||||||
| Time × MCI– × DMN-SN | −0.26 | 0.23 | −0.71 to 0.19 | 310 | −1.13 | 0.26 | 0.32 |
| Time × MCI+ × DMN-SN | −0.55 | 0.20 | −0.93 to −0.16 | 310 | −2.81 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Time × AD × DMN-SN | −0.36 | 0.31 | −0.98 to 0.25 | 310 | −1.17 | 0.25 | 0.37 |
| DMN-FPN ( | |||||||
| Time × MCI– × DMN-FPN | −0.27 | 0.27 | −0.81 to 0.26 | 310 | −1.00 | 0.32 | 0.32 |
| Time × MCI+ × DMN-FPN | −0.21 | 0.26 | −0.72 to 0.30 | 310 | −0.81 | 0.42 | 0.42 |
| Time × AD × DMN-FPN | −0.45 | 0.33 | −1.09 to 0.19 | 310 | −1.38 | 0.17 | 0.37 |
Results are acquired using the cognitively normal group as a reference group
Regression models are adjusted for age, intracranial volume, sex, and education
Beta coefficients are unstandardized
AD Alzheimer’s disease, CI confidence interval, DAN dorsal attention network, DF degrees of freedom, DMN default mode network, FDR false discovery rate, FPN frontoparietal network, MCI mild cognitive impairment, SE standard error, SN salience network
Three-way interaction of functional connectivity, amyloid-beta, and time in the cognitively normal group
| Fitted model | Est. | SE | 95% CI | DF | T value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMN-DAN ( | |||||||
| DMN-DAN × Aβ × Time | 1.97 | 0.48 | 1.03 to 2.92 | 86 | 4.14 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| DMN-SN ( | |||||||
| DMN-SN × Aβ × Time | 1.86 | 0.56 | 0.74 to 2.97 | 86 | 3.31 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| DMN-FPN ( | |||||||
| DMN-FPN × Aβ × Time | −0.62 | 0.97 | −2.55 to 1.30 | 86 | −0.64 | 0.52 | 0.52 |
Regression models are adjusted for age, intracranial volume, sex and education
Beta coefficients are unstandardized
Aβ amyloid-beta, CI confidence interval, DAN dorsal attention network, DF degrees of freedom, DMN default mode network, FPN frontoparietal network, SE standard error, SN salience network
Curvilinear associations between functional inter-network connectivity, amyloid-beta burden, and memory decline
| Fitted model | Est. | SE | 95% CI | DF | T value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole sample, excluding AD group ( | |||||||
| DMN-DAN ( | |||||||
| DMN-DAN × Aβ × (Time2) | 0.42 | 0.16 | 0.10 to 0.74 | 266 | 2.60 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| DMN-SN ( | |||||||
| DMN-SN × Aβ × (Time2) | 0.25 | 0.14 | −0.02 to 0.52 | 266 | 1.84 | 0.07 | 0.07 |
| Subset of participants with positive correlation between DMN and DANb | |||||||
| Whole sample, excluding AD group ( | |||||||
| Aβ × Time | −0.43 | 0.15 | −0.73 to −0.13 | 116 | −2.83 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| CN ( | |||||||
| Aβ × Time | 0.22 | 0.20 | −0.19 to 0.63 | 31 | 1.08 | 0.29 | 0.29 |
| MCI ( | |||||||
| Aβ × Time | −0.44 | 0.13 | −0.69 to −0.18 | 83 | −3.43 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Subset of participants with negative correlation between DMN and DANa | |||||||
| Whole sample. Excluding AD group ( | |||||||
| Aβ × (Time2) | −0.05 | 0.01 | −0.07 to − 0.03 | 152 | −4.23 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| CN ( | |||||||
| Aβ × (Time2) | −0.25 | 0.08 | −0.41 to − 0.10 | 53 | −3.33 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| MCI ( | |||||||
| Aβ × Time | − 0.26 | 0.15 | − 0.56 to 0.04 | 96 | −1.73 | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Regression models are adjusted for age, intracranial volume, sex and education
Beta coefficients are unstandardized
Aβ amyloid-beta, AD Alzheimer’s disease, CI confidence interval, CN cognitively normal, DAN dorsal attention network, DF degrees of freedom, DMN default mode network, FDR false discovery rate, MCI mild cognitive impairment, SE standard error, SN salience network
a Models include a quadratic term only if it explained more variance than the linear model without quadratic term
Fig. 2Curvilinear three-way interaction of functional connectivity, amyloid-beta and time and its relationship with memory performance. To visualize the three-way interaction, the whole sample, excluding the AD group, was split based on whether functional connectivity between DMN-DAN was below or above zero, allowing us to visualize the dose-response relationship of Aβ burden (measured with 18F-AV-45 florbetapir standardized uptake value ratio) on memory decline in both subgroups. 18F-AV-45 florbetapir standardized uptake value ratio values over 1.11 indicate Aβ positivity. Linear or curvilinear graphs were drawn based on which type of association showed the best fit for each model. All p values are FDR-corrected. Significant effects are indicated by an asterisk and bold font. a Effects within the subgroup of cognitively normal participants and MCI patients showing positive correlations between networks. b Curvilinear effects within the subgroup of cognitively normal participants and MCI patients showing negative correlations between networks. c Effects within the cognitively normal subgroup with positive correlations between networks; no significant dose-response relationship of Aβ on memory (practice effects). d Effects within the MCI subgroup with positive correlations between networks showing a dose-response relationship of Aβ on memory. e Effects within the cognitively normal subgroup with negative correlations between networks showing a curvilinear dose-response relationship of Aβ on memory. f Effects within the MCI subgroup with negative correlations between networks showing no (borderline) significant effect of Aβ burden on memory
Fig. 3Power analysis in the cognitively normal group. To assess the effect of including inter-network connectivity as an inclusion criterion in clinical trials, we performed a power analysis in the cognitively normal group. The x axis describes the memory slope reduction in percentages and the y axis describes the number of participants needed per arm to detect this reduction with 80% power and α = 0.05 in a 4-year trial with annual assessments. The green line shows the sample size needed when only amyloid is used as an inclusion criterion and inter-network connectivity between the DMN and DAN is not considered. The orange line shows the required sample size when positive inter-network correlations between the DMN and DAN and amyloid are used as inclusion criteria. The blue line shows the required sample size when negative inter-network correlations between the DMN and DAN and amyloid are used as inclusion criteria