Rachel F Buckley1,2,3,4, Elizabeth C Mormino5, Jennifer S Rabin6, Timothy J Hohman7, Susan Landau8, Bernard J Hanseeuw1,9, Heidi I L Jacobs10,11, Kathryn V Papp1,2, Rebecca E Amariglio1,2, Michael J Properzi1, Aaron P Schultz1,2, Dylan Kirn1,2, Matthew R Scott1, Trey Hedden12, Michelle Farrell1, Julie Price12, Jasmeer Chhatwal1,2, Dorene M Rentz1,2, Victor L Villemagne13, Keith A Johnson1,2,11, Reisa A Sperling1,2. 1. Harvard Aging Brain Study, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 2. Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. The Florey Institute, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Melbourne School of Psychological Science, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Neurology, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 6. Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 7. Vanderbilt Memory & Alzheimer's Center, Department of Neurology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 8. Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley. 9. Department of Neurology, Cliniques Universitaires St-Luc, Institute of Neuroscience, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. 10. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 11. Division of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 12. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 13. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Centre for PET, Austin Health, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
Importance: Mounting evidence suggests that sex differences exist in the pathologic trajectory of Alzheimer disease. Previous literature shows elevated levels of cerebrospinal fluid tau in women compared with men as a function of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status and β-amyloid (Aβ). What remains unclear is the association of sex with regional tau deposition in clinically normal individuals. Objective: To examine sex differences in the cross-sectional association between Aβ and regional tau deposition as measured with positron emission tomography (PET). Design, Setting and Participants: This is a study of 2 cross-sectional, convenience-sampled cohorts of clinically normal individuals who received tau and Aβ PET scans. Data were collected between January 2016 and February 2018 from 193 clinically normal individuals from the Harvard Aging Brain Study (age range, 55-92 years; 118 women [61%]) who underwent carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B and flortaucipir F18 PET and 103 clinically normal individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (age range, 63-94 years; 55 women [51%]) who underwent florbetapir and flortaucipir F 18 PET. Main Outcomes and Measures: A main association of sex with regional tau in the entorhinal cortices, inferior temporal lobe, and a meta-region of interest, which was a composite of regions in the temporal lobe. Associations between sex and global Aβ as well as sex and APOE ε4 on these regions after controlling for age were also examined. Results: The mean (SD) age of all individuals was 74.2 (7.6) years (81 APOE ε4 carriers [31%]; 89 individuals [30%] with high Aβ). There was no clear association of sex with regional tau that was replicated across studies. However, in both cohorts, clinically normal women exhibited higher entorhinal cortical tau than men (meta-analytic estimate: β [male] = -0.11 [0.05]; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.02; P = .02), which was associated with individuals with higher Aβ burden. A sex by APOE ε4 interaction was not associated with regional tau (meta-analytic estimate: β [male, APOE ε4+] = -0.15 [0.09]; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.01; P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: Early tau deposition was elevated in women compared with men in individuals on the Alzheimer disease trajectory. These findings lend support to a growing body of literature that highlights a biological underpinning for sex differences in Alzheimer disease risk.
Importance: Mounting evidence suggests that sex differences exist in the pathologic trajectory of Alzheimer disease. Previous literature shows elevated levels of cerebrospinal fluid tau in women compared with men as a function of apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 status and β-amyloid (Aβ). What remains unclear is the association of sex with regional tau deposition in clinically normal individuals. Objective: To examine sex differences in the cross-sectional association between Aβ and regional tau deposition as measured with positron emission tomography (PET). Design, Setting and Participants: This is a study of 2 cross-sectional, convenience-sampled cohorts of clinically normal individuals who received tau and Aβ PET scans. Data were collected between January 2016 and February 2018 from 193 clinically normal individuals from the Harvard Aging Brain Study (age range, 55-92 years; 118 women [61%]) who underwent carbon 11-labeled Pittsburgh Compound B and flortaucipir F18 PET and 103 clinically normal individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (age range, 63-94 years; 55 women [51%]) who underwent florbetapir and flortaucipir F 18 PET. Main Outcomes and Measures: A main association of sex with regional tau in the entorhinal cortices, inferior temporal lobe, and a meta-region of interest, which was a composite of regions in the temporal lobe. Associations between sex and global Aβ as well as sex and APOE ε4 on these regions after controlling for age were also examined. Results: The mean (SD) age of all individuals was 74.2 (7.6) years (81 APOE ε4 carriers [31%]; 89 individuals [30%] with high Aβ). There was no clear association of sex with regional tau that was replicated across studies. However, in both cohorts, clinically normal women exhibited higher entorhinal cortical tau than men (meta-analytic estimate: β [male] = -0.11 [0.05]; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.02; P = .02), which was associated with individuals with higher Aβ burden. A sex by APOE ε4 interaction was not associated with regional tau (meta-analytic estimate: β [male, APOE ε4+] = -0.15 [0.09]; 95% CI, -0.32 to 0.01; P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: Early tau deposition was elevated in women compared with men in individuals on the Alzheimer disease trajectory. These findings lend support to a growing body of literature that highlights a biological underpinning for sex differences in Alzheimer disease risk.
Authors: William J Jagust; Dan Bandy; Kewei Chen; Norman L Foster; Susan M Landau; Chester A Mathis; Julie C Price; Eric M Reiman; Daniel Skovronsky; Robert A Koeppe Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: May A Beydoun; Adel Boueiz; Marwan S Abougergi; Melissa H Kitner-Triolo; Hind A Beydoun; Susan M Resnick; Richard O'Brien; Alan B Zonderman Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: John C Morris; Catherine M Roe; Chengjie Xiong; Anne M Fagan; Alison M Goate; David M Holtzman; Mark A Mintun Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: David R Howlett; Jill C Richardson; Angela Austin; Andrew A Parsons; Simon T Bate; D Ceri Davies; M Isabel Gonzalez Journal: Brain Res Date: 2004-08-13 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Keith A Johnson; Aaron Schultz; Rebecca A Betensky; J Alex Becker; Jorge Sepulcre; Dorene Rentz; Elizabeth Mormino; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Rebecca Amariglio; Kate Papp; Gad Marshall; Mark Albers; Samantha Mauro; Lesley Pepin; Jonathan Alverio; Kelly Judge; Marlie Philiossaint; Timothy Shoup; Daniel Yokell; Bradford Dickerson; Teresa Gomez-Isla; Bradley Hyman; Neil Vasdev; Reisa Sperling Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2015-12-15 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Laura M Cox; Hadi Abou-El-Hassan; Amir Hadi Maghzi; Julia Vincentini; Howard L Weiner Journal: Brain Res Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Tyler G Demarest; Vijay R Varma; Darlene Estrada; Mansi Babbar; Sambuddha Basu; Uma V Mahajan; Ruin Moaddel; Deborah L Croteau; Madhav Thambisetty; Mark P Mattson; Vilhelm A Bohr Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Elizabeth E Moore; Katherine A Gifford; Omair A Khan; Dandan Liu; Kimberly R Pechman; Lealani Mae Y Acosta; Susan P Bell; Maxim Turchan; Bennett A Landman; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Timothy J Hohman; Angela L Jefferson Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-05-06 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Matthew P Pase; Jayandra J Himali; Alexa S Beiser; Charles DeCarli; Emer R McGrath; Claudia L Satizabal; Hugo J Aparicio; Hieab H H Adams; Alexander P Reiner; W T Longstreth; Myriam Fornage; Russell P Tracy; Oscar Lopez; Bruce M Psaty; Daniel Levy; Sudha Seshadri; Joshua C Bis Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Aneela Rahman; Eva Schelbaum; Katherine Hoffman; Ivan Diaz; Hollie Hristov; Randolph Andrews; Steven Jett; Hande Jackson; Andrea Lee; Harini Sarva; Silky Pahlajani; Dawn Matthews; Jonathan Dyke; Mony J de Leon; Richard S Isaacson; Roberta D Brinton; Lisa Mosconi Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 9.910