| Literature DB >> 32209123 |
Jessica Alber1,2,3, Paul Maruff4,5, Cláudia Y Santos1, Brian R Ott3,6, Stephen P Salloway3,6, Don C Yoo7, Richard B Noto7, Louisa I Thompson3, Danielle Goldfarb8, Edmund Arthur2, Alex Song9, Peter J Snyder10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Abnormal beta-amyloid (Aβ) is associated with deleterious changes in central cholinergic tone in the very early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD), which may be unmasked by a cholinergic antagonist (J Prev Alzheimers Dis 1:1-4, 2017). Previously, we established the scopolamine challenge test (SCT) as a "cognitive stress test" screening measure to identify individuals at risk for AD (Alzheimer's & Dementia 10(2):262-7, 2014) (Neurobiol. Aging 36(10):2709-15, 2015). Here we aim to demonstrate the potential of the SCT as an indicator of cognitive change and neocortical amyloid aggregation after a 27-month follow-up interval.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer disease; Anticholinergic drugs; Beta-amyloid protein; Biomarkers; Cholinergic; Cognition; Early detection; Early diagnosis; Preclinical Alzheimer’s disease; Scopolamine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32209123 PMCID: PMC7093953 DOI: 10.1186/s13195-020-00599-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Impact factor: 6.982
Demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline exam, for the full sample and for the two subgroups (those who either failed or passed the scopolamine challenge test (SCT) at their baseline exams)
| Main outcome | Full sample ( | SCT fail ( | SCT pass ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohen’s | ||||||
| Sex | No. of female | 38 (60%) | 20 (71%) | 18 (60%) | .296 | – |
| No. of ε4 carriers | 30 (48%) | 17 (58%) | 13 (43%) | .559 | – | |
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||
| Age | No. of years | 63.06 (5.42) | 63.93 (6.31) | 62.44 (5.04) | .349 | 0.28 |
| Education | No. of years | 17.21 (2.77) | 17.47 (3.46) | 17.14 (2.55) | .689 | 0.12 |
| SUVr (neocortex) | Standardized uptake value ratio | |||||
| SUVr (anterior cingulate) | Standardized uptake value ratio | |||||
| GDS | Total score | 1.86 (2.16) | 1.60 (1.45) | 1.94 (2.35) | .602 | − 0.16 |
| DASS Depression Subscale | Total Depression Subscale Score | 3.56 (6.70) | 2.60 (2.59) | 3.87 (7.56) | .526 | − 0.19 |
| DASS Anxiety Subscale | Total Anxiety Subscale Score | 2.73 (4.53) | 2.40 (3.58) | 2.83 (4.83) | .752 | − 0.09 |
| DASS Stress Subscale | Total Stress Subscale Score | 6.73 (6.77) | 6.67 (4.55) | 6.74 (7.38) | .969 | − 0.01 |
| MAC-Q | Total score | 21.80 (3.57) | 21.35 (3.94) | 21.28 (3.27) | .501 | 0.15 |
| Body mass index | Body mass index | 26.69 (5.50) | 28.66 (7.95) | 26.07 (4.41) | .113 | 0.48 |
| MMSE | Total score | 29.05 (1.02) | 28.93 (1.16) | 29.08 (0.99) | .624 | − 0.15 |
| GMLT Moves/Second (MPS) | Total correct moves/second | 0.81 (0.20) | 0.78 (0.20) | 0.81 (0.19) | .573 | − 0.17 |
| GMLT Total Errors (TER) | Total no. of errors | 55.60 (14.38) | 53.21 (16.21) | 52.79 (14.80) | .430 | − 0.22 |
| GMLT Composite | Standardized | − 0.02 (0.81) | − 0.08 (0.89) | − 0.01 (0.79) | .764 | − 0.09 |
| ISLT Total Recall | Total words recalled (three learning trials) | 25.62 (4.20) | 24.04 (4.41) | 27.85 (4.16) | .368 | − 0.28 |
| One Card Learning task | Accuracy of performance | 1.01 (0.10) | 1.05 (0.03) | 1.10 (0.10) | .085 | − 0.40 |
| One Back task | Accuracy of performance | 1.45 (0.11) | 1.40 (0.14) | 1.46 (0.10) | .063 | − 0.54 |
*Note: APOE apolipoprotein, SUVr standardized uptake value ratio, GDS Geriatric Depression Scale, DASS Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale, MAC-Q Memory Complaints Questionnaire, MMSE Mini-Mental State Examination, GMLT Groton Maze Learning Task, ISLT International Shopping List Test; bolded values are significant at the p < .001 level
Fig. 1Performance on the International Shopping List (ISLT) Delayed Recall Task, by participants who either failed the scopolamine challenge test (SCT) at baseline (N = 28, at end of study) vs. those who passed the SCT at baseline (N = 30, at end of study), modeled over all four study visits. Dark lines indicate group mean scores at each visit, with SE bars provided. Both between- and within-subject variation is represented in each group, by displaying individual subject change over time, with each case yoked to the group baseline mean score
Differences in ISLT and GMLT performance between subjects who failed (N = 28) vs. passed (N = 30) the SCT at baseline, modeled by generalized estimating equation (GEE) over the baseline, 9-, 18-, and 27-month examinations
| Task | Method of adjustment | |
|---|---|---|
| ISLT—Immediate Recall | 0.0652 (binomial) | |
| ISLT—Delayed Recall | ||
| GMLT—Moves/Second | 0.0656 (log normal) | |
| GMLT—Total Errors | 0.0507 (log normal) | |
| GMLT—Delayed Recall | ||
| Total errors | 0.2469 | 0.2469 (log normal) |
*p < 0.05
ISLT International Shopping List Test, GMLT Groton Maze Learning Test
Fig. 2Profile plot showing a significantly reduced performance on the International Shopping List Test (ISLT) Delayed Recall Task for the SCT fail/Aβ+ group compared to the SCT fail/Aβ− group over a 27-month follow-up period. Error bars represent standard deviation from the mean