IMPORTANCE: Female sex is a major risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), and sex hormones have been implicated as a possible protective factor. Neuroimaging studies that evaluated the effects of sex hormones on brain integrity have primarily emphasized neurodegenerative measures rather than amyloid and tau burden. OBJECTIVE: We compared cortical amyloid and regional tau positron emission tomography (PET) deposition between cognitively normal males and females. We also compared preclinical AD pathology between females who have and have not used hormone therapy (HT). Finally, we compared the effects of amyloid and tau pathology on cognition, testing for both sex and HT effects. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed amyloid, tau, and cognition in a cognitively normal cross-sectional cohort of older individuals (n=148) followed at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center. Amyloid and tau PET, medication history, and neuropsychological testing were obtained for each participant. RESULTS: Within cognitively normal individuals, there was no difference in amyloid burden by sex. Whether or not we controlled for amyloid burden, female participants had significantly higher tau PET levels than males in multiple regions, including the rostral middle frontal and superior and middle temporal regions. HT accounted for a small reduction in tau PET; however, males still had substantially lower tau PET compared with females. Amyloid PET and tau PET burden were negatively associated with cognitive performance, although increasing amyloid PET did not have a deleterious effect on cognitive performance for women with a history of HT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Regional sex-related differences in tau PET burden may contribute to the disparities in AD prevalence between males and females. The observed decreases tau PET burden in HT users has important implications for clinical practice and trials and deserves future consideration in longitudinal studies.
IMPORTANCE: Female sex is a major risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD), and sex hormones have been implicated as a possible protective factor. Neuroimaging studies that evaluated the effects of sex hormones on brain integrity have primarily emphasized neurodegenerative measures rather than amyloid and tau burden. OBJECTIVE: We compared cortical amyloid and regional tau positron emission tomography (PET) deposition between cognitively normal males and females. We also compared preclinical AD pathology between females who have and have not used hormone therapy (HT). Finally, we compared the effects of amyloid and tau pathology on cognition, testing for both sex and HT effects. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed amyloid, tau, and cognition in a cognitively normal cross-sectional cohort of older individuals (n=148) followed at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center. Amyloid and tau PET, medication history, and neuropsychological testing were obtained for each participant. RESULTS: Within cognitively normal individuals, there was no difference in amyloid burden by sex. Whether or not we controlled for amyloid burden, female participants had significantly higher tau PET levels than males in multiple regions, including the rostral middle frontal and superior and middle temporal regions. HT accounted for a small reduction in tau PET; however, males still had substantially lower tau PET compared with females. Amyloid PET and tau PET burden were negatively associated with cognitive performance, although increasing amyloid PET did not have a deleterious effect on cognitive performance for women with a history of HT. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Regional sex-related differences in tau PET burden may contribute to the disparities in AD prevalence between males and females. The observed decreases tau PET burden in HT users has important implications for clinical practice and trials and deserves future consideration in longitudinal studies.
Authors: M A Mintun; G N Larossa; Y I Sheline; C S Dence; S Y Lee; R H Mach; W E Klunk; C A Mathis; S T DeKosky; J C Morris Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Peter P Zandi; Michelle C Carlson; Brenda L Plassman; Kathleen A Welsh-Bohmer; Lawrence S Mayer; David C Steffens; John C S Breitner Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yi Su; Tyler M Blazey; Abraham Z Snyder; Marcus E Raichle; Daniel S Marcus; Beau M Ances; Randall J Bateman; Nigel J Cairns; Patricia Aldea; Lisa Cash; Jon J Christensen; Karl Friedrichsen; Russ C Hornbeck; Angela M Farrar; Christopher J Owen; Richard Mayeux; Adam M Brickman; William Klunk; Julie C Price; Paul M Thompson; Bernadino Ghetti; Andrew J Saykin; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Peter R Schofield; Virginia Buckles; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2014-12-05 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Peter Schönknecht; Marcus Henze; Aoife Hunt; Klaus Klinga; Uwe Haberkorn; Johannes Schröder Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2003-10-30 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Michael C Donohue; Reisa A Sperling; David P Salmon; Dorene M Rentz; Rema Raman; Ronald G Thomas; Michael Weiner; Paul S Aisen Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Rachel F Buckley; Elizabeth C Mormino; Jennifer S Rabin; Timothy J Hohman; Susan Landau; Bernard J Hanseeuw; Heidi I L Jacobs; Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca E Amariglio; Michael J Properzi; Aaron P Schultz; Dylan Kirn; Matthew R Scott; Trey Hedden; Michelle Farrell; Julie Price; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Dorene M Rentz; Victor L Villemagne; Keith A Johnson; Reisa A Sperling Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Terry M Therneau; David S Knopman; Val Lowe; Prashanthi Vemuri; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; Mary M Machulda; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Walter A Rocca; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Yi Su; Gina M D'Angelo; Andrei G Vlassenko; Gongfu Zhou; Abraham Z Snyder; Daniel S Marcus; Tyler M Blazey; Jon J Christensen; Shivangi Vora; John C Morris; Mark A Mintun; Tammie L S Benzinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Steven Jett; Eva Schelbaum; Grace Jang; Camila Boneu Yepez; Jonathan P Dyke; Silky Pahlajani; Roberta Diaz Brinton; Lisa Mosconi Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 5.702
Authors: Priya Palta; Brady Rippon; Mouna Tahmi; Michelle Pardo; Aubrey Johnson; Zeljko Tomljanovic; Hengda He; Krystal K Laing; Qolamreza R Razlighi; Jeanne A Teresi; Herman Moreno; Adam M Brickman; William C Kreisl; José A Luchsinger Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 5.133
Authors: Rachel F Buckley; Adrienne O'Donnell; Emer R McGrath; Heidi I L Jacobs; Cristina Lois; Claudia L Satizabal; Saptaparni Ghosh; Zoe B Rubinstein; Joanne M Murabito; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Sudha Seshadri; Alexandra S Beiser Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2022-05-17 Impact factor: 11.274
Authors: Lauren Edwards; Renaud La Joie; Leonardo Iaccarino; Amelia Strom; Suzanne L Baker; Kaitlin B Casaletto; Yann Cobigo; Harli Grant; Minseon Kim; Joel H Kramer; Taylor J Mellinger; Julie Pham; Katherine L Possin; Howard J Rosen; David N Soleimani-Meigooni; Amy Wolf; Bruce L Miller; Gil D Rabinovici Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.133