Juhan Reimand1, Lyduine Collij1, Philip Scheltens1, Femke Bouwman1, Rik Ossenkoppele2. 1. From the Department of Neurology, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam (J.R., P.S., F.B., R.O.), and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (L.C.), Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands; Department of Health Technologies (J.R.), Tallinn University of Technology; Radiology Centre (J.R.), North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia; and Clinical Memory Research Unit (R.O.), Lund University, Sweden. 2. From the Department of Neurology, Alzheimer Center Amsterdam (J.R., P.S., F.B., R.O.), and Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (L.C.), Amsterdam Neuroscience, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands; Department of Health Technologies (J.R.), Tallinn University of Technology; Radiology Centre (J.R.), North Estonia Medical Centre, Tallinn, Estonia; and Clinical Memory Research Unit (R.O.), Lund University, Sweden. r.ossenkoppele@amsterdamumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between discordant β-amyloid (Aβ) PET and CSF biomarkers at baseline and the emergence of tau pathology 5 years later. METHODS: We included 730 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants without dementia (282 cognitively normal, 448 mild cognitive impairment) with baseline [18F]florbetapir PET and CSF Aβ42 available. Aβ CSF/PET status was determined at baseline using established cutoffs. Longitudinal data were available for [18F]florbetapir (Aβ) PET (baseline to 4.3 ± 1.9 years), CSF (p)tau (baseline to 2.0 ± 0.1 years), cognition (baseline to 4.3 ± 2.0 years), and [18F]flortaucipir (tau) PET (measured 5.2 ± 1.2 years after baseline to 1.6 ± 0.7 years later). We used linear mixed modeling to study the association between Aβ CSF/PET status and tau pathology measured in CSF or using PET. We calculated the proportion of CSF+/PET- participants who during follow-up (1) progressed to Aβ CSF+/PET+ or (2) became tau-positive based on [18F]flortaucipir PET. RESULTS: Aβ CSF+/PET+ (n = 318) participants had elevated CSF (p)tau levels and worse cognitive performance at baseline, while CSF+/PET- (n = 80) participants were overall similar to the CSF-/PET- (N = 306) group. Five years after baseline, [18F]flortaucipir PET uptake in the CSF+/PET- group (1.20 ± 0.13) did not differ from CSF-/PET- (1.18 ± 0.08, p = 0.69), but was substantially lower than CSF+/PET+ (1.48 ± 0.44, p < 0.001). Of the CSF+/PET- participants, 21/64 (33%) progressed to Aβ CSF+/PET+, whereas only one (3%, difference p < 0.05) became tau-positive based on [18F]flortaucipir PET. CONCLUSIONS: Aβ load detectable by both CSF and PET seems to precede substantial tau deposition. Compared to participants with abnormal Aβ levels on both PET and CSF, the CSF+/PET- group has a distinctly better prognosis.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between discordant β-amyloid (Aβ) PET and CSF biomarkers at baseline and the emergence of tau pathology 5 years later. METHODS: We included 730 Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) participants without dementia (282 cognitively normal, 448 mild cognitive impairment) with baseline [18F]florbetapir PET and CSF Aβ42 available. Aβ CSF/PET status was determined at baseline using established cutoffs. Longitudinal data were available for [18F]florbetapir (Aβ) PET (baseline to 4.3 ± 1.9 years), CSF (p)tau (baseline to 2.0 ± 0.1 years), cognition (baseline to 4.3 ± 2.0 years), and [18F]flortaucipir (tau) PET (measured 5.2 ± 1.2 years after baseline to 1.6 ± 0.7 years later). We used linear mixed modeling to study the association between Aβ CSF/PET status and tau pathology measured in CSF or using PET. We calculated the proportion of CSF+/PET- participants who during follow-up (1) progressed to Aβ CSF+/PET+ or (2) became tau-positive based on [18F]flortaucipir PET. RESULTS: Aβ CSF+/PET+ (n = 318) participants had elevated CSF (p)tau levels and worse cognitive performance at baseline, while CSF+/PET- (n = 80) participants were overall similar to the CSF-/PET- (N = 306) group. Five years after baseline, [18F]flortaucipir PET uptake in the CSF+/PET- group (1.20 ± 0.13) did not differ from CSF-/PET- (1.18 ± 0.08, p = 0.69), but was substantially lower than CSF+/PET+ (1.48 ± 0.44, p < 0.001). Of the CSF+/PET- participants, 21/64 (33%) progressed to Aβ CSF+/PET+, whereas only one (3%, difference p < 0.05) became tau-positive based on [18F]flortaucipir PET. CONCLUSIONS: Aβ load detectable by both CSF and PET seems to precede substantial tau deposition. Compared to participants with abnormal Aβ levels on both PET and CSF, the CSF+/PET- group has a distinctly better prognosis.
Authors: Laura E Gibbons; Adam C Carle; R Scott Mackin; Danielle Harvey; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; Philip Insel; S McKay Curtis; Dan Mungas; Paul K Crane Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Andrei G Vlassenko; Lena McCue; Mateusz S Jasielec; Yi Su; Brian A Gordon; Chengjie Xiong; David M Holtzman; Tammie L S Benzinger; John C Morris; Anne M Fagan Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Kaj Blennow; Niklas Mattsson; Michael Schöll; Oskar Hansson; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: Trends Pharmacol Sci Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 14.819
Authors: Susan M Landau; Allison Fero; Suzanne L Baker; Robert Koeppe; Mark Mintun; Kewei Chen; Eric M Reiman; William J Jagust Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Abhinay D Joshi; Michael J Pontecorvo; Chrisopher M Clark; Alan P Carpenter; Danna L Jennings; Carl H Sadowsky; Lee P Adler; Karel D Kovnat; John P Seibyl; Anupa Arora; Krishnendu Saha; Jason D Burns; Mark J Lowrey; Mark A Mintun; Daniel M Skovronsky Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Terry M Therneau; Val J Lowe; David S Knopman; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; David T Jones; Kejal Kantarci; Mary M Machulda; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; Prashanthi Vemuri; Denise A Reyes; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: J Hardy; N Bogdanovic; B Winblad; E Portelius; N Andreasen; A Cedazo-Minguez; H Zetterberg Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: Valentina Garibotto; Nathalie L Albert; Henryk Barthel; Bart van Berckel; Ronald Boellaard; Matthias Brendel; Diego Cecchin; Ozgul Ekmekcioglu; Elsmarieke van de Giessen; Eric Guedj; Adriaan A Lammerstma; Franck Semah; Tatjana Traub-Weidinger; Donatienne Van Weehaeghe; Silvia Morbelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-07-17 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Jonathan Graff-Radford; David T Jones; Heather J Wiste; Petrice M Cogswell; Stephen D Weigand; Val Lowe; Benjamin D Elder; Prashanthi Vemuri; Argonde Van Harten; Michelle M Mielke; David S Knopman; Neill R Graff-Radford; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack; Jeffrey L Gunter Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Petrice M Cogswell; Heather J Wiste; Michelle M Mielke; Christopher G Schwarz; Stephen D Weigand; Val J Lowe; Terry M Therneau; David S Knopman; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Prashanthi Vemuri; Matthew L Senjem; Jeffrey L Gunter; Alicia Algeciras-Schimnich; Ronald C Petersen; Clifford R Jack Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 5.133
Authors: Dag Aarsland; Lucia Batzu; Glenda M Halliday; Gert J Geurtsen; Clive Ballard; K Ray Chaudhuri; Daniel Weintraub Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Eline A J Willemse; Betty M Tijms; Bart N M van Berckel; Nathalie Le Bastard; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-05-01
Authors: Rik Ossenkoppele; Juhan Reimand; Ruben Smith; Antoine Leuzy; Olof Strandberg; Sebastian Palmqvist; Erik Stomrud; Henrik Zetterberg; Philip Scheltens; Jeffrey L Dage; Femke Bouwman; Kaj Blennow; Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Shorena Janelidze; Oskar Hansson Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 12.137