| Literature DB >> 33490360 |
Matthew D Zammit1, Charles M Laymon2,3, Dana L Tudorascu4, Sigan L Hartley1, Brianna Piro-Gambetti1, Sterling C Johnson5, Charles K Stone6, Chester A Mathis2, Shahid H Zaman7, William E Klunk4, Benjamin L Handen4, Ann D Cohen4, Bradley T Christian1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adults with Down syndrome (DS) are predisposed to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the relationship between cognition and glucose metabolism in this population has yet to be evaluated.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; Down syndrome; amyloid positron emission tomography; cognitive decline; fluorodeoxyglucose; individual metabolic brain network
Year: 2021 PMID: 33490360 PMCID: PMC7804861 DOI: 10.1002/dad2.12138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) ISSN: 2352-8729
Down syndrome and sibling control participant demographics by age, sex, cognitive status, and Aβ status. Hypometabolism on FDG defined as having FDG SUVR lower than the mean SUVR from the Aβ– group by 1.5 standard deviations
| Sibling controls | All participants | Aβ– | Striatal Aβ+ | Global Aβ+ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 14 | 90 | 65 | 25 | 16 |
| Age (mean [SD]) years | 46.6 (13.4) | 38.0 (8.3) | 35.1 (5.81) | 48.3 (5.87) | 50.4 (4.24) |
| Sex (M/F) | 1/13 | 45/45 | 33/32 | 12/13 | 9/7 |
| MCI‐DS/AD consensus | 0 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Hypometabolism on FDG | 0 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 10 |
| Episodic memory Z‐score | NA | 0.00 (1.89) | 0.57 (1.45) | –1.38 (2.11) | –2.15 (2.20) |
| Overall cognition Z‐score | NA | 0.00 (5.32) | 1.57 (4.25) | –4.09 (5.67) | –5.46 (6.01) |
Abbreviations: Aβ, amyloid beta; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; MCI‐DS, mild cognitive impairment‐Down syndrome; SD, standard deviation; SUVR, standardized uptake value ratio.
FIGURE 1Pearson's correlations (with corresponding P‐values) between global amyloid load (AβL) and fluorodeoxyglucose standardized uptake value ratio (FDG SUVR) in early (parietal cortex, precuneus/posterior cingulate; left) and late‐stage (frontal cortex, temporal cortex, anterior cingulate; right) Alzheimer's disease regions
FIGURE 2Pearson's correlations (with corresponding p‐values) for fluorodeoxyglucose standardized uptake value ratio (FDG SUVR) and ventricle volume, FDG SUVR and global amyloid load (AβL), and geometric transfer matrix‐corrected (GTM) FDG SUVR and global AβL in the caudate (top row) and putamen (bottom row)
Linear regression coefficient estimates (with 95% CIs) for models using cognitive measures as the outcome variable and AβL and FDG SUVR as independent variables. Regressions were repeated for each outcome variable while adjusting for chronological age and lifetime cognitive ability (PPVT). P‐values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Holm‐Bonferroni method
| Outcome | AβL | Early‐stage FDG | Late‐stage FDG |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| –4.2[–5.3,–3.0]** | 0.016[0.0096,0.022]** | 0.009[0.0033,0.015]* |
| Age adjusted | –2.4[–3.5,–1.3]** | 0.013[0.0055,0.020]** | 0.0081[0.0015,0.015] |
| Age and PPVT adjusted | –2.6[–3.9,–1.2]** | 0.013[0.0042,0.022]* | 0.0048[‐0.0035,0.013] |
|
| –1.5[–1.9,–1.0]** | 0.0061[0.0038,0.0083]** | 0.0038[0.0018,0.0058]** |
| Age adjusted | –0.89[–1.3,–0.53]** | 0.0049[0.0025,0.0072]** | 0.0035[0.0013,0.0057]* |
| Age and PPVT adjusted | –1.4[–2.0,–0.82]** | 0.0077[0.0039,0.012]** | 0.0035[–0.00013,0.0070] |
Significance: *P < .05; **P < .01.
Abbreviations: AβL, amyloid beta load; CI, confidence interval; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; PPVT, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition; SUVR, standardized uptake value ratio.
Spearman correlation coefficients (with 95% CIs) comparing regional PiB and FDG SUVR, as well as global AβL and regional FDG SUVR across different Aβ– and Aβ+ groups
| Striatum Aβ– N = 65 | Striatum Aβ+ N = 25 | Global Aβ– N = 74 | Global Aβ+ N = 16 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Early‐stage PiB vs Early‐stage FDG | –0.082[–0.32,0.17] | –0.60[–0.80,–0.27]** | –0.061[–0.29,0.17] | –0.50[–0.80,–0.0057]* |
| Late‐stage PiB vs Late‐stage FDG | –0.26[–0.47,–0.019]* | –0.62[–0.82,–0.30]*** | –0.20[–0.41,0.031] | –0.67[–0.88,–0.27]** |
| Putamen PiB vs Putamen FDG | –0.12[–0.35,0.13] | 0.38[–0.014,0.68] | –0.18[–0.39,0.052] | 0.012[–0.49,0.50] |
| Caudate PiB vs Caudate FDG | –0.21[–0.44, 0.031] | 0.11[–0.30,0.48] | –0.18[–0.40,0.047] | 0.39[–0.13,0.74] |
| Global AβL vs Early‐stage FDG | –0.23[–0.45,0.014] | –0.73[–0.87,–0.47]*** | –0.16[–0.38,0.070] | –0.68[–0.88,–0.28]** |
| Global AβL vs Late‐stage FDG | –0.24[–0.46,–0.0011]* | –0.68[–0.85,–0.39]*** | –0.15[–0.37,0.080] | –0.68[–0.88,–0.28]** |
| Global AβL vs Putamen FDG | –0.095[–0.33,0.15] | 0.45[0.070,0.72]* | –0.15[–0.37,0.078] | 0.079[–0.43,0.55] |
| Global AβL vs Caudate FDG | –0.17[–0.40,0.073] | 0.058[–0.35,0.44] | –0.13[–0.35,0.10] | –0.056[–0.54,0.45] |
Significance: *P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Abbreviations: AβL, amyloid beta load; CI, confidence interval; FDG, fluorodeoxyglucose; PiB, Pittsburgh comound B; SUVR, standardized uptake value ratio.
FIGURE 3Interregional fluorodeoxyglucose connectivity matrices across the sibling control and Down syndrome groups. The plots display the number of interregional connections across all individuals in each group