Neus Falgàs1,2,3, Isabel E Allen4, Salvatore Spina1, Harli Grant1, Stefanie D Piña Escudero1,2, Jennifer Merrilees1, Rosalie Gearhart1, Howard J Rosen1,2, Joel H Kramer1,2, William W Seeley1, Thomas C Neylan1,5, Bruce L Miller1, Gil D Rabinovici1,2, Lea T Grinberg1,2,6,7, Christine M Walsh1. 1. Department of Neurology, Memory and Aging Center, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Global Brain Health Institute, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. Alzheimer's Disease and Other Cognitive Disorders Unit, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 5. Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 7. Department of Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The faster rates of cognitive decline and predominance of atypical forms in early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) suggest that neuropsychiatric symptoms could be different in EOAD compared to late-onset AD (LOAD); however, prior studies based on non-biomarker-diagnosed cohorts show discordant results. Our goal was to determine the profile of neuropsychiatric symptoms in EOAD and LOAD, in a cohort with biomarker/postmortem-confirmed diagnoses. Additionally, the contribution of co-pathologies was explored. METHODS: In all, 219 participants (135 EOAD, 84 LOAD) meeting National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association criteria for AD (115 amyloid positron emission tomography/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, 104 postmortem diagnosis) at the University of California San Francisco were evaluated. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q) was assessed at baseline and during follow-up. The NPI-Q mean comparisons and regression models adjusted by cognitive (Mini-Mental State Examination) and functional status (Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes) were performed to determine the effect of EOAD/LOAD and amnestic/non-amnestic diagnosis on NPI-Q. Regression models assessing the effect of co-pathologies on NPI-Q were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, the NPI-Q scores were higher in EOAD compared to LOAD (p < 0.05). Longitudinally, regression models showed a significant effect of diagnosis, where EOAD had higher NPI-Q total, anxiety, motor disturbances and night-time behavior scores (p < 0.05). No differences between amnestics/non-amnestics were found. Argyrophilic grain disease co-pathology predicted a higher severity of NPI-Q scores in LOAD. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety, night-time behaviors and motor disturbances are more severe in EOAD than LOAD across the disease course. The differential patterns of neuropsychiatric symptoms observed between EOAD/LOAD could suggest a pattern of selective vulnerability extending to the brain's subcortical structures. Further, co-pathologies such as argyrophilic grain disease in LOAD may also play a role in increasing neuropsychiatric symptoms.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The faster rates of cognitive decline and predominance of atypical forms in early-onset Alzheimer's disease (EOAD) suggest that neuropsychiatric symptoms could be different in EOAD compared to late-onset AD (LOAD); however, prior studies based on non-biomarker-diagnosed cohorts show discordant results. Our goal was to determine the profile of neuropsychiatric symptoms in EOAD and LOAD, in a cohort with biomarker/postmortem-confirmed diagnoses. Additionally, the contribution of co-pathologies was explored. METHODS: In all, 219 participants (135 EOAD, 84 LOAD) meeting National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association criteria for AD (115 amyloid positron emission tomography/cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, 104 postmortem diagnosis) at the University of California San Francisco were evaluated. The Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire (NPI-Q) was assessed at baseline and during follow-up. The NPI-Q mean comparisons and regression models adjusted by cognitive (Mini-Mental State Examination) and functional status (Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes) were performed to determine the effect of EOAD/LOAD and amnestic/non-amnestic diagnosis on NPI-Q. Regression models assessing the effect of co-pathologies on NPI-Q were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, the NPI-Q scores were higher in EOAD compared to LOAD (p < 0.05). Longitudinally, regression models showed a significant effect of diagnosis, where EOAD had higher NPI-Q total, anxiety, motor disturbances and night-time behavior scores (p < 0.05). No differences between amnestics/non-amnestics were found. Argyrophilic grain disease co-pathology predicted a higher severity of NPI-Q scores in LOAD. CONCLUSIONS: Anxiety, night-time behaviors and motor disturbances are more severe in EOAD than LOAD across the disease course. The differential patterns of neuropsychiatric symptoms observed between EOAD/LOAD could suggest a pattern of selective vulnerability extending to the brain's subcortical structures. Further, co-pathologies such as argyrophilic grain disease in LOAD may also play a role in increasing neuropsychiatric symptoms.
Authors: Bradley T Hyman; Creighton H Phelps; Thomas G Beach; Eileen H Bigio; Nigel J Cairns; Maria C Carrillo; Dennis W Dickson; Charles Duyckaerts; Matthew P Frosch; Eliezer Masliah; Suzanne S Mirra; Peter T Nelson; Julie A Schneider; Dietmar Rudolf Thal; Bill Thies; John Q Trojanowski; Harry V Vinters; Thomas J Montine Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sophie Germain; Stéphane Adam; Catherine Olivier; Helen Cash; Pierre Jean Ousset; Sandrine Andrieu; Bruno Vellas; Thierry Meulemans; Emma Reynish; Eric Salmon Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2009 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Melissa E Murray; Neill R Graff-Radford; Owen A Ross; Ronald C Petersen; Ranjan Duara; Dennis W Dickson Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Panos Theofilas; Alexander J Ehrenberg; Austin Nguy; Julia M Thackrey; Sara Dunlop; Maria B Mejia; Ana T Alho; Renata Elaine Paraizo Leite; Roberta Diehl Rodriguez; Claudia K Suemoto; Camila F Nascimento; Marcus Chin; Daniel Medina-Cleghorn; Ana Maria Cuervo; Michelle Arkin; William W Seeley; Bruce L Miller; Ricardo Nitrini; Carlos Augusto Pasqualucci; Wilson Jacob Filho; Udo Rueb; John Neuhaus; Helmut Heinsen; Lea T Grinberg Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2017-09-20 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Jennifer R Gatchel; Nancy J Donovan; Joseph J Locascio; Aaron P Schultz; J Alex Becker; Jasmeer Chhatwal; Kathryn V Papp; Rebecca E Amariglio; Dorene M Rentz; Deborah Blacker; Reisa A Sperling; Keith A Johnson; Gad A Marshall Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472