Consuelo H Wilkins1, Charles C Windon2, Peggye Dilworth-Anderson3, Justin Romanoff4, Constantine Gatsonis4,5, Lucy Hanna4, Charles Apgar6, Ilana F Gareen4,5, Carl V Hill7, Bruce E Hillner8, Andrew March9, Barry A Siegel10, Rachel A Whitmer11,12, Maria C Carrillo7, Gil D Rabinovici2,13,14. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 2. Department of Neurology, Memory and Aging Center, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco. 3. Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. 4. Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 5. Department of Epidemiology, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island. 6. Center for Research and Innovation, American College of Radiology, Reston, Virginia. 7. Alzheimer's Association, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Department of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. 9. Center for Research and Innovation, American College of Radiology, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 10. Edward Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri. 11. Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, California. 12. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis. 13. Associate Editor, JAMA Neurology. 14. Department of Radiology & Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
Importance: Racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of clinical Alzheimer disease (AD) are underrepresented in studies of AD biomarkers, including amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). Objective: To compare amyloid PET positivity among a diverse cohort of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS), a single-arm multisite cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who met appropriate-use criteria for amyloid PET imaging between February 2016 and September 2017 with follow-up through January 2018. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. This study used 2 approaches: the McNemar test to compare amyloid PET positivity proportions between matched racial and ethnic groups and multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan. IDEAS enrolled participants at 595 US dementia specialist practices. A total of 21 949 were enrolled and 4842 (22%) were excluded from the present analysis due to protocol violations, not receiving an amyloid PET scan, not having a positive or negative scan, or because of small numbers in some subgroups. Exposures: In the IDEAS study, participants underwent a single amyloid PET scan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were amyloid PET positivity proportions and odds. Results: Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. The median (range) age of participants was 75 (65-105) years; 8769 participants (51.3%) were female and 8338 (48.7%) were male. In the optimal 1:1 matching analysis (n = 3154), White participants had a greater proportion of positive amyloid PET scans compared with Asian participants (181 of 313; 57.8%; 95% CI, 52.3-63.2 vs 142 of 313; 45.4%; 95% CI, 39.9-50.9, respectively; P = .001) and Hispanic participants (482 of 780; 61.8%; 95% CI, 58.3-65.1 vs 425 of 780; 54.5%; 95% CI, 51.0-58.0, respectively; P = .003) but not Black participants (359 of 615; 58.4%; 95% CI, 54.4-62.2 vs 333 of 615; 54.1%; 95% CI, 50.2-58.0, respectively; P = .13). In the adjusted model, the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan were lower for Asian participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.59; P < .001), Black participants (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001) compared with White participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Racial and ethnic differences found in amyloid PET positivity among individuals with MCI and dementia in this study may indicate differences in underlying etiology of cognitive impairment and guide future treatment and prevention approaches.
Importance: Racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of clinical Alzheimer disease (AD) are underrepresented in studies of AD biomarkers, including amyloid positron emission tomography (PET). Objective: To compare amyloid PET positivity among a diverse cohort of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Secondary analysis of the Imaging Dementia-Evidence for Amyloid Scanning (IDEAS), a single-arm multisite cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who met appropriate-use criteria for amyloid PET imaging between February 2016 and September 2017 with follow-up through January 2018. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. This study used 2 approaches: the McNemar test to compare amyloid PET positivity proportions between matched racial and ethnic groups and multivariable logistic regression to assess the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan. IDEAS enrolled participants at 595 US dementia specialist practices. A total of 21 949 were enrolled and 4842 (22%) were excluded from the present analysis due to protocol violations, not receiving an amyloid PET scan, not having a positive or negative scan, or because of small numbers in some subgroups. Exposures: In the IDEAS study, participants underwent a single amyloid PET scan. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were amyloid PET positivity proportions and odds. Results: Data from 17 107 individuals (321 Asian, 635 Black, 829 Hispanic, and 15 322 White) with MCI or dementia and amyloid PET were analyzed between April 2020 and January 2022. The median (range) age of participants was 75 (65-105) years; 8769 participants (51.3%) were female and 8338 (48.7%) were male. In the optimal 1:1 matching analysis (n = 3154), White participants had a greater proportion of positive amyloid PET scans compared with Asian participants (181 of 313; 57.8%; 95% CI, 52.3-63.2 vs 142 of 313; 45.4%; 95% CI, 39.9-50.9, respectively; P = .001) and Hispanic participants (482 of 780; 61.8%; 95% CI, 58.3-65.1 vs 425 of 780; 54.5%; 95% CI, 51.0-58.0, respectively; P = .003) but not Black participants (359 of 615; 58.4%; 95% CI, 54.4-62.2 vs 333 of 615; 54.1%; 95% CI, 50.2-58.0, respectively; P = .13). In the adjusted model, the odds of having a positive amyloid PET scan were lower for Asian participants (odds ratio [OR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37-0.59; P < .001), Black participants (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.60-0.84; P < .001), and Hispanic participants (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59-0.79; P < .001) compared with White participants. Conclusions and Relevance: Racial and ethnic differences found in amyloid PET positivity among individuals with MCI and dementia in this study may indicate differences in underlying etiology of cognitive impairment and guide future treatment and prevention approaches.
Authors: Christopher M Clark; Charles DeCarli; Dan Mungas; Helena I Chui; Roger Higdon; Jessica Nuñez; Henrique Fernandez; Mirna Negrón; Jennifer Manly; Steven Ferris; Angelica Perez; Migdalia Torres; Douglas Ewbank; Guila Glosser; Gerald van Belle Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2005-05
Authors: B J Gurland; D E Wilder; R Lantigua; Y Stern; J Chen; E H Killeffer; R Mayeux Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Ganesh M Babulal; Yakeel T Quiroz; Benedict C Albensi; Eider Arenaza-Urquijo; Arlene J Astell; Claudio Babiloni; Alex Bahar-Fuchs; Joanne Bell; Gene L Bowman; Adam M Brickman; Gaël Chételat; Carrie Ciro; Ann D Cohen; Peggye Dilworth-Anderson; Hiroko H Dodge; Simone Dreux; Steven Edland; Anna Esbensen; Lisbeth Evered; Michael Ewers; Keith N Fargo; Juan Fortea; Hector Gonzalez; Deborah R Gustafson; Elizabeth Head; James A Hendrix; Scott M Hofer; Leigh A Johnson; Roos Jutten; Kerry Kilborn; Krista L Lanctôt; Jennifer J Manly; Ralph N Martins; Michelle M Mielke; Martha Clare Morris; Melissa E Murray; Esther S Oh; Mario A Parra; Robert A Rissman; Catherine M Roe; Octavio A Santos; Nikolaos Scarmeas; Lon S Schneider; Nicole Schupf; Sietske Sikkes; Heather M Snyder; Hamid R Sohrabi; Yaakov Stern; Andre Strydom; Yi Tang; Graciela Muniz Terrera; Charlotte Teunissen; Debora Melo van Lent; Michael Weinborn; Linda Wesselman; Donna M Wilcock; Henrik Zetterberg; Sid E O'Bryant Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Renske Uiterwijk; Julie Staals; Marjolein Huijts; Peter W de Leeuw; Abraham A Kroon; Robert J van Oostenbrugge Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Gopal K Singh; Gem P Daus; Michelle Allender; Christine T Ramey; Elijah K Martin; Chrisp Perry; Andrew A De Los Reyes; Ivy P Vedamuthu Journal: Int J MCH AIDS Date: 2017
Authors: Martin Lövdén; Laura Fratiglioni; M Maria Glymour; Ulman Lindenberger; Elliot M Tucker-Drob Journal: Psychol Sci Public Interest Date: 2020-08
Authors: Rema Raman; Yakeel T Quiroz; Oliver Langford; Jiyoon Choi; Marina Ritchie; Morgan Baumgartner; Dorene Rentz; Neelum T Aggarwal; Paul Aisen; Reisa Sperling; Joshua D Grill Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01
Authors: S Justin Thomas; John N Booth; Chen Dai; Xuelin Li; Norrina Allen; David Calhoun; April P Carson; Samuel Gidding; Cora E Lewis; James M Shikany; Daichi Shimbo; Stephen Sidney; Paul Muntner Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 5.501