Sex differences in the genetic architecture of cognitive resilience to Alzheimer\u27s disease.

Approximately 30% of elderly adults are cognitively unimpaired at time of death despite the presence of Alzheimer\u27s disease neuropathology at autopsy. Studying individuals who are resilient to the cognitive consequences of Alzheimer\u27s disease neuropathology may uncover novel therapeutic targets to treat Alzheimer\u27s disease. It is well established that there are sex differences in response to Alzheimer\u27s disease pathology, and growing evidence suggests that genetic factors may contribute to these differences. Taken together, we sought to elucidate sex-specific genetic drivers of resilience. We extended our recent large scale genomic analysis of resilience in which we harmonized cognitive data across four cohorts of cognitive ageing, in vivo amyloid PET across two cohorts, and autopsy measures of amyloid neuritic plaque burden across two cohorts. These data were leveraged to build robust, continuous resilience phenotypes. With these phenotypes, we performed sex-stratified [n (males) = 2093, n (females) = 2931] and sex-interaction [n (both sexes) = 5024] genome-wide association studies (GWAS), gene and pathway-based tests, and genetic correlation analyses to clarify the variants, genes and molecular pathways that relate to resilience in a sex-specific manner. Estimated among cognitively normal individuals of both sexes, resilience was 20-25% heritable, and when estimated in either sex among cognitively normal individuals, resilience was 15-44% heritable. In our GWAS, we identified a female-specific locus on chromosome 10 [rs827389, β (females) = 0.08, P (females) = 5.76 × 10-09, β (males) = -0.01, P(males) = 0.70, β (interaction) = 0.09, P (interaction) = 1.01 × 10-04] in which the minor allele was associated with higher resilience scores among females. This locus is located within chromatin loops that interact with promoters of genes involved in RNA processing, including GATA3. Finally, our genetic correlation analyses revealed shared genetic architecture between resilience phenotypes and other complex traits, including a female-specific association with frontotemporal dementia and male-specific associations with heart rate variability traits. We also observed opposing associations between sexes for multiple sclerosis, such that more resilient females had a lower genetic susceptibility to multiple sclerosis, and more resilient males had a higher genetic susceptibility to multiple sclerosis. Overall, we identified sex differences in the genetic architecture of resilience, identified a female-specific resilience locus and highlighted numerous sex-specific molecular pathways that may underly resilience to Alzheimer\u27s disease pathology. This study illustrates the need to conduct sex-aware genomic analyses to identify novel targets that are unidentified in sex-agnostic models. Our findings support the theory that the most successful treatment for an individual with Alzheimer\u27s disease may be personalized based on their biological sex and genetic context

Genetic variants and functional pathways associated with resilience to Alzheimer\u27s disease.

Approximately 30% of older adults exhibit the neuropathological features of Alzheimer\u27s disease without signs of cognitive impairment. Yet, little is known about the genetic factors that allow these potentially resilient individuals to remain cognitively unimpaired in the face of substantial neuropathology. We performed a large, genome-wide association study (GWAS) of two previously validated metrics of cognitive resilience quantified using a latent variable modelling approach and representing better-than-predicted cognitive performance for a given level of neuropathology. Data were harmonized across 5108 participants from a clinical trial of Alzheimer\u27s disease and three longitudinal cohort studies of cognitive ageing. All analyses were run across all participants and repeated restricting the sample to individuals with unimpaired cognition to identify variants at the earliest stages of disease. As expected, all resilience metrics were genetically correlated with cognitive performance and education attainment traits (P-values \u3c 2.5 × 10-20), and we observed novel correlations with neuropsychiatric conditions (P-values \u3c 7.9 × 10-4). Notably, neither resilience metric was genetically correlated with clinical Alzheimer\u27s disease (P-values \u3e 0.42) nor associated with APOE (P-values \u3e 0.13). In single variant analyses, we observed a genome-wide significant locus among participants with unimpaired cognition on chromosome 18 upstream of ATP8B1 (index single nucleotide polymorphism rs2571244, minor allele frequency = 0.08, P = 2.3 × 10-8). The top variant at this locus (rs2571244) was significantly associated with methylation in prefrontal cortex tissue at multiple CpG sites, including one just upstream of ATPB81 (cg19596477; P = 2 × 10-13). Overall, this comprehensive genetic analysis of resilience implicates a putative role of vascular risk, metabolism, and mental health in protection from the cognitive consequences of neuropathology, while also providing evidence for a novel resilience gene along the bile acid metabolism pathway. Furthermore, the genetic architecture of resilience appears to be distinct from that of clinical Alzheimer\u27s disease, suggesting that a shift in focus to molecular contributors to resilience may identify novel pathways for therapeutic targets

Schroth physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how many patients require treatment to prevent one deterioration? – results from a randomized controlled trial - “SOSORT 2017 Award Winner”

Abstract Background Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support using physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). All RCTs reported statistically significant results favouring PSSE but none reported on clinical significance. The number needed to treat (NNT) helps determine if RCT results are clinically meaningful. The NNT is the number of patients that need to be treated to prevent one bad outcome in a given period. A low NNT suggests that a therapy has positive outcomes in most patients offered the therapy. The objective was to determine how many patients require Schroth PSSE added to standard care (observation or brace treatment) to prevent one progression (NNT) of the Largest Curve (LC) or Sum of Curves (SOC) beyond 5° and 10°, respectively over a 6-month interval. Methods This was a secondary analysis of a RCT. Fifty consecutive participants from a scoliosis clinic were randomized to the Schroth PSSE + standard of care group (n = 25) or the standard of care group (n = 25). We included males and females with AIS, age 10–18 years, all curve types, with curves 10°- 45°, with or without brace, and all maturity levels. We excluded patients awaiting surgery, having had surgery, having completed brace treatment and with other scoliosis diagnoses. The local ethics review board approved the study (Pro00011552). The Schroth intervention consisted of weekly 1-h supervised Schroth PSSE sessions and a daily home program delivered over six months in addition to the standard of care. A prescription algorithm was used to determine which exercises patients were to perform. Controls received only standard of care. Cobb angles were measured using a semi-automatic system from posterior-anterior standing radiographs at baseline and 6 months. We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR). The NTT was calculated as: NNT = 1/ARR. Patients with missing values (PSSE group; n = 2 and controls; n = 4) were assumed to have had curve progression (worst case scenario). The RRR is calculated as RRR = ARR/CER Results For LC, NNT = 3.6 (95% CI 2.0–28.2), and for SOC, NNT = 3.1 (95% CI 1.9–14.2). The corresponding ARR was 28% for LC and 32% for the SOC. The RRR was 70% for LC and 73% for the SOC. Patients with complete follow-up attended 85% of prescribed visits and completed 82.5% of the home program. Assuming zero compliance after dropout, 76% of visits were attended and 73% of the prescribed home exercises were completed. Conclusions The short term of Schroth PSSE intervention added to standard care provided a large benefit as compared to standard care alone. Four (LC and SOC) patients require treatment for the additional benefit of a 6-month long Schroth intervention to be observed beyond the standard of care in at least one patient. Trial registration NCT01610908 April 2, 201

Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis perceive positive improvements regardless of change in the Cobb angle – Results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 6-month Schroth intervention added to standard care and standard care alone. SOSORT 2018 Award winner

Abstract Background The Cobb angle is proposed as the “disease process” outcome for scoliosis research because therapies aim to correct or stop curve progression. While the Scoliosis Research Society recommends the Cobb angle as the primary outcome, the Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment prioritises, as a general goal, patient related outcomes over Cobb angle progression. Objective To determine the threshold of change in the Cobb angle in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) who perceive improvement in a 6-months randomized controlled trial comparing a Schroth exercise intervention added to the standard of care to the standard of care alone. Methods This is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of 50 patients with AIS, with curves ranging from 10° to 45°, with or without a brace. Participants with diagnoses other than AIS, surgical candidates or patients who had scoliosis surgery were excluded. The 6-month interventions consisted of Schroth exercises added to standard-of-care (observation or bracing) with daily home exercises and weekly therapy sessions (Schroth) or standard-of-care alone (Control). The anchor method for estimating the minimal important difference (MID) in the largest Cobb angles (LC) was used. Patient-reported change in back status over the 6-month treatment period was measured using the Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale as anchor varying from − 7 (“great deal worse”) to + 7 (“great deal better”). Participants were divided into two groups based on GRC scores: Improved (GRC ≥2) or Stable/Not Improved (GRC ≤1). MID was defined as the change in the LC that most accurately predicted the GRC classification as per the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results The average age was 13.4 ± 1.6 years and the average LC was 28.5 ± 8.8 °s. The average GRC in the control group was − 0.1 ± 1.6, compared to + 4.4 ± 2.2 in the Schroth group. The correlation between LC and GRC was adequate (r = − 0.34, p < 0.05). The MID for the LC was 1.0 °. The area under the ROC was 0.69 (0.52–0.86), suggesting a 70% chance to properly classify a patient as perceiving No Improvement/Stable or Improvement based on the change in the LC. Conclusion Patients undergoing Schroth treatment perceived improved status of their backs even if the Cobb angle did not improve beyond the conventionally accepted threshold of 5°. Standard of care aims to slow/stop progression while Schroth exercises aim to improve postural balance, signs and symptoms of scoliosis. Given the very small MID, perceived improvement in back status is likely due to something other than the Cobb angle. This study warrants investigating alternatives to the Cobb angle that might be more relevant to patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01610908 . Retrospectively registered on April 2, 2012 (first posted on June 4, 2012 - https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/keydates/NCT01610908

Schroth Physiotherapeutic Scoliosis-Specific Exercises Added to the Standard of Care Lead to Better Cobb Angle Outcomes in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis – an Assessor and Statistician Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

<div><p>Background</p><p>The North American non-surgical standard of care for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) includes observation and bracing, but not exercises. Schroth physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) showed promise in several studies of suboptimal methodology. The Scoliosis Research Society calls for rigorous studies supporting the role of exercises before including it as a treatment recommendation for scoliosis.</p><p>Objectives</p><p>To determine the effect of a six-month Schroth PSSE intervention added to standard of care (Experimental group) on the Cobb angle compared to standard of care alone (Control group) in patients with AIS.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Fifty patients with AIS aged 10–18 years, with curves of 10°-45° and Risser grade 0–5 were recruited from a single pediatric scoliosis clinic and randomized to the Experimental or Control group. Outcomes included the change in the Cobb angles of the Largest Curve and Sum of Curves from baseline to six months. The intervention consisted of a 30–45 minute daily home program and weekly supervised sessions. Intention-to-treat and per protocol linear mixed effects model analyses are reported.</p><p>Results</p><p>In the intention-to-treat analysis, after six months, the Schroth group had significantly smaller Largest Curve than controls (-3.5°, 95% CI -1.1° to -5.9°, <i>p</i> = 0.006). Likewise, the between-group difference in the square root of the Sum of Curves was -0.40°, (95% CI -0.03° to -0.8°, <i>p</i> = 0.046), suggesting that an average patient with 51.2° at baseline, will have a 49.3° Sum of Curves at six months in the Schroth group, and 55.1° in the control group with the difference between groups increasing with severity. Per protocol analyses produced similar, but larger differences: Largest Curve = -4.1° (95% CI -1.7° to -6.5°, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and (95% CI -0.8 to 0.2, <i>p</i> = 0.006).</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Schroth PSSE added to the standard of care were superior compared to standard of care alone for reducing the curve severity in patients with AIS.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p><a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01610908" target="_blank">NCT01610908</a></p></div