Tripartite Relationship Among Synaptic, Amyloid, and Tau Proteins: An In Vivo and Postmortem Study

[Abstract contains special characters which do not display correctly.

Cerebrospinal Fluid and Plasma Levels of Inflammation Differentially Relate to CNS Markers of Alzheimer's Disease Pathology and Neuronal Damage

Inflammatory markers have been shown to predict neurocognitive outcomes in aging adults; however, the degree to which peripheral markers mirror the central nervous system remains unknown. We investigated the association between plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) markers of inflammation, and explored whether these markers independently predict CSF indicators of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology or neuronal damage. Plasma and CSF samples were analyzed for inflammatory markers in a cohort of asymptomatic older adults (n = 173). CSF samples were analyzed for markers of AD pathology (Aβ42, phosphorylated tau [p-tau], sAβPPβ) or neuronal damage (total tau; neurofilament light chain) (n = 147). Separate linear models for each analyte were conducted with CSF and plasma levels entered simultaneously as predictors and markers of AD pathology or neuronal damage as outcome measures. Strong associations were noted between CSF and plasma MIP-1β levels, and modest associations were observed for remaining analytes. With respect to AD pathology, higher levels of plasma and CSF IL-8, CSF MIP-1β, and CSF IP-10 were associated with higher levels of p-tau. Higher levels of CSF IL-8 were associated with higher levels of CSF Aβ42. Higher CSF sAβPPβ levels were associated with higher plasma markers only (IL-8; MCP-1). In terms of neuronal injury, higher levels of plasma and CSF IL-8, CSF IP-10, and CSF MIP-1β were associated with higher levels of CSF total tau. Exploratory analyses indicated that CSF Aβ42 modifies the relationship between plasma inflammatory levels and CSF tau levels. Results suggest that both plasma and CSF inflammatory markers independently relay integral information about AD pathology and neuronal damage

Temporal order of clinical and biomarker changes in familial frontotemporal dementia

Data availability: The datasets analyzed for the current study reflect collaborative efforts of two research consortia: ALLFTD and GENFI. Each consortium provides clinical data access based on established policies for data use: processes for request are available for review at allftd.org/data for ALLFTD data and by emailing [email protected]. Certain data elements from both consortia (for example raw MRI images) may be restricted due to the potential for identifiability in the context of the sensitive nature of the genetic data. The deidentified combined dataset will be available for request through the FTD Prevention Initiative in 2023 (https://www.thefpi.org/).Code availability: Custom R code is available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6687486.Copyright © The Author(s). Unlike familial Alzheimer’s disease, we have been unable to accurately predict symptom onset in presymptomatic familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) mutation carriers, which is a major hurdle to designing disease prevention trials. We developed multimodal models for f-FTD disease progression and estimated clinical trial sample sizes in C9orf72, GRN and MAPT mutation carriers. Models included longitudinal clinical and neuropsychological scores, regional brain volumes and plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) in 796 carriers and 412 noncarrier controls. We found that the temporal ordering of clinical and biomarker progression differed by genotype. In prevention-trial simulations using model-based patient selection, atrophy and NfL were the best endpoints, whereas clinical measures were potential endpoints in early symptomatic trials. f-FTD prevention trials are feasible but will likely require global recruitment efforts. These disease progression models will facilitate the planning of f-FTD clinical trials, including the selection of optimal endpoints and enrollment criteria to maximize power to detect treatment effects.Data collection and dissemination of the data presented in this paper were supported by the ALLFTD Consortium (U19: AG063911, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke) and the former ARTFL and LEFFTDS Consortia (ARTFL: U54 NS092089, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke and National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; LEFFTDS: U01 AG045390, funded by the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke). The manuscript was reviewed by the ALLFTD Executive Committee for scientific content. The authors acknowledge the invaluable contributions of the study participants and families as well as the assistance of the support staffs at each of the participating sites. This work is also supported by the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration (including the FTD Biomarkers Initiative), the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, Larry L. Hillblom Foundation (2018-A-025-FEL (A.M.S.)), the National Institutes of Health (AG038791 (A.L.B.), AG032306 (H.J.R.), AG016976 (W.K.), AG062677 (Ron C. Peterson), AG019724 (B.L.M.), AG058233 (Suzee E. Lee), AG072122 (Walter Kukull), P30 AG062422 (B.L.M.), K12 HD001459 (N.G.), K23AG061253 (A.M.S.), AG062422 (RCP), K24AG045333 (H.J.R.)) and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation. Samples from the National Centralized Repository for Alzheimer Disease and Related Dementias (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG021886 (T.F.)) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. This work was also supported by Medical Research Council UK GENFI grant MR/M023664/1 (J.D.R.), the Bluefield Project, the National Institute for Health Research including awards to Cambridge and UCL Biomedical Research Centres and a JPND GENFI-PROX grant (2019–02248). Several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurologic Diseases, project 739510. J.D.R. and L.L.R. are also supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society and Alzheimer’s Research UK. J.D.R. is also supported by the Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship and has received funding from an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and the NIHR Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). M.B. is supported by a Fellowship award from the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517). RC and C.G. are supported by a Frontotemporal Dementia Research Studentships in Memory of David Blechner funded through The National Brain Appeal (RCN 290173). J.B.R. is supported by NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014; the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care), the Wellcome Trust (220258), the Cambridge Centre for Parkinson-plus and the Medical Research Council (SUAG/092 G116768); I.L.B. is supported by ANR-PRTS PREV-DemAls, PHRC PREDICT-PGRN, and several authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for Rare Neurological Diseases (project 739510). J.L. is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (EXC 2145 SyNergy – ID 390857198). R.S.-V. was funded at the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (grant code PI20/00448 to RSV) and Fundació Marató TV3, Spain (grant code 20143810 to R.S.-V.). M.M. was, in part, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Italian Ministry of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research as part of a Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration grant, by Canadian Institutes of Health Research operating grants (MOP- 371851 and PJT-175242) and by funding from the Weston Brain Institute. R.L. is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Chaire de Recherche sur les Aphasies Primaires Progressives Fondation Famille Lemaire. C.G. is supported by the Swedish Frontotemporal Dementia Initiative Schörling Foundation, Swedish Research Council, JPND Prefrontals, 2015–02926,2018–02754, Swedish Alzheimer Foundation, Swedish Brain Foundation, Karolinska Institutet Doctoral Funding, KI Strat-Neuro, Swedish Dementia Foundation, and Stockholm County Council ALF/Region Stockholm. J.L. is supported by Germany’s Excellence Strategy within the framework of the Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology (German Research Foundation, EXC 2145 Synergy 390857198). The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research UCL/H Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre Clinical Research Facility and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd, funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer’s Research UK

National Institutes of Health Toolbox Emotion Battery for English- and Spanish-speaking adults: normative data and factor-based summary scores

Ida Babakhanyan,1,2 Benjamin S McKenna,2 Kaitlin B Casaletto,3 Cindy J Nowinski,4 Robert K Heaton2 1Defense and Veteran’s Brain Injury Center, Camp Pendleton, 2Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, 3Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 4Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA Background: The National Institutes of Health Toolbox Emotion Battery (NIHTB-EB) is a “common currency”, computerized assessment developed to measure the full spectrum of emotional health. Though comprehensive, the NIHTB-EB’s 17 scales may be unwieldy for users aiming to capture more global indices of emotional functioning. Methods: NIHTB-EB was administered to 1,036 English-speaking and 408 Spanish-speaking adults as a part of the NIH Toolbox norming project. We examined the factor structure of the NIHTB-EB in English- and Spanish-speaking adults and developed factor analysis-based summary scores. Census-weighted norms were presented for English speakers, and sample-weighted norms were presented for Spanish speakers. Results: Exploratory factor analysis for both English- and Spanish-speaking cohorts resulted in the same 3-factor solution: 1) negative affect, 2) social satisfaction, and 3) psychological well-being. Confirmatory factor analysis supported similar factor structures for English- and Spanish-speaking cohorts. Model fit indices fell within the acceptable/good range, and our final solution was optimal compared to other solutions. Conclusion: Summary scores based upon the normative samples appear to be psychometrically supported and should be applied to clinical samples to further validate the factor structures and investigate rates of problematic emotions in medical and psychiatric populations. Keywords: emotional functioning, NIH Toolbox Emotion Battery, factor analyses, summary scores, normative dat

Screening for neurocognitive impairment in HIV-positive adults aged 50 years and older: Montreal Cognitive Assessment relates to self-reported and clinician-rated everyday functioning.

As the HIV+ population ages, the risk for and need to screen for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) increases. The aim of this study is to determine the utility and ecological validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) among older HIV+ adults. A total of 100 HIV+ older adults aged 50 years or over completed a comprehensive neuromedical and neurocognitive battery, including the MoCA and several everyday functioning measures. The receiver operating characteristic curve indicates ≤26 as the optimal cut-off balancing sensitivity (84.2%) and specificity (55.8%) compared to "gold standard" impairment as measured on a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Higher MoCA total scores are significantly (p < .01) associated with better performance in all individual cognitive domains except motor abilities, with the strongest association with executive functions (r = -0.49, p < .01). Higher MoCA total scores are also significantly (p <.01) associated with fewer instrumental activities of daily living declines (r = -0.28), fewer everyday cognitive symptoms (r = -0.25), and better clinician-rated functional status (i.e., Karnofsky scores; r = 0.28); these associations remain when controlling for depressive symptoms. HIV+ individuals who are neurocognitively normal demonstrate medium-to-large effect size differences in their MoCA performance compared to those with asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment (d = 0.85) or syndromic HAND (mild neurocognitive disorder or HIV-associated dementia; d = 0.78), while the latter two categories do not differ. Although limited by less than optimal specificity, the MoCA demonstrates good sensitivity and ecological validity, which lends support to its psychometric integrity as a brief cognitive screening tool among older HIV+ adults

Screening for neurocognitive impairment in HIV-positive adults aged 50 years and older: Montreal Cognitive Assessment relates to self-reported and clinician-rated everyday functioning.

As the HIV+ population ages, the risk for and need to screen for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) increases. The aim of this study is to determine the utility and ecological validity of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) among older HIV+ adults. A total of 100 HIV+ older adults aged 50 years or over completed a comprehensive neuromedical and neurocognitive battery, including the MoCA and several everyday functioning measures. The receiver operating characteristic curve indicates ≤26 as the optimal cut-off balancing sensitivity (84.2%) and specificity (55.8%) compared to "gold standard" impairment as measured on a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Higher MoCA total scores are significantly (p < .01) associated with better performance in all individual cognitive domains except motor abilities, with the strongest association with executive functions (r = -0.49, p < .01). Higher MoCA total scores are also significantly (p <.01) associated with fewer instrumental activities of daily living declines (r = -0.28), fewer everyday cognitive symptoms (r = -0.25), and better clinician-rated functional status (i.e., Karnofsky scores; r = 0.28); these associations remain when controlling for depressive symptoms. HIV+ individuals who are neurocognitively normal demonstrate medium-to-large effect size differences in their MoCA performance compared to those with asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment (d = 0.85) or syndromic HAND (mild neurocognitive disorder or HIV-associated dementia; d = 0.78), while the latter two categories do not differ. Although limited by less than optimal specificity, the MoCA demonstrates good sensitivity and ecological validity, which lends support to its psychometric integrity as a brief cognitive screening tool among older HIV+ adults