Amyloid Imaging in Aging and Dementia: Testing the Amyloid Hypothesis In Vivo

Amyloid imaging represents a major advance in neuroscience, enabling the detection and quantification of pathologic protein aggregations in the brain. In this review we survey current amyloid imaging techniques, focusing on positron emission tomography (PET) with ^{11}carbon-labelled Pittsburgh Compound-B (11C-PIB), the most extensively studied and best validated tracer. PIB binds specifically to fibrillar beta-amyloid (Aβ) deposits, and is a sensitive marker for Aβ pathology in cognitively normal older individuals and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). PIB-PET provides us with a powerful tool to examine in vivo the relationship between amyloid deposition, clinical symptoms, and structural and functional brain changes in the continuum between normal aging and AD. Amyloid imaging studies support a model in which amyloid deposition is an early event on the path to dementia, beginning insidiously in cognitively normal individuals, and accompanied by subtle cognitive decline and functional and structural brain changes suggestive of incipient AD. As patients progress to dementia, clinical decline and neurodegeneration accelerate and proceed independently of amyloid accumulation. In the future, amyloid imaging is likely to supplement clinical evaluation in selecting patients for anti-amyloid therapies, while MRI and FDG-PET may be more appropriate markers of clinical progression

P2‐037: Categorical and correlational analyses of baseline fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152628/1/alzjjalz2008051118.pd

P2‐037: Categorical and correlational analyses of baseline fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152628/1/alzjjalz2008051118.pd

P2‐037: Categorical and correlational analyses of baseline fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography images from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152628/1/alzjjalz2008051118.pd

The role of apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotype in early mild cognitive impairment (E-MCI)

Objective: Our goal was to evaluate the association of APOE with amyloid deposition, cerebrospinal fluid levels (CSF) of Aβ, tau, and p-tau, brain atrophy, cognition and cognitive complaints in E-MCI patients and cognitively healthy older adults (HC) in the ADNI-2 cohort. Methods: Two-hundred and nine E-MCI and 123 HC participants from the ADNI-2 cohort were included. We evaluated the impact of diagnostic status (E-MCI vs. HC) and APOE ε4 status (ε4 positive vs. ε4 negative) on cortical amyloid deposition (AV-45/Florbetapir SUVR PET scans), brain atrophy (structural MRI scans processed using voxel-based morphometry and Freesurfer version 5.1), CSF levels of Aβ, tau, and p-tau, and cognitive performance and complaints. Results: E-MCI participants showed significantly impaired cognition, higher levels of cognitive complaints, greater levels of tau and p-tau, and subcortical and cortical atrophy relative to HC participants (p < 0.05). Cortical amyloid deposition and CSF levels of Aβ were significantly associated with APOE ε4 status but not E-MCI diagnosis, with ε4 positive participants showing more amyloid deposition and lower levels of CSF Aβ than ε4 negative participants. Other effects of APOE ε4 status on cognition and CSF tau levels were also observed. Conclusions: APOE ε4 status is associated with amyloid accumulation and lower CSF Aβ, as well as increased CSF tau levels in early prodromal stages of AD (E-MCI) and HC. Alternatively, neurodegeneration, cognitive impairment, and increased complaints are primarily associated with a diagnosis of E-MCI. These findings underscore the importance of considering APOE genotype when evaluating biomarkers in early stages of disease

Association of plasma and cortical beta-amyloid is modulated by APOE ε4 status.

Background: APOE ε4’s role as a modulator of the relationship between soluble plasma beta-amyloid (Aβ) and fibrillar brain Aβ measured by Pittsburgh Compound-B positron emission tomography ([11C]PiB PET) has not been assessed. Methods: Ninety-six Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative participants with [11C]PiB scans and plasma Aβ1-40 and Aβ1-42 measurements at time of scan were included. Regional and voxel-wise analyses of [11C]PiB data were used to determine the influence of APOE ε4 on association of plasma Aβ1-40, Aβ1-42, and Aβ1-40/Aβ1-42 with [11C]PiB uptake. Results: In APOE ε4− but not ε4+ participants, positive relationships between plasma Aβ1-40/Aβ1-42 and [11C]PiB uptake were observed. Modeling the interaction of APOE and plasma Aβ1-40/Aβ1-42 improved the explained variance in [11C]PiB binding compared to using APOE and plasma Aβ1-40/Aβ1-42 as separate terms. Conclusions: The results suggest that plasma Aβ is a potential Alzheimer’s disease biomarker and highlight the importance of genetic variation in interpretation of plasma Aβ levels

The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 3: Continued innovation for clinical trial improvement

INTRODUCTION: The overall goal of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is to validate biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. ADNI-3, which began on August 1, 2016, is a 5-year renewal of the current ADNI-2 study. METHODS: ADNI-3 will follow current and additional subjects with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment, and AD using innovative technologies such as tau imaging, magnetic resonance imaging sequences for connectivity analyses, and a highly automated immunoassay platform and mass spectroscopy approach for cerebrospinal fluid biomarker analysis. A Systems Biology/pathway approach will be used to identify genetic factors for subject selection/enrichment. Amyloid positron emission tomography scanning will be standardized using the Centiloid method. The Brain Health Registry will help recruit subjects and monitor subject cognition. RESULTS: Multimodal analyses will provide insight into AD pathophysiology and disease progression. DISCUSSION: ADNI-3 will aim to inform AD treatment trials and facilitate development of AD disease-modifying treatments

Impact of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, 2004 to 2014

INTRODUCTION: The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) was established in 2004 to facilitate the development of effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by validating biomarkers for AD clinical trials. METHODS: We searched for ADNI publications using established methods. RESULTS: ADNI has (1) developed standardized biomarkers for use in clinical trial subject selection and as surrogate outcome measures; (2) standardized protocols for use across multiple centers; (3) initiated worldwide ADNI; (4) inspired initiatives investigating traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder in military populations, and depression, respectively, as an AD risk factor; (5) acted as a data-sharing model; (6) generated data used in over 600 publications, leading to the identification of novel AD risk alleles, and an understanding of the relationship between biomarkers and AD progression; and (7) inspired other public-private partnerships developing biomarkers for Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. DISCUSSION: ADNI has made myriad impacts in its first decade. A competitive renewal of the project in 2015 would see the use of newly developed tau imaging ligands, and the continued development of recruitment strategies and outcome measures for clinical trials

NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a Biological Definition of Alzheimer\u27s Disease

In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer\u27s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer\u27s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative diseaseamong different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people

Relevance of biomarkers across different neurodegenerative

Background: The panel of fluid- and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer’s disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. Purpose of review: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer’s Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care