Cognitive Trajectories in Preclinical and Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease Related to Amyloid Status and Brain Atrophy: A Bayesian Approach.
Alzheimer’s disease
executive function
longitudinal
memory
mild cognitive impairment
non-linear
practice effects
subjective cognitive decline
Journal
Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports
ISSN: 2542-4823
Titre abrégé: J Alzheimers Dis Rep
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101705500
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
28
03
2023
accepted:
22
08
2023
medline:
18
10
2023
pubmed:
18
10
2023
entrez:
18
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cognitive decline is a key outcome of clinical studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD). To determine effects of global amyloid load as well as hippocampus and basal forebrain volumes on longitudinal rates and practice effects from repeated testing of domain specific cognitive change in the AD spectrum, considering non-linear effects and heterogeneity across cohorts. We included 1,514 cases from three cohorts, ADNI, AIBL, and DELCODE, spanning the range from cognitively normal people to people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We used generalized Bayesian mixed effects analysis of linear and polynomial models of amyloid and volume effects in time. Robustness of effects across cohorts was determined using Bayesian random effects meta-analysis. We found a consistent effect of amyloid and hippocampus volume, but not of basal forebrain volume, on rates of memory change across the three cohorts in the meta-analysis. Effects for amyloid and volumetric markers on executive function were more heterogeneous. We found practice effects in memory and executive performance in amyloid negative cognitively normal controls and MCI cases, but only to a smaller degree in amyloid positive controls and not at all in amyloid positive MCI cases. We found heterogeneity between cohorts, particularly in effects on executive functions. Initial increases in cognitive performance in amyloid negative, but not in amyloid positive MCI cases and controls may reflect practice effects from repeated testing that are lost with higher levels of cerebral amyloid.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Cognitive decline is a key outcome of clinical studies in Alzheimer's disease (AD).
Objective
UNASSIGNED
To determine effects of global amyloid load as well as hippocampus and basal forebrain volumes on longitudinal rates and practice effects from repeated testing of domain specific cognitive change in the AD spectrum, considering non-linear effects and heterogeneity across cohorts.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We included 1,514 cases from three cohorts, ADNI, AIBL, and DELCODE, spanning the range from cognitively normal people to people with subjective cognitive decline and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We used generalized Bayesian mixed effects analysis of linear and polynomial models of amyloid and volume effects in time. Robustness of effects across cohorts was determined using Bayesian random effects meta-analysis.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We found a consistent effect of amyloid and hippocampus volume, but not of basal forebrain volume, on rates of memory change across the three cohorts in the meta-analysis. Effects for amyloid and volumetric markers on executive function were more heterogeneous. We found practice effects in memory and executive performance in amyloid negative cognitively normal controls and MCI cases, but only to a smaller degree in amyloid positive controls and not at all in amyloid positive MCI cases.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
We found heterogeneity between cohorts, particularly in effects on executive functions. Initial increases in cognitive performance in amyloid negative, but not in amyloid positive MCI cases and controls may reflect practice effects from repeated testing that are lost with higher levels of cerebral amyloid.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37849637
doi: 10.3233/ADR-230027
pii: ADR230027
pmc: PMC10578328
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1055-1076Informations de copyright
© 2023 – The authors. Published by IOS Press.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
SJT participated in scientific advisory boards of Roche Pharma AG, Biogen, Grifols, and Eisai and is member of the independent data safety and monitoring board of the Study ENVISION (Biogen).
Références
Neurobiol Aging. 2010 Jul;31(7):1089-98
pubmed: 18809228
Neurobiol Aging. 2017 Aug;56:25-32
pubmed: 28482211
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Jan;11(1):1-15.e1-4
pubmed: 25443857
Neurology. 2019 Feb 19;92(8):e831-e840
pubmed: 30674595
Neurology. 2018 Aug 28;91(9):e859-e866
pubmed: 30068637
Nat Commun. 2016 Nov 04;7:13249
pubmed: 27811848
J Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;57(11):1740-1745
pubmed: 27363836
Mol Psychiatry. 2014 Sep;19(9):1044-51
pubmed: 24614494
Front Aging Neurosci. 2022 Jul 06;14:909614
pubmed: 35875808
J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;40(3):687-700
pubmed: 24503619
JAMA Neurol. 2013 Jul;70(7):903-11
pubmed: 23712469
Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(10):1394-413
pubmed: 15193947
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2015 Mar 29;1(1):103-11
pubmed: 27239497
Alzheimers Dement. 2014 Nov;10(6):844-52
pubmed: 24798886
Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Oct;5(10):1282-1291
pubmed: 34400814
Alzheimers Dement. 2017 Aug;13(8):893-902
pubmed: 28238738
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2000 Aug;22(4):518-28
pubmed: 10923061
Arch Neurol. 2011 Nov;68(11):1404-11
pubmed: 21747008
JAMA. 2011 Jan 19;305(3):275-83
pubmed: 21245183
Ann Neurol. 2012 Oct;72(4):578-86
pubmed: 23109153
Alzheimers Dement. 2011 May;7(3):270-9
pubmed: 21514249
Clin Neuropsychol. 2017 Jan;31(1):99-117
pubmed: 27724156
Neuroimage. 2017 Feb 15;147:669-677
pubmed: 28039094
Brain Imaging Behav. 2012 Dec;6(4):502-16
pubmed: 22782295
Arch Neurol. 1999 Mar;56(3):303-8
pubmed: 10190820
BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 7;7(2):e012174
pubmed: 28174220
Int J Psychophysiol. 2020 Aug;154:3-5
pubmed: 31082406
Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016 Jan 01;3(3):154-65
pubmed: 27042676
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Dec;14(12):1565-1571
pubmed: 30006100
J Nucl Med. 2022 Jul;63(7):981-985
pubmed: 35145015
J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2008 Mar;14(2):192-8
pubmed: 18282317
Alzheimers Dement. 2015 Feb;11(2):111-25
pubmed: 25267715
EJNMMI Res. 2018 Dec 5;8(1):107
pubmed: 30519791
Sci Data. 2016 Mar 15;3:160018
pubmed: 26978244
Alzheimers Dement. 2010 May;6(3):202-11.e7
pubmed: 20451868
Alzheimers Dement. 2013 Nov;9(6):687-698.e1
pubmed: 23474040
J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;85(3):1267-1282
pubmed: 34924387
Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27(8):1247-64
pubmed: 24041121
Alzheimers Dement. 2021 Jun;17(6):917-919
pubmed: 34115436
Neuroimage Clin. 2021;29:102533
pubmed: 33360018
Brain Imaging Behav. 2012 Dec;6(4):517-27
pubmed: 22644789
Neuropsychology. 2015 Nov;29(6):940-8
pubmed: 26011114
Neuroimage. 2017 Feb 15;147:772-787
pubmed: 27915121
Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2016 Oct 18;6:108-121
pubmed: 28239636
Neuroimage. 2006 Jul 1;31(3):968-80
pubmed: 16530430
Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26(4):543-70
pubmed: 22540222
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):35-57
pubmed: 28779455
Front Aging Neurosci. 2022 Jul 28;14:911559
pubmed: 35966791
Front Neurol. 2018 Aug 14;9:642
pubmed: 30158893
Alzheimers Dement. 2018 Sep;14(9):1126-1136
pubmed: 29792873
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):52-60
pubmed: 25304503
Hum Brain Mapp. 2019 Sep;40(13):3982-4000
pubmed: 31168892
J Neurosci. 2015 Jul 22;35(29):10402-11
pubmed: 26203136
Nat Protoc. 2015 Feb;10(2):293-304
pubmed: 25591011
Neurology. 2020 Sep 1;95(9):e1134-e1143
pubmed: 32636322
J Intern Med. 2004 Sep;256(3):240-6
pubmed: 15324367
Int Psychogeriatr. 2009 Aug;21(4):672-87
pubmed: 19470201
Nat Med. 2022 Nov;28(11):2381-2387
pubmed: 36357681
Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018 Feb 07;10(1):15
pubmed: 29415768
Neurology. 2022 Mar 1;98(9):e947-e957
pubmed: 34969939
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Aug;75:411-9
pubmed: 26102189