The APOE-epsilon 4 genotype is a risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as vascular pathology. Given the increased risk of blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction and... Show moreThe APOE-epsilon 4 genotype is a risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (AD) as well as vascular pathology. Given the increased risk of blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction and inflammation among APOE-epsilon 4 carriers, we aimed to examine whether BBB dysfunction and inflammation contribute to the relationship between APOE and AD key pathologies, as measured in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). We applied bootstrapped regression and path analyses involving Q-albumin CSF/plasma ratio (a BBB/blood-CSF barrier function marker), interleukins (IL-1 beta, IL-6, and IL-12p70; inflammation markers), and CSF p-Tau(181) and amyloid-beta(1-42) (AD pathology markers) of 97 participants (aged 38-83 years) from a university memory clinic. Our results showed that relationship between BBB dysfunction and AD pathology is modulated by IL-6 and these associations appear to be driven by the APOE-epsilon 4 genotype. This suggests that APOE-epsilon 4-related vascular factors are also part of the pathway to AD pathology, in synergy with an elevated immune response, and could become targets for trials focused on delaying AD. (C) 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Vos, F. de; Schouten, T.M.; Koini, M.; Bouts, M.J.R.J.; Feis, R.A.; Lechner, A.; ... ; Rombouts, S.A.R.B. 2020
Anatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer's disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to... Show moreAnatomical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion MRI and resting state functional MRI (rs-fMRI) have been used for Alzheimer's disease (AD) classification. These scans are typically used to build models for discriminating AD patients from control subjects, but it is not clear if these models can also discriminate AD in diverse clinical populations as found in memory clinics.To study this, we trained MRI-based AD classification models on a single centre data set consisting of AD patients (N = 76) and controls (N = 173), and used these models to assign AD scores to subjective memory complainers (N = 67), mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients (N = 61), and AD patients (N = 61) from a multi-centre memory clinic data set. The anatomical MRI scans were used to calculate grey matter density, subcortical volumes and cortical thickness, the diffusion MRI scans were used to calculate fractional anisotropy, mean, axial and radial diffusivity, and the rs-fMRI scans were used to calculate functional connectivity between resting state networks and amplitude of low frequency fluctuations. Within the multi-centre memory clinic data set we removed scan site differences prior to applying the models.For all models, on average, the AD patients were assigned the highest AD scores, followed by MCI patients, and later followed by SMC subjects. The anatomical MRI models performed best, and the best performing anatomical MRI measure was grey matter density, separating SMC subjects from MCI patients with an AUC of 0.69, MCI patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.70, and SMC patients from AD patients with an AUC of 0.86. The diffusion MRI models did not generalise well to the memory clinic data, possibly because of large scan site differences. The functional connectivity model separated SMC subjects and MCI patients relatively good (AUC = 0.66). The multimodal MRI model did not improve upon the anatomical MRI model.In conclusion, we showed that the grey matter density model generalises best to memory clinic subjects. When also considering the fact that grey matter density generally performs well in AD classification studies, this feature is probably the best MRI-based feature for AD diagnosis in clinical practice. Show less
Objectives: The predictive value of frailty and comorbidity, in addition to more readily available information, is not widely studied. We determined the incremental predictive value of frailty and... Show moreObjectives: The predictive value of frailty and comorbidity, in addition to more readily available information, is not widely studied. We determined the incremental predictive value of frailty and comorbidity for mortality and institutionalization across both short and long prediction periods in persons with dementia.Design: Longitudinal clinical cohort study with a follow-up of institutionalization and mortality occurrence across 7 years after baseline.Setting and Participants: 331 newly diagnosed dementia patients, originating from 3 Alzheimer centers (Amsterdam, Maastricht, and Nijmegen) in the Netherlands, contributed to the Clinical Course of Cognition and Comorbidity (4C) Study.Measures: We measured comorbidity burden using the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G) and constructed a Frailty Index (FI) based on 35 items. Time-to-death and time-to-institutionalization from dementia diagnosis onward were verified through linkage to the Dutch population registry.Results: After 7 years, 131 patients were institutionalized and 160 patients had died. Compared with a previously developed prediction model for survival in dementia, our Cox regression model showed a significant improvement in model concordance (U) after the addition of baseline CIRS-G or FI when examining mortality across 3 years (FI: U = 0.178, P = .005, CIRS-G: U = 0.180, P = .012), but not for mortality across 6 years (FI: U = 0.068, P = .176, CIRS-G: U = 0.084, P = .119). In a competing risk regression model for time-to-institutionalization, baseline CIRS-G and FI did not improve the prediction across any of the periods.Conclusions: Characteristics such as frailty and comorbidity change over time and therefore their predictive value is likely maximized in the short term. These results call for a shift in our approach to prognostic modeling for chronic diseases, focusing on yearly predictions rather than a single prediction across multiple years. Our findings underline the importance of considering possible fluctuations in predictors over time by performing regular longitudinal assessments in future studies as well as in clinical practice. (C) 2018 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Show less
