4.7 Article

Association Between Elevated Brain Amyloid and Subsequent Cognitive Decline Among Cognitively Normal Persons

期刊

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
卷 317, 期 22, 页码 2305-2316

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.6669

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biomarkers Across Neurodegenerative Disease grant from the Alzheimer's Association [BAND-14-338179]
  2. Michael J. Fox Foundation
  3. Weston Brain Institute
  4. Weston Brain Institute, ADNI
  5. NIH [U01 AG024904]
  6. DOD [W81XWH-12-2-0012]
  7. NIA
  8. National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  9. AbbVie
  10. Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
  11. Araclon Biotech
  12. BioClinica
  13. Biogen
  14. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  15. CereSpir
  16. Eisai
  17. Elan Pharmaceuticals
  18. Eli Lilly
  19. EuroImmun
  20. F. Hoffmann-La Roche
  21. Genentech
  22. Fujirebio
  23. GE Healthcare
  24. IXICO
  25. Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research Development
  26. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Development
  27. Lumosity
  28. Lundbeck
  29. Merck
  30. Meso Scale Diagnostics
  31. NeuroRx Research
  32. Neurotrack Technologies
  33. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  34. Pfizer
  35. Piramal Imaging
  36. Servier
  37. Takeda
  38. Transition Therapeutics
  39. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE Among cognitively normal individuals, elevated brain amyloid (defined by cerebrospinal fluid assays or positron emission tomography regional summaries) can be related to risk for later Alzheimer-related cognitive decline. OBJECTIVE To characterize and quantify the risk for Alzheimer-related cognitive decline among cognitively normal individuals with elevated brain amyloid. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Exploratory analyses were conducted with longitudinal cognitive and biomarker data from 445 cognitively normal individuals in the United States and Canada. Participants were observed from August 23, 2005, to June 7, 2016, for a median of 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.0-4.2 years; maximum follow-up, 10.3 years) as part of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). EXPOSURES Individuals were classified at baseline as having normal (n=243) or elevated (n=202) brain amyloid using positron emission tomography amyloid imaging or a cerebrospinal fluid assay of amyloid beta. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes included scores on the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC; a sum of 4 baseline standardized Z scores, which decreases with worse performance), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE; 0 [worst] to 30 [best] points), Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-Sum of Boxes; 0 [best] to 18 [worst] points), and Logical Memory Delayed Recall (0 [worst] to 25 [best] story units). RESULTS Among the 445 participants (243 with normal amyloid, 202 with elevated amyloid), mean (SD) age was 74.0 (5.9) years, mean education was 16.4 (2.7) years, and 52% were women. The mean score for PACC at baseline was 0.00 (2.60); for MMSE, 29.0 (1.2); for CDR-Sum of Boxes, 0.04 (0.14); and for Logical Memory Delayed Recall, 13.1 (3.3). Compared with the group with normal amyloid, those with elevated amyloid had worse mean scores at 4 years on the PACC (mean difference, 1.51 points [95% CI, 0.94-2.10]; P<.001), MMSE (mean difference, 0.56 points [95% CI, 0.32-0.80]; P<.001), and CDR-Sum of Boxes (mean difference, 0.23 points [95% CI, 0.08-0.38]; P=.002). For Logical Memory Delayed Recall, between-group score was not statistically significant at 4 years (mean difference, 0.73 story units [95% CI, -0.02 to 1.48]; P=.056). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Exploratory analyses of a cognitively normal cohort followed up for a median of 3.1 years suggest that elevation in baseline brain amyloid level, compared with normal brain amyloid level, was associated with higher likelihood of cognitive decline, although the findings are of uncertain clinical significance. Further research is needed to assess the clinical importance of these differences and measure longer-term associations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据