Dataset Information

Biological subtypes of Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To test the hypothesis that distinct subtypes of Alzheimer disease (AD) exist and underlie the heterogeneity within AD, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on AD subtype studies based on postmortem and neuroimaging data.

Methods

EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were consulted until July 2019.

Results

Neuropathology and neuroimaging studies have consistently identified 3 subtypes of AD based on the distribution of tau-related pathology and regional brain atrophy: typical, limbic-predominant, and hippocampal-sparing AD. A fourth subtype, minimal atrophy AD, has been identified in several neuroimaging studies. Typical AD displays tau-related pathology and atrophy both in hippocampus and association cortex and has a pooled frequency of 55%. Limbic-predominant, hippocampal-sparing, and minimal atrophy AD had a pooled frequency of 21%, 17%, and 15%, respectively. Between-subtype differences were found in age at onset, age at assessment, sex distribution, years of education, global cognitive status, disease duration, APOE ε4 genotype, and CSF biomarker levels.

Conclusion

We identified 2 core dimensions of heterogeneity: typicality and severity. We propose that these 2 dimensions determine individuals' belonging to one of the AD subtypes based on the combination of protective factors, risk factors, and concomitant non-AD brain pathologies. This model is envisioned to aid with framing hypotheses, study design, interpretation of results, and understanding mechanisms in future subtype studies. Our model can be used along the A/T/N classification scheme for AD biomarkers. Unraveling the heterogeneity within AD is critical for implementing precision medicine approaches and for ultimately developing successful disease-modifying drugs for AD.

SUBMITTER: Ferreira D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7238917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Many epidemiologic studies have considered the association between blood pressure (BP) and Alzheimer disease, yet the relationship remains poorly understood.In parallel with work on the AlzRisk online database (www.alzrisk.org), we conducted a systematic review to identify all epidemiologic studies meeting prespecified criteria reporting on the association between hypertension, systolic BP, or diastolic BP and incident Alzheimer disease. When possible, we computed summary measures using random-effects models and explored potential heterogeneity related to age at BP assessment.Eighteen studies reporting on 19 populations met the eligibility criteria. We computed summary relative risks (RR(?)) for 3 measures of BP: hypertension (RR(?) = 0.97 [95% confidence interval = 0.80-1.16]); a 10-mm Hg increase in systolic BP (RR(?) = 0.95 [0.91-1.00]); and a 10-mm Hg increase in diastolic BP (RR(?) = 0.94 [0.85-1.04]). We were unable to compute summary estimates for the association between categories of systolic or diastolic BP and Alzheimer disease; however, there did not appear to be a consistent pattern across studies. After stratifying on age at BP assessment, we found a suggestion of an inverse association between late-life hypertension and Alzheimer disease and a suggestion of an adverse association between midlife diastolic hypertension and Alzheimer disease.Based on existing epidemiologic research, we cannot determine whether there is a causal association between BP and Alzheimer disease. Selection bias and reverse causation may account for the suggested inverse association between late-life hypertension on Alzheimer disease, but, given the expected direction of these biases, they are less likely to account for the suggestion that midlife hypertension increases risk. We advocate continuing systematic review; the AlzRisk database entry on this topic (www.alzrisk.org), which was completed in parallel with this work, will be updated as new studies are published.

Project description:ImportanceThe behavioral variant of Alzheimer disease (bvAD) is characterized by early and predominant behavioral deficits caused by AD pathology. This AD phenotype is insufficiently understood and lacks standardized clinical criteria, limiting reliability and reproducibility of diagnosis and scientific reporting.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the bvAD literature and use the outcomes to propose research criteria for this syndrome.Data sourcesA systematic literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases (from inception through April 7, 2021) was performed in duplicate.Study selectionStudies reporting on behavioral, neuropsychological, or neuroimaging features in bvAD and, when available, providing comparisons with typical amnestic-predominant AD (tAD) or behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD).Data extraction and synthesisThis analysis involved random-effects meta-analyses on group-level study results of clinical data and systematic review of the neuroimaging literature. The study was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresBehavioral symptoms (neuropsychiatric symptoms and bvFTD core clinical criteria), cognitive function (global cognition, episodic memory, and executive functioning), and neuroimaging features (structural magnetic resonance imaging, [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography, perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography, amyloid positron emission tomography, and tau positron emission tomography).ResultsThe search led to the assessment of 83 studies, including 13 suitable for meta-analysis. Data were collected for 591 patients with bvAD. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity and moderate risk of bias across studies. Cases with bvAD showed more severe behavioral symptoms than tAD (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.16 [95% CI, 0.74-1.59]; P < .001) and a trend toward less severe behavioral symptoms compared with bvFTD (SMD, -0.22 [95% CI, -0.47 to 0.04]; P = .10). Meta-analyses of cognitive data indicated worse executive performance in bvAD vs tAD (SMD, -1.03 [95% CI, -1.74 to -0.32]; P = .008) but not compared with bvFTD (SMD, -0.61 [95% CI, -1.75 to 0.53]; P = .29). Cases with bvAD showed a nonsignificant difference of worse memory performance compared with bvFTD (SMD, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.75 to 0.14]; P = .08) but did not differ from tAD (SMD, 0.43 [95% CI, -0.46 to 1.33]; P = .34). The neuroimaging literature revealed 2 distinct bvAD neuroimaging phenotypes: an AD-like pattern with relative frontal sparing and a relatively more bvFTD-like pattern characterized by additional anterior involvement, with the AD-like pattern being more prevalent.Conclusions and relevanceThese data indicate that bvAD is clinically most similar to bvFTD, while it shares most pathophysiological features with tAD. Based on these insights, we propose research criteria for bvAD aimed at improving the consistency and reliability of future research and aiding the clinical assessment of this AD phenotype.

Project description:BackgroundAlzheimer disease (AD) entails a long-term progressive decline in the cognitive ability to think and remember, and it has become a major concern for patients receiving surgery and anesthesia. However, studies investigating the relationship between general anesthesia and AD have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, we plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relationship between general anesthesia and AD, and to verify whether general anesthesia is an independent risk factor for AD.MethodsA systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Google scholar from their inception to August 2017. Peer-reviewed cohort and case-control studies including nested case-control studies reporting the relationship between general anesthesia and AD will be eligible for inclusion. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity of estimates across studies as well as publication bias will be assessed. This systematic review and meta-analysis will be performed according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. All statistical analyses will be conducted using the Stata SE version 15.0.ResultsThe results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.ConclusionOur study will provide the evidence for the relationship between general anesthesia and dementia. The review will benefit patients and anesthesiologists, surgeons, and policymakers.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval and informed consent are not required, as the study will be a literature review and will not involve direct contact with patients or alterations to patient care.Trial registrationThe protocol for this review has been registered in the PROSPERO network (registration number: CRD42017073790).

Project description:ImportanceObservational studies consistently report inverse associations between cancer and Alzheimer disease (AD). Shared inverse etiological mechanisms might explain this phenomenon, but a systematic evaluation of methodological biases in existing studies is needed.ObjectivesTo systematically review and meta-analyze evidence on the association between cancer and subsequent AD, systematically identify potential methodological biases in studies, and estimate the influence of these biases on the estimated pooled association between cancer and AD.Data sourcesAll-language publications were identified from PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases through September 2, 2020.Study selectionLongitudinal cohort studies and case-control studies on the risk of AD in older adults with a history of any cancer type, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or nonmelanoma skin cancer, relative to those with no cancer history.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently abstracted the data and evaluated study biases related to confounding, diagnostic bias, competing risks, or survival bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to provide pooled estimates of the association between cancer and AD. Metaregressions were used to evaluate whether the observed pooled estimate could be attributable to each bias. The study was designed and conducted according to the Preferring Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence, hazard, or odds ratios for AD comparing older adults with vs without a previous cancer diagnosis.ResultsIn total, 19 cohort studies and 3 case-control studies of the associations between any cancer type (n = 13), prostate cancer (n = 5), breast cancer (n = 1), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (n = 3) with AD were identified, representing 9 630 435 individuals. In all studies combined, cancer was associated with decreased AD incidence (cohort studies: random-effects hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79-1.00; case-control studies: random-effects odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93). Studies with insufficient or inappropriate confounder control or greater likelihood of AD diagnostic bias had mean hazard ratios closer to the null value, indicating that these biases could not explain the observed inverse association. Competing risks bias was rare. Studies with greater likelihood of survival bias had mean hazard ratios farther from the null value.Conclusions and relevanceThe weak inverse association between cancer and AD may reflect shared inverse etiological mechanisms or survival bias but is not likely attributable to diagnostic bias, competing risks bias, or insufficient or inappropriate control for potential confounding factors.