Correction: Genetic data and cognitively defined late-onset Alzheimer's disease subgroups.

This article was originally published under standard licence, but has now been made available under a [CC BY 4.0] license. The PDF and HTML versions of the paper have been modified accordingly.

Genetic data and cognitively defined late-onset Alzheimer's disease subgroups.

Categorizing people with late-onset Alzheimer's disease into biologically coherent subgroups is important for personalized medicine. We evaluated data from five studies (total n = 4050, of whom 2431 had genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data). We assigned people to cognitively defined subgroups on the basis of relative performance in memory, executive functioning, visuospatial functioning, and language at the time of Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. We compared genotype frequencies for each subgroup to those from cognitively normal elderly controls. We focused on APOE and on SNPs with p < 10-5 and odds ratios more extreme than those previously reported for Alzheimer's disease (<0.77 or >1.30). There was substantial variation across studies in the proportions of people in each subgroup. In each study, higher proportions of people with isolated substantial relative memory impairment had ≥1 APOE ε4 allele than any other subgroup (overall p = 1.5 × 10-27). Across subgroups, there were 33 novel suggestive loci across the genome with p < 10-5 and an extreme OR compared to controls, of which none had statistical evidence of heterogeneity and 30 had ORs in the same direction across all datasets. These data support the biological coherence of cognitively defined subgroups and nominate novel genetic loci.

Associations Between Depression, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Cognitively-Defined Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease Subgroups.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable heterogeneity in clinical presentation among people with late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD). We have categorized people with LOAD into subgroups based on relative impairments across cognitive domains. These 6 groups are people with no relatively impaired domains (AD-No Domains), 4 groups with one relatively impaired domain (AD-Memory, AD-Executive, AD-Language, and AD-Visuospatial), and a group with multiple relatively impaired domains (AD-Multiple Domains). Our previous analysis demonstrated that genetic factors vary across cognitively-defined LOAD groups. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether risks associated with depression and traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness (TBI) for cognitively defined LOAD subgroups are similar. METHODS: We used cognitive data at LOAD diagnosis from three prospective cohort studies to determine cognitively-defined subgroups. We compared subgroups in endorsement of items from the Centers for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale and history of TBI. RESULTS: Among 1,505 people with LOAD from the three studies, there were substantial differences across subgroups in total CES-D score, with lower scores (less depression) for people with AD with relative impairments in memory (AD-Memory) compared to those in other groups. Differences were noteworthy for the sleep-related item of the CES-D, as people with AD-Memory were less likely to report restless sleep than people in other groups. There were no differences in TBI history across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in risk factor associations across subgroups such as differences in endorsement of depression symptoms and restless sleep provide support for the hypothesis that there are biologically coherent subgroups of AD.

Incidence of cognitively defined late-onset Alzheimer's dementia subgroups from a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: There may be biologically relevant heterogeneity within typical late-onset Alzheimer's dementia. METHODS: We analyzed cognitive data from people with incident late-onset Alzheimer's dementia from a prospective cohort study. We determined individual averages across memory, visuospatial functioning, language, and executive functioning. We identified domains with substantial impairments relative to that average. We compared demographic, neuropathology, and genetic findings across groups defined by relative impairments. RESULTS: During 32,286 person-years of follow-up, 869 people developed Alzheimer's dementia. There were 393 (48%) with no domain with substantial relative impairments. Some participants had isolated relative impairments in memory (148, 18%), visuospatial functioning (117, 14%), language (71, 9%), and executive functioning (66, 8%). The group with isolated relative memory impairments had higher proportions with ≥ APOE ε4 allele, more extensive Alzheimer's-related neuropathology, and higher proportions with other Alzheimer's dementia genetic risk variants. DISCUSSION: A cognitive subgrouping strategy may identify biologically distinct subsets of people with Alzheimer's dementia.