Distinct subtypes of Alzheimer’s disease based on patterns of brain atrophy: longitudinal trajectories and clinical applications

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 7; no. 1; p. 46263
• Main Authors: Ferreira, Daniel, Verhagen, Chloë, Hernández-Cabrera, Juan Andrés, Cavallin, Lena, Guo, Chun-Jie, Ekman, Urban, Muehlboeck, J-Sebastian, Simmons, Andrew, Barroso, José, Wahlund, Lars-Olof, Westman, Eric
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 18.04.2017; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 631/378/1595/2618; 631/477/2811; 692/617/375/132/1283; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Alzheimer Disease - diagnosis; Alzheimer Disease - etiology; Alzheimer Disease - metabolism; Alzheimer Disease - psychology; Alzheimer's disease; Atrophy; Biomarkers; Brain - pathology; Brain - physiopathology; Case-Control Studies; Cerebral Cortex - pathology; Cognition; Cognitive ability; Cortex; Disease Progression; Female; Heterogeneity; Hippocampus; Hippocampus - pathology; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Memory; multidisciplinary; Neurodegenerative diseases; Phenotype; Science; Temporal lobe; Therapeutic applications
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/srep46263

Atrophy patterns on MRI can reliably predict three neuropathological subtypes of Alzheimer’s disease (AD): typical, limbic-predominant, or hippocampal-sparing. A method to enable their investigation in the clinical routine is still lacking. We aimed to (1) validate the combined use of visual rating scales for identification of AD subtypes; (2) characterise these subtypes at baseline and over two years; and (3) investigate how atrophy patterns and non-memory cognitive domains contribute to memory impairment. AD patients were classified as either typical AD (n = 100), limbic-predominant (n = 33), or hippocampal-sparing (n = 35) by using the Scheltens’ scale for medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA), the Koedam’s scale for posterior atrophy (PA), and the Pasquier’s global cortical atrophy scale for frontal atrophy (GCA-F). A fourth group with no atrophy was also identified (n = 30). 230 healthy controls were also included. There was great overlap among subtypes in demographic, clinical, and cognitive variables. Memory performance was more dependent on non-memory cognitive functions in hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group. Hippocampal-sparing and the no atrophy group showed less aggressive disease progression. Visual rating scales can be used to identify distinct AD subtypes. Recognizing AD heterogeneity is important and visual rating scales may facilitate investigation of AD heterogeneity in clinical routine.