Rik Ossenkoppele

Bio: Rik Ossenkoppele is an academic researcher from Lund University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dementia & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 42, co-authored 192 publications receiving 6839 citations. Previous affiliations of Rik Ossenkoppele include VU University Amsterdam & University of Amsterdam.

Prevalence of cerebral amyloid pathology in persons without dementia: a meta-analysis.

Abstract: Cerebral amyloid-β aggregation is an early pathological event in Alzheimer disease (AD), starting decades before dementia onset. Estimates of the prevalence of amyloid pathology in persons without dementia are needed to understand the development of AD and to design prevention studies.

Whitepaper: Defining and investigating cognitive reserve, brain reserve, and brain maintenance

Abstract: Several concepts, which in the aggregate get might be used to account for "resilience" against age- and disease-related changes, have been the subject of much research. These include brain reserve, cognitive reserve, and brain maintenance. However, different investigators have use these terms in different ways, and there has never been an attempt to arrive at consensus on the definition of these concepts. Furthermore, there has been confusion regarding the measurement of these constructs and the appropriate ways to apply them to research. Therefore the reserve, resilience, and protective factors professional interest area, established under the auspices of the Alzheimer's Association, established a whitepaper workgroup to develop consensus definitions for cognitive reserve, brain reserve, and brain maintenance. The workgroup also evaluated measures that have been used to implement these concepts in research settings and developed guidelines for research that explores or utilizes these concepts. The workgroup hopes that this whitepaper will form a reference point for researchers in this area and facilitate research by supplying a common language.

Prevalence of amyloid PET positivity in dementia syndromes: a meta-analysis.

Abstract: Importance Amyloid-β positron emission tomography (PET) imaging allows in vivo detection of fibrillar plaques, a core neuropathological feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Its diagnostic utility is still unclear because amyloid plaques also occur in patients with non–AD dementia. Objective To use individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of amyloid positivity on PET in a wide variety of dementia syndromes. Data Sources The MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched from January 2004 to April 2015 for amyloid PET studies. Study Selection Case reports and studies on neurological or psychiatric diseases other than dementia were excluded. Corresponding authors of eligible cohorts were invited to provide individual participant data. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were provided for 1359 participants with clinically diagnosed AD and 538 participants with non–AD dementia. The reference groups were 1849 healthy control participants (with amyloid PET) and an independent sample of 1369 AD participants (with autopsy data). Main Outcomes and Measures Estimated prevalence of positive amyloid PET scans according to diagnosis, age, and apolipoprotein E (APOE) e4 status, using the generalized estimating equations method. Results The likelihood of amyloid positivity was associated with age and APOE e4 status. In AD dementia, the prevalence of amyloid positivity decreased from age 50 to 90 years in APOE e4 noncarriers (86% [95% CI, 73%-94%] at 50 years to 68% [95% CI, 57%-77%] at 90 years; n = 377) and to a lesser degree in APOE e4 carriers (97% [95% CI, 92%-99%] at 50 years to 90% [95% CI, 83%-94%] at 90 years; n = 593; P Conclusions and Relevance Among participants with dementia, the prevalence of amyloid positivity was associated with clinical diagnosis, age, and APOE genotype. These findings indicate the potential clinical utility of amyloid imaging for differential diagnosis in early-onset dementia and to support the clinical diagnosis of participants with AD dementia and noncarrier APOE e4 status who are older than 70 years.

The behavioural/dysexecutive variant of Alzheimer's disease: clinical, neuroimaging and pathological features.

Abstract: A 'frontal variant of Alzheimer's disease' has been described in patients with predominant behavioural or dysexecutive deficits caused by Alzheimer's disease pathology. The description of this rare Alzheimer's disease phenotype has been limited to case reports and small series, and many clinical, neuroimaging and neuropathological characteristics are not well understood. In this retrospective study, we included 55 patients with Alzheimer's disease with a behavioural-predominant presentation (behavioural Alzheimer's disease) and a neuropathological diagnosis of high-likelihood Alzheimer's disease (n = 17) and/or biomarker evidence of Alzheimer's disease pathology (n = 44). In addition, we included 29 patients with autopsy/biomarker-defined Alzheimer's disease with a dysexecutive-predominant syndrome (dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease). We performed structured chart reviews to ascertain clinical features. First symptoms were more often cognitive (behavioural Alzheimer's disease: 53%; dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease: 83%) than behavioural (behavioural Alzheimer's disease: 25%; dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease: 3%). Apathy was the most common behavioural feature, while hyperorality and perseverative/compulsive behaviours were less prevalent. Fifty-two per cent of patients with behavioural Alzheimer's disease met diagnostic criteria for possible behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia. Overlap between behavioural and dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease was modest (9/75 patients). Sixty per cent of patients with behavioural Alzheimer's disease and 40% of those with the dysexecutive syndrome carried at least one APOE e4 allele. We also compared neuropsychological test performance and brain atrophy (applying voxel-based morphometry) with matched autopsy/biomarker-defined typical (amnestic-predominant) Alzheimer's disease (typical Alzheimer's disease, n = 58), autopsy-confirmed/Alzheimer's disease biomarker-negative behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (n = 59), and controls (n = 61). Patients with behavioural Alzheimer's disease showed worse memory scores than behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and did not differ from typical Alzheimer's disease, while executive function composite scores were lower compared to behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and typical Alzheimer's disease. Voxel-wise contrasts between behavioural and dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease patients and controls revealed marked atrophy in bilateral temporoparietal regions and only limited atrophy in the frontal cortex. In direct comparison with behavioural and those with dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease, patients with behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia showed more frontal atrophy and less posterior involvement, whereas patients with typical Alzheimer's disease were slightly more affected posteriorly and showed less frontal atrophy (P < 0.001 uncorrected). Among 24 autopsied behavioural Alzheimer's disease/dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease patients, only two had primary co-morbid FTD-spectrum pathology (progressive supranuclear palsy). In conclusion, behavioural Alzheimer's disease presentations are characterized by a milder and more restricted behavioural profile than in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, co-occurrence of memory dysfunction and high APOE e4 prevalence. Dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease presented as a primarily cognitive phenotype with minimal behavioural abnormalities and intermediate APOE e4 prevalence. Both behavioural Alzheimer's disease and dysexecutive Alzheimer's disease presentations are distinguished by temporoparietal-predominant atrophy. Based on the relative sparing of frontal grey matter, we propose to redefine these clinical syndromes as 'the behavioural/dysexecutive variant of Alzheimer's disease' rather than frontal variant Alzheimer's disease. Further work is needed to determine whether behavioural and dysexecutive-predominant presentations of Alzheimer's disease represent distinct phenotypes or a single continuum.

NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer's disease

Abstract: In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

Neuroscience 細胞死：最近の知見

Abstract: 中枢神経系疾患の治療は正常細胞（ニューロン）の機能維持を目的とするが，脳血管障害のように機能障害の原因が細胞の死滅に基づくことは多い．一方，脳腫瘍の治療においては薬物療法や放射線療法といった腫瘍細胞の死滅を目標とするものが大きな位置を占める．いずれの場合にも，細胞死の機序を理解することは各種病態や治療法の理解のうえで重要である．現在のところ最も研究の進んでいる細胞死の型はアポトーシスである．そのなかで重要な位置を占めるミトコンドリアにおける反応および抗アポトーシス因子について概要を紹介する．

Advancing research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease: the IWG-2 criteria

Abstract: In the past 8 years, both the International Working Group (IWG) and the US National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association have contributed criteria for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) that better define clinical phenotypes and integrate biomarkers into the diagnostic process, covering the full staging of the disease. This Position Paper considers the strengths and limitations of the IWG research diagnostic criteria and proposes advances to improve the diagnostic framework. On the basis of these refinements, the diagnosis of AD can be simplified, requiring the presence of an appropriate clinical AD phenotype (typical or atypical) and a pathophysiological biomarker consistent with the presence of Alzheimer's pathology. We propose that downstream topographical biomarkers of the disease, such as volumetric MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose PET, might better serve in the measurement and monitoring of the course of disease. This paper also elaborates on the specific diagnostic criteria for atypical forms of AD, for mixed AD, and for the preclinical states of AD.