The Modulatory Effect of Cerebrovascular Burden in Response to Cognitive Stimulation in Healthy Ageing and Mild Cognitive Impairment

Cognitive Interventions: Symptomatic or Disease-Modifying Treatments in the Brain?

Recent findings suggest that brain-stimulating activities may have beneficial effects on both Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). However, whether cognitive interventions merely enhance cognitive reserve or truly attenuate, or even reverse, the disease's pathophysiology is still controversial. The aim of the present article is to discuss the potential for brain-stimulating activities, including cognitive stimulation (CS), cognitive rehabilitation (CR), and cognitive training (CT), to be symptomatic or disease-modifying interventions in the context of cognitive decline. While emerging evidence indicates that CT can enhance synaptic plasticity, suggesting a potential role in augmenting cognitive reserve, its impact on AD pathology remains uncertain. Small-scale studies suggest that CT and CS may slow down neurodegeneration in MCI patients and that multidomain interventions combining physical activity with CT may benefit Aβ pathology. However, the considerable heterogeneity across studies limits the comparability of findings. It underscores the necessity for a more standardized approach to cognitive interventions in future guidelines for preventing and managing cognitive decline.

White-Matter Hyperintensity Load and Differences in Resting-State Network Connectivity Based on Mild Cognitive Impairment Subtype

"Mild cognitive impairment" (MCI) is a diagnosis characterised by deficits in episodic memory (aMCI) or in other non-memory domains (naMCI). Although the definition of subtypes is helpful in clinical classification, it provides little insight on the variability of neurofunctional mechanisms (i.e., resting-state brain networks) at the basis of symptoms. In particular, it is unknown whether the presence of a high load of white-matter hyperintensities (WMHs) has a comparable effect on these functional networks in aMCI and naMCI patients. This question was addressed in a cohort of 123 MCI patients who had completed an MRI protocol inclusive of T1-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) and resting-state fMRI sequences. T1-weighted and FLAIR images were processed with the Lesion Segmentation Toolbox to quantify whole-brain WMH volumes. The CONN toolbox was used to preprocess all fMRI images and to run an independent component analysis for the identification of four large-scale haemodynamic networks of cognitive relevance (i.e., default-mode, salience, left frontoparietal, and right frontoparietal networks) and one control network (i.e., visual network). Patients were classified based on MCI subtype (i.e., aMCI vs. naMCI) and WMH burden (i.e., low vs. high). Maps of large-scale networks were then modelled as a function of the MCI subtype-by-WMH burden interaction. Beyond the main effects of MCI subtype and WMH burden, a significant interaction was found in the salience and left frontoparietal networks. Having a low WMH burden was significantly more associated with stronger salience-network connectivity in aMCI (than in naMCI) in the right insula, and with stronger left frontoparietal-network connectivity in the right frontoinsular cortex. Vice versa, having a low WMH burden was significantly more associated with left-frontoparietal network connectivity in naMCI (than in aMCI) in the left mediotemporal lobe. The association between WMH burden and strength of connectivity of resting-state functional networks differs between aMCI and naMCI patients. Although exploratory in nature, these findings indicate that clinical profiles reflect mechanistic interactions that may play a central role in the definition of diagnostic and prognostic statuses.

Cerebrovascular Pathology and Responsiveness to Treatment in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Responsiveness to treatment with cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) is difficult to predict in Alzheimer's disease (AD). In the current review, vascular burden is considered as a potential moderator of treatment responsiveness. Cerebrovascular burden co-occurs in at least 30% of AD brains, although it is debated if vascular pathology plays a causal or synergistic role in AD pathogenesis. Vascular burden, therefore, could potentially limit response to treatment due to limited brain reserve or foster treatment efficacy as those with vascular pathology may represent a subgroup with comparable clinical expression but less progressed AD neurodegeneration.

METHODS

A systematic search of Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus and EthoS identified 32 papers which met the criteria for inclusion. Association of treatment response and vascular burden across five broad markers are discussed: cerebral hypoperfusion, intima-media thickness, white matter changes, cerebral microbleeds and co-existing diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease.

RESULTS

Analysis of frontal regional cerebral blood flow and intima-media thickness may have predictive ability to distinguish those with AD who may respond optimally to short-term treatment with ChEIs. The impact of white matter changes is less consistent; the majority of studies demonstrates no association with treatment response and those that do implicate changes in executive functioning. There is preliminary evidence that deep cerebral microbleeds limit treatment response in subcortical cognitive domains, but this finding requires replication. The use of diagnosis of co-occurring cerebrovascular disease yields no robust variability in response to ChEIs in AD.

CONCLUSION

There is limited evidence that markers of cerebral hypoperfusion, intima-media thickness and cerebral microbleeds moderate response to ChEIs. Findings for other markers of vascular burden are less consistent and do not support any moderating effect.

Personalized treatment interventions: nonpharmacological and natural treatment strategies in Alzheimer's disease

Introduction: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a slow, irreversible, progressive, complex, and fatal neurodegenerative disorder. Available pharmacological treatment, known for almost two decades, does not cure the disease, but only alleviates the symptoms, with various efficacy and different side effects. Therefore, there is an unmet need to find other person-centered or personalized approaches to treat AD.Areas covered: This article describes the application of precision medicine-like approaches utilizing nonpharmacological treatment strategies and the use of natural products in personalized care for patients with AD.Expert opinion: Due to the heterogeneity of disease symptoms, somatic conditions, and patient preferences, there is definitely no "one size fits all" intervention. Therefore, individualized treatment choice is based on dementia stage, medical and psychiatric comorbidity, leading symptoms, patient preferences, and remaining capacity of the patient. In the absence of disease-modifying agents, a patient-centered, multidisciplinary team approach appears to be the best option to alleviate the heavy symptomatic burden in this unfortunate population. Hence, appropriate interventions can be offered along the AD continuum, while a better understanding of personal characteristics might help in establishing optimal individualized treatment, as well as its duration and intensity, to deliver interventions in the most effective ways.