Relationship between nicotinic receptors and cognitive function in early Alzheimer's disease: a 2-[18F]fluoro-A-85380 PET study

Neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) are critical for higher order cognitive processes. Post-mortem studies suggest reductions in nAChRs (particularly the alpha(4)beta(2) subtype) with ageing and in Alzheimer's disease (AD). This study aimed to; (1) quantify nAChR distribution in vivo with 2-[18F]fluoro-A-85380 (2-FA) in 15 early AD patients compared to 14 age-matched, healthy controls (HC) and (2) correlate nAChR distribution with cognitive performance in both groups. All participants were non-smokers and underwent cognitive testing along with a dynamic PET scan after injection of 200 MBq of 2-FA. Brain regional 2-FA binding was assessed through a simplified estimation of Distribution Volume (DV(S)). The AD group differed significantly from HC on all cognitive measures employed, with impairments on measures of attention, working memory, language, executive function, visuospatial ability, verbal learning and verbal memory (p<.05). Contrary to post-mortem data this study found no evidence of in vivo nAChR loss in early AD despite significant cognitive impairment. Furthermore, no correlation between nAChR and cognitive performance was found for either group. The findings of the current study suggest preservation of nAChRs early in AD supporting previous studies. It is possible that while the clinical 2-FA PET method described here may be insensitive in detecting changes in early AD, such changes may be detected in more advanced stages of the illness.     

Expansion of Genetic Services Utilizing a General Genetic Counseling Clinic

We established a general genetic counseling clinic (GCC) to help reduce long wait times for new patient appointments and to enhance services for a subset of patients. Genetic counselors, who are licensed in Tennessee, were the primary providers and MD geneticists served as medical advisors. This article describes the clinic referral sources, reasons for referral and patient dispositions following their GCC visit(s). We obtained patients by triaging referrals made to our medical genetics division. Over 24 months, our GCC provided timely visits for 321 patients, allowing the MD geneticists to focus on patients needing a clinical exam and/or complex medical management. Following their GCC visit(s), over 80 % of patients did not need additional appointments with an MD geneticist. The GCC allowed the genetic counselor to spend more time with patients than is possible in our traditional medical genetics clinic. Patient satisfaction surveys (n?=?30) were very positive overall concerning the care provided. Added benefits for the genetic counselors were increased professional responsibility, autonomy and visibility as health care providers. We conclude that genetic counselors are accepted as health care providers by patients and referring providers for a subset of clinical genetics cases. A GCC can expand genetic services, complement more traditional genetic clinic models and utilize the strengths of the genetic counselor health care provider.