Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244893

Effect of aerobic exercise on amyloid accumulation in preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-year randomized controlled trial

Eric D Vidoni 1, Jill K Morris 1, Amber Watts 2, Mark Perry 3, Jon Clutton 1, Angela Van Sciver 1, Ashwini S Kamat 1, Jonathan Mahnken 1,4, Suzanne L Hunt 1,4, Ryan Townley 1, Robyn Honea 1, Ashley R Shaw 1, David K Johnson 5, James Vacek 6, Jeffrey M Burns 1,*
Editor: Ashley I Bush7
PMCID: PMC7808620  PMID: 33444359

Abstract

Background

Our goal was to investigate the role of physical exercise to protect brain health as we age, including the potential to mitigate Alzheimer’s-related pathology. We assessed the effect of 52 weeks of a supervised aerobic exercise program on amyloid accumulation, cognitive performance, and brain volume in cognitively normal older adults with elevated and sub-threshold levels of cerebral amyloid as measured by amyloid PET imaging.

Methods and findings

This 52-week randomized controlled trial compared the effects of 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise vs. education control intervention. A total of 117 underactive older adults (mean age 72.9 [7.7]) without evidence of cognitive impairment, with elevated (n = 79) or subthreshold (n = 38) levels of cerebral amyloid were randomized, and 110 participants completed the study. Exercise was conducted with supervision and monitoring by trained exercise specialists. We conducted 18F-AV45 PET imaging of cerebral amyloid and anatomical MRI for whole brain and hippocampal volume at baseline and Week 52 follow-up to index brain health. Neuropsychological tests were conducted at baseline, Week 26, and Week 52 to assess executive function, verbal memory, and visuospatial cognitive domains. Cardiorespiratory fitness testing was performed at baseline and Week 52 to assess response to exercise. The aerobic exercise group significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness (11% vs. 1% in the control group) but there were no differences in change measures of amyloid, brain volume, or cognitive performance compared to control.

Conclusions

Aerobic exercise was not associated with reduced amyloid accumulation in cognitively normal older adults with cerebral amyloid. In spite of strong systemic cardiorespiratory effects of the intervention, the observed lack of cognitive or brain structure benefits suggests brain benefits of exercise reported in other studies are likely to be related to non-amyloid effects.

Trial registration

NCT02000583; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Introduction

There is increasing interest in the role of exercise in the prevention and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease and related cognitive disorders given the growth of the older adult population. Though not all studies agree [1], accumulating evidence suggests that aerobic exercise may protect against cognitive decline and dementia [25]. Ongoing work will provide more definitive evidence regarding the cognitive benefits of exercise [6], but aerobic exercise remains among the most promising and cost-effective strategies for delaying or preventing cognitive decline and dementia [7,8].

A wealth of data indicate exercise positively impacts brain health. Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related improvements or attenuated decline in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time [3,913]. In randomized controlled trials, aerobic exercise promotes brain plasticity, attenuate hippocampal atrophy, or even promotes hippocampal volume increases while improving spatial memory [3,5,14,15].

The effect of aerobic exercise on the pathophysiological markers of AD, beta-amyloid and tau, have been less well explored. Animal studies indicate exercise may reduce amyloid burden and modify AD pathophysiology through direct effects on amyloid precursor protein metabolism [1618] and indirect effects on neurotrophic factors, neuroinflammation, and oxidative stress [16,17,1921]. Exercise-induced reductions of amyloid also appear to mediate improvements in cognitive functioning in animals [2225]. Studies in humans assessing the effect of physical activity on AD pathophysiology are limited. Cross-sectional, observational studies in humans have found that greater amounts of self-reported physical activity (i.e., volitional behavior that is part of daily function) is associated with evidence of lower cerebral amyloid levels among cognitively normal adults [2632], and those at high genetic risk for AD [26,3335]. It remains unclear whether the lifestyle behaviors causally influence cerebral amyloid, or vice versa, and whether introducing more physical activity through planned exercise can causally mitigate amyloid pathology.

The advent of amyloid imaging creates an opportunity for identifying individuals in the presumptive pre-symptomatic phase of AD, when interventions may have the greatest impact [36]. Approximately 30% of cognitively normal older adults have asymptomatic cerebral amyloidosis and thus meet the NIA and Alzheimer’s Association research criteria for “preclinical AD”, defined as having a cerebral to cerebellar amyloid ratio above a certain, method-dependent threshold. The concept of preclinical AD posits that cerebral amyloid deposition in cognitively normal adults represents a pre-symptomatic stage of AD and individuals with preclinical AD currently represent the earliest feasible stage for trials of AD prevention. Individuals with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid (individuals with non-elevated amyloid PET but with quantitative measures near the threshold for being elevated) may be more likely to accumulate clinically significant levels of amyloid and have memory decline [37], suggesting they are good candidates for prevention studies [38].

Our study examined the effects of a 52-week aerobic exercise program on AD pathophysiology (amyloid burden), associated “downstream” neurodegeneration (whole brain and hippocampal volume change) and cognitive decline in cognitively normal individuals with either preclinical AD or with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid. We hypothesized that 52 weeks of aerobic exercise would be associated with reduced amyloid accumulation, reduced hippocampal atrophy, and improved performance on a cognitive test battery.

Materials and methods

Study design

The Alzheimer’s Prevention through Exercise study (APEx: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02000583; trial active between 11/1/2013–11/6/2019) was a 52-week study of aerobic exercise in individuals 65 years and older without cognitive impairment. Based on public health recommendations and our prior work [4,39], we randomized individuals to either 150 minutes per week of supported moderate intensity aerobic exercise or standard of care education control in a 2:1 ratio. The unbalanced design was intended to maximize recruitment and retention with minimal impact in power. Cerebral amyloid load, neurodegeneration, cognition, and cardiorespiratory fitness were measured at baseline and post-intervention. Cognition was also measured at the midpoint of the study. The University of Kansas Medical Center Human Subjects committee approved the protocol (HSC#13376) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Participants

Participants were recruited as a convenience sample of volunteers through print and online advertising, community talks, and existing databases of individuals willing to be in research studies [40]. Enrollment occurred between March 1, 2014 and October 31, 2018. Interested individuals first underwent a telephone screen of medical history for key inclusion and exclusion criteria including: age of 65 years and older, sedentary or underactive as defined by the Telephone Assessment of Physical Activity [41], on stable medications for at least 30 days, willingness to conduct prescribed exercise (or not) for 52 weeks at a community fitness center, and willingness to undergo an 18F-AV45 PET scan for cerebral amyloid load and learn their individual result (elevated vs non-elevated). Amyloid status was disclosed to all participants regardless of screening status [42]. In-person screening included a clinical assessment by clinician of the University of Kansas Alzheimer’s Disease Center including a Clinical Dementia Rating and Uniform Data Set neuropsychiatric battery [43,44]. Participants could not be insulin-dependent, have significant hearing or vision problems, clinically evident stroke, cancer in the previous 5 years (except for localized skin or cervical carcinomas or prostate cancer), uncontrolled hypertension, or have had recent history (<2 years) of major cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal or neuropsychiatric impairment, and had to be able to complete graded maximal exercise testing with a respiratory exchange ratio > = 1.0.

We enrolled only those participants who met criteria for elevated cerebral amyloid (see below) as previously described [42,45], until March 2016 when we revised the protocol to allow individuals with subthreshold amyloid levels (cerebral-to-cerebellar standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) threshold > 1.0). This was motivated by recruitment challenges for the preclinical AD group and new evidence that this group accumulates amyloid and is more likely to have associated memory decline [37] and thus may represent an excellent target for early prevention studies.

Amyloid screening

Florbetapir PET scans were obtained approximately 50 minutes after administration of intravenous florbetapir 18F-AV45 (370 MBq) on a GE Discovery ST-16 PET/CT scanner. Two PET brain frames of five minutes in duration were acquired continuously, summed, and attenuation corrected. To determine amyloid status three experienced raters interpreted all images independently and without reference to any clinical information, as previously described [45]. Raters followed a process that combined both visual and quantitative information to determine status as “elevated” vs “non-elevated.” Final status was determined by majority of the three raters [46,47]. Images were viewed and analyzed using the MIMneuro Amyloid Workflow (version 6.8.7, MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH, USA), using florbetapir templates as the target for a two-phase registration: first rigid registration, then deformable registration to a common template space. Raters first reviewed raw PET images visually then examined the cerebellum normalized SUVRs in 6 cortical regions (anterior cingulate, posterior cingulate, precuneus, inferior medial frontal, lateral temporal, and superior parietal cortex) and projection maps comparing SUVRs to an atlas of amyloid negative scans [46]. Participants were eligible for the study if they had an elevated scan or (after March 2016) were in the subthreshold range. We defined subthreshold as a mean cortical SUVR for the 6 ROIs > 1.0, which represented the upper half of non-elevated scans (mean cortical SUVR for non-elevated scans [n = 166] 0.99 [0.06 SD]). Enrolled participants were re-scanned after 52 weeks of intervention.

Allocation

A study statistician constructed an allocation schedule that was applied by study staff after baseline testing was completed. The study statistician used random number generator to generate blocks of nine in a 2:1 ratio to protect against imbalance if recruitment fell short Participants were prospectively assigned to treatment versus control from this schedule using REDCap’s randomization module which restricts access and viewing once uploaded.

Intervention

Participants in the education control group were provided with standard exercise public health information and received a membership to a community exercise facility after completion of the study.

For those randomized to the aerobic exercise group, the intervention was conducted at their nearest study-certified exercise facility under the guidance of certified personal trainers employed by the community exercise facility. They were asked to refrain from changing their regular physical activities other than those prescribed by the study team. Methods for ensuring study protocol compliance and ongoing training refreshers have been published previously [4,48,49]. Personal trainers oversaw prescription for weekly exercise duration and intensity under the direction of the study team. At each session, participants manually recorded the duration of exercise on an exercise study log. Exercise began with a goal of 60 total minutes during Week 1 and increased by approximately 21 min/week until achieving 150 min/week of aerobic exercise. Participants exercised 3–5 days a week, never more than 50 minutes a day to reduce the likelihood of overuse injury. Intensity was prescribed as a target heart rate zone (F4 or FT4, Polar Electro Inc., Lake Success, NY) based on the percentage of heart rate reserve (HRR) as calculated by the Karvonen formula. Beginning at 40–55% of HRR (% of the difference between maximal and resting), target heart rate zones were increased by 10% of HRR every 3 months.

Trainers supervised all exercise sessions for the first 6 weeks of exercise and at least once weekly thereafter. Treadmill walking served as the primary exercise mode but participants were allowed to use a different aerobic modality if requested to alleviate boredom or accommodate discomfort. No compensation was provided to participants beyond the fees paid to the exercise facility for memberships and trainer time. We have previously demonstrated that our methods using community fitness facilities and trainers can deliver a well-controlled exercise dose with rigor and a high level of adherence, comparable to lab-based methods [4,49].

Adherence and safety

Trainers asked about changes in health status (adverse events [AE]) at every visit. Study staff inquired about AEs and medication changes during scheduled telephone check-ins every 6 weeks, or during incidental contact at weekly exercise facility visits. An independent safety committee reviewed AEs quarterly. Intent-to-treat analyses were performed on all enrollees (n = 117). We separately assessed individuals who participated in the trial per-protocol (n = 92) by complying with at least 80% of the intervention exercise prescription [4].

Outcomes

This study sought to provide evidence of a specific effect on AD pathophysiology (i.e., disease-modifying effect) of aerobic exercise on AD-related pathophysiological change in preclinical AD. We specified our primary outcome as mean change from baseline to 52 weeks in 18F-AV45 standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) with secondary outcomes of MRI measures of change in whole brain and hippocampal volume and cognitive performance measures. To assess the physiologic impact of the intervention, we measured the highest achieved oxygen consumption rate (VO2 peak, mL·kg-1·min-1) during a graded exercise test [4].

Substantial evidence exists demonstrating that aerobic exercise has a preferential effect on cognition, particularly in executive functioning [3,50]. Thus, our cognitive outcome measure of interest was executive function. We also planned to assess key cognitive domains that are associated with asymptomatic cerebral amyloid deposition such as episodic memory and visuospatial function which has been previously associated with aerobic exercise [4]. Raters involved with key outcomes (psychometrician, imaging technicians, exercise physiologists) were blinded to the participant’s intervention group (aerobic exercise or control) and had no interaction with participants beyond the testing visits.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of brain anatomy

MRI of the brain was performed at baseline and 52-week follow up testing in a Siemens 3.0 Tesla Skyra scanner. We obtained a high-resolution T1 weighted image (MP-RAGE; 1x1x1.2mm voxels; TR = 2300ms, TE = 2.98ms, TI = 900ms, FOV 256mmx256mm, 9°flip angle) for detailed anatomical assessment. We used the Freesurfer image analysis suite (ver. 5.2 http://surfer.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/) for volumetric segmentation optimized for longitudinal data [51], extracting hippocampal and total gray matter volume change as measures of neurodegeneration.

Cognitive test battery

A trained psychometrist performed a comprehensive cognitive test battery at baseline and again at Week 26 and Week 52, employing validated, alternate versions of tests every other visit. We created composite scores for three cognitive domains (executive function, verbal memory, visuospatial processing) using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in MPlus software. We standardized scores to baseline mean and standard deviation, thus scores at Week 26 and Week 52 can be interpreted as a change from baseline. The executive function domain composite score was made up of verbal fluency (the sum of animals and vegetables) [52], Trailmaking Test B [53], Digit Symbol Substitution test [54], and the interference portion of the Stroop test [55]. The verbal memory domain composite score was made up of the immediate and delayed portions of the Logical Memory Test [54], and the sum of free recall trials of the Selective Reminding Test [56]. The visuospatial domain composite score was made up of scores from Block Design [54], space relations, the paper folding test, hidden pictures, and identical pictures [57]. We included the combined cognitive scores as outcomes in subsequent models. Missing data were accounted for using full information maximum likelihood algorithm. To evaluate model fit, we used Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA), a measure of the discrepancy between predicted and observed model values. Values closer to 0 indicate better fit (preferred values are <0.09). We report a comparative fit index (CFI) that estimates the relative fit of a model compared to an alternative model, in which a CFI >0.90 indicates good fit. Typically, these multiple fit indices are considered together, as opposed to relying on any one indicator.

Graded maximal exercise test

We assessed cardiorespiratory fitness at baseline and Week 52 as the highest oxygen consumption attained (VO2 peak) during cardiorespiratory exercise testing on a treadmill to maximal capacity or volitional termination [4].

Genotyping

APOE genotype determination Whole blood was collected and stored at -80C until genetic analyses could be conducted. To determine APOE genotype, frozen whole blood was assessed using a Taqman single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) allelic discrimination assay (ThermoFisher). APOE4, APOE3, and APOE2 alleles were distinguished using Taqman probes to the two APOE-defining SNPs, rs429358 (C_3084793_20) and rs7412 (C_904973_10). The term “APOE4 carrier” was used to describe the presence of 1 or 2 APOE4 alleles.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were generated, including means, standard deviations and ranges for continuous measures, and frequencies and relative frequencies for categorical measures. For primary study endpoints with baseline and 12-month follow-up data only, we calculated differences between pre- and post-treatment measures and compared these differences with two-sample t-tests for intent-to-treat analyses. For further assessment among the per protocol population we used covariate adjustment by analyzing these difference scores as a function of the treatment group and other covariates (age, sex, education, and PET amyloid status [elevated vs. subthreshold]) using ordinary least squares regression. For cognition endpoints measured at three time points (baseline, 26-, and 52-weeks), linear mixed models were used. We used a random intercept for subject to account for repeated measures, and treated time as a linear explanatory variable. Unadjusted analyses included treatment group, time, and their interaction, with the interaction test term providing the test for interaction effect using a t-test of that parameter from the model for intent-to-treat results. This approach also allowed for further covariate adjustment for sex, age, education, and PET amyloid status among the per-protocol subgroup.

All statistical methods assessed appropriate model assumptions. For continuous measures, this involved residual analyses to assess normality and variance homogeneity assumptions.

At the time of study design, no previous exercise studies in humans had measured in vivo amyloid. Therefore, we powered our primary outcome from prior investigational compound work. A 78-week study assessing Bapineuzumab in AD reported an effect size of d = 1.98 [58]. Given the differences in our proposed study (preclinical AD sample, lower expected amyloid burden, shorter duration and expectation of a lower exercise effect) we estimated effect size of only 40% as large, (resultant d = 0.79), yielding 93% power to detect this conservative anticipated effect of exercise on amyloid burden. Our initial enrollment goal was 100. Subsequent to including individuals with subthreshold amyloid, we increase our enrollment goal to 120.

Data were captured using REDCap [2] which allowed for secure randomization and role based access to data capture forms. The analysis for this project was generated using SAS software, Version 9.4 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Participants

A total of 1578 individuals were assessed for study eligibility from November 2013 to October 2018. The flow of participants from screening through study completion is shown in Fig 1. Participants (n = 117) were randomized to either the aerobic exercise (n = 78) or control (n = 39) intervention groups.

Fig 1. APEx study CONSORT diagram.

Fig 1

A total of 109 participants (93%: control n = 34, aerobic exercise n = 75) completed the study. There were no significant differences across intervention groups in demographic and baseline characteristics (p>0.05, Table 1).

Table 1. Enrolled participant demographics.

Measure Education Control (n = 39) Aerobic Exercise (n = 78) p-value
Age (y) 72.2 (5.3) 71.2 (4.8) 0.31
Sex, female n(%) 24 (61.5) 55 (70.5) 0.44
Education (y) 16.2 (2.2) 16.1 (2.4) 0.71
APOE ε4 carriers n(%)* 15 (38.5) 36 (46.2) 0.51
Race/Ethnicity: White, not Latino n(%) 35 (89.7) 77 (98.7) 0.08
African American n(%) 4 (10.3) 1 (1.3)
Baseline MMSE (mean, range) 29.1 (26–30) 29.1 (26–30) 0.51
Elevated amyloid status: n(%) 27 (69.2) 52 (66.7) 0.94
subthreshold n(%) 12 (30.8) 26 (33.3)

Mean (standard deviation), unless otherwise noted.

*Four individuals declined genotyping. APOE = Apolipoprotein ε4 genotype; MMSE = Mini-Mental State Exam.

Adherence to exercise protocol

The aerobic exercise group completed an average of 84.6% (SD 25.8%) minutes of the prescribed exercise dose. The control group did not report weekly exercise. However, the control group remained underactive or sedentary during the intervention as evidence by their self-report of weekly physical activity [59]. The control group reported a -778 calorie (SD 5101) reduction in moderate intensity activity from baseline to Week 52. In contrast, the aerobic exercise group increased moderate intensity physical activity by 1853 calories (SD 5019).

Outcomes of interest

We provide pre-specified analyses for both the intent-to-treat cohort of 117 enrollees and a per-protocol cohort of 92 individuals who were protocol adherent (as defined as achieving > = 80% of prescribed exercise minutes).

Primary and secondary outcomes are detailed in Table 2. In the intent-to-treat group, there was a strong physiologic effect of aerobic exercise on cardiorespiratory fitness, with the aerobic exercise group increasing VO2 peak by 11% compared to 1% in the control group. There was no apparent effect of intervention on the primary outcome measure of change in global cerebral amyloid (p>0.9). Aerobic exercise was not associated with change in executive function, verbal memory, or visuospatial function (p> = 0.3). Aerobic exercise was not associated with a change in whole brain or hippocampal volume (p>0.1). These results were unchanged when we excluded the subthreshold amyloid group and assessed only those with elevated amyloid (n = 79; S1 Table).

Table 2. Primary outcome measures in the Intent-to-Treat group.

Outcome measures Timepoint Education (n = 39^) Aerobic Exercise (n = 78^) p-value*
Global Amyloid Burden (SUVR) Baseline 1.2 (0.2) 1.22 (0.2) 0.93
Week 52 1.21 (0.2) 1.22 (0.2)
Change 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.06)
VO2 peak (mL·kg-1·min-1) Baseline 22.7 (5.3) 21.9 (5.2) 0.01
Week 52 23.0 (4.9) 24.3 (5.8)
Change 0.1 (2.5) 2.0 (2.5)
Whole Brain Volume (mL) Baseline 1061.7 (114.4) 1068.7 (109.7) 0.12
Week 52 1059.1 (115.1) 1063.4 (109.1)
Change -2.6 (-7.2) -5.3 (-8.7)
Hippocampal Volume (mL) Baseline 7.6 (1.0) 7.5 (0.8) 0.42
Week 52 7.6 (1.0) 7.4 (0.8)
Change -0.09 (0.14) -0.07 (0.10)
Executive Function Composite Baseline -0.042 (0.365) 0.029 (0.458) 0.83
Week 26 -0.035 (0.389) 0.017 (0.625)
Week 52 -0.037 (0.452) 0.018 (0.615)
Verbal Memory Composite Baseline 0.032 (0.822) -0.016 (0.882) 0.69
Week 26 -0.007 (1.014) 0.003 (0.989)
Week 52 0.051 (0.939) -0.025 (0.935)
Visuospatial Composite Baseline -0.062 (0.572) 0.031 (0.646) 0.30
Week 26 0.012 (0.659) -0.006 (0.715)
Week 52 0.003 (0.559) -0.001 (0.643)

Mean (standard deviation). Cognitive composites at Week 26 and Week 52 can be interpreted as change from baseline.

*2 sample paired t-test comparing baseline and week 52 for amyloid, fitness and volume measures. For cognitive measures, a p-value for treatment by time interaction test from linear mixed models is given.

^Sample size for change in amyloid is Educ:35/Exercise:74. Sample sizes for change in fitness and volumes are Educ:34/Exercise:70 Sample sizes for cognitive measures at baseline, week 26, and week 52 are Educ:39,37,36/Exercise:78,75,75. SUVR = Standard uptake value ratio; VO2 peak = peak oxygen consumption during the graded exercise test.

In the per-protocol subset (Table 3; n = 92), there remained a strong physiologic effect of aerobic exercise, with the aerobic exercise group increasing VO2 peak by 12.8%. Again, there was no apparent effect of intervention on primary outcome measure of change in global amyloid burden (p>0.7). Aerobic exercise was not associated with change in executive function, verbal memory or visuospatial function (p>0.2). Aerobic exercise was not associated with a change in whole brain or hippocampal volume (p>0.1). When we examined only those participants with elevated amyloid (n = 65) there were no differences in the results (S1 Table).

Table 3. Primary outcome measures in the Per-Protocol group.

Outcome measure Timepoint Education (n = 39^) Aerobic Exercise (n = 53^) p-value*
Global Amyloid Burden (SUVR) Baseline 1.20 (0.2) 1.23 (0.2) 0.73
Week 52 1.21 (0.2) 1.24 (0.2)
Change 0.01 (0.04) 0.01 (0.06)
VO2 peak (mL·kg-1·min-1) Baseline 22.7 (5.3) 22.7 (5.4) <0.01
Week 52 23.0 (4.9) 25.2 (5.8)
Change 0.1 (2.5) 2.5 (2.4)
Whole Brain Volume (mL) Baseline 1061.7 (114.4) 1073.6 (109.3) 0.12
Week 52 1059.1 (115.1) 1068.0 (108.3)
Change -2.6 (7.2) -5.5 (7.6)
Hippocampal Volume (mL) Baseline 7.6 (1.0) 7.6 (0.7) 0.31
Week 52 7.6 (1.0) 7.5 (0.7)
Change -0.09 (0.14) -0.06 (0.10)
Executive Function Composite Baseline -0.042 (0.365) 0.034 (0.392) 0.90
Week 26 -0.035 (0.389) 0.041 (0.606)
Week 52 -0.037 (0.452) 0.012 (0.607)
Verbal Memory Composite Baseline 0.032 (0.822) 0.024 (0.861) 0.47
Week 26 -0.007 (1.014) -0.039 (0.931)
Week 52 0.051 (0.939) -0.053 (0.839)
Visuospatial Composite Baseline -0.062 (0.572) 0.067 (0.657) 0.22
Week 26 0.012 (0.659) 0.036 (0.727)
Week 52 0.003 (0.559) 0.017 (0.669)

Mean (standard deviation). Cognitive composites at Week 26 and Week 52 can be interpreted as change from baseline.

* For amyloid, fitness and brain volume measures, a p-value from ordinary least squares regression adjusted for sex, age, education, and amyloid status comparing the change (baseline to week 52) between the two groups is given. For cognitive measures, a p-value for treatment by time interaction test from linear mixed models adjusted for sex, age, education, and amyloid status among per protocol subgroup is given.

^Sample size for amyloid at baseline and week 52 are Educ:39,35/Exercise:53,53. Sample size for VO2 at baseline and week 52 are Educ:39,34/Exercise:53,53. Sample size for brain volumes at baseline, week 52 are Educ:34,34/Exercise:52,52. Sample sizes for cognitive measures at baseline, week 26, and week 52 are Educ:39,37,36 /Exercise:53,53,53. SUVR = Standard uptake value ratio; VO2 peak = peak oxygen consumption during the graded exercise test.

There were 122 adverse events. Three incidental cardiac findings were discovered at baseline exercise testing and one fall at home during screening for which participants did not receive clearance to continue participation, leaving 118 adverse events following randomization. The education control group had 118 adverse events: 10 mild, 3 moderate and 5 severe, all unrelated to the intervention. The aerobic exercise group had 31 mild (e.g., joint pain resolving with exercise modification), 2 moderate (e.g. joint pain temporarily halting exercise), and 0 severe event related to the intervention, and 48 mild, 12, moderate, and 7 severe events unrelated to the intervention. Examples of mild severity events included seasonal allergies and joint pain resolving with exercise modification. Examples of moderate severity events included outpatient eye surgery and joint pain altering exercise. Examples of severe events included falls at home and hospitalization for gastrointestinal infection. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) was comprised of 3 physicians unaffiliated with the authors. Adverse events were submitted for review to the DSMC quarterly or within 48 hours if a serious adverse event. Adverse events are summarized in S2 Table.

Discussion

This is the one of the first randomized controlled trials to prospectively assess the effect of aerobic exercise on cerebral beta-amyloid accumulation in humans. We found no evidence that one year of aerobic exercise influences cerebral amyloid burden in a cohort of cognitively normal participants with elevated and subthreshold levels of amyloid, individuals who are at highest risk of clinically significant amyloid accumulation. We did find significant and meaningful changes in cardiorespiratory fitness suggesting the intervention was of sufficient intensity and duration to provoke physiologic effects. Despite this, however, we did not find aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures. Our observed atrophy rates were consistent with those previously reported in cognitively normal older adults [60]. We believe these null findings support a hypothesis that the widely reported brain benefits of exercise are modest and driven mechanistically by the mitigation of non-amyloid pathologies.

It is important to consider the context of our findings in a highly selected sample that likely skewed towards fewer age-related pathologies, such as subclinical cerebrovascular disease, than most studies in the literature. We assessed over 1,500 participants for eligibility (see Fig 1) and excluded those with cardiopulmonary concerns and systemic illnesses while retaining those (largely through participant self-selection) interested in potentially participating in a year of rigorous exercise. Importantly, we performed careful clinical and cognitive assessments to exclude those with cognitive impairment, despite the presence of cerebral amyloid; thus this group is likely enriched with unmeasured (and currently poorly defined) resilience factors, such as the absence of cerebrovascular disease or other age related pathologies. The lack of observed exercise effects on amyloid, cognitive, or brain structure outcomes despite clear exercise related effects on physiologic outcomes (cardiorespiratory fitness) leads us to hypothesize that the brain benefits of aerobic exercise observed widely in the literature are not driven by effects on AD pathology but instead are likely driven by the mitigation of aging related vascular or other non-amyloid pathologies. Indeed, recent work has identified cerebrovascular outcomes and important mediators of cognitive change following exercise [5,14,61].

It remains possible that our results are related to Type II error where a true effect is obscured by lack of power or methodological issues. Our null finding for an effect of aerobic exercise on amyloid accumulation is surprising given the number of animal exercise studies reporting reduced amyloid accumulation rates and lower amyloid loads [16,17,1921]. However, small human intervention studies have examined the impact of exercise on amyloid with inconclusive results. At least three intervention studies have examined the impact of exercise on serum amyloid concentration, with none reporting reliable reductions in amyloid as a consequence of exercise [6264]. The amyloid tracer we employed (18F-AV45) may lack sufficient sensitivity/specificity to index subtle changes in amyloid induced by exercise in cognitively normal older adults. In the overall group (n = 106) we observed a 0.8% (SD 4.4%) increase in amyloid compared to reported annual changes of 1–4%, a range influenced by where an individual is on the sigmoid curve of accumulation over the lifespan [65]. Additionally, when examining our subgroups, the elevated group had a 1.5% (SD 4.5%) annual rate of accumulation compared to a decline of -0.9% (SD 3.6%) in subthreshold group, a decline that was not in line with our expectations for this group. Recent serial amyloid PET studies suggest that reference region selection (i.e., whole cerebellum vs cerebellar white matter) can influence measured change over time and that annual participant scan variance may be higher than the expected annual rate of amyloid PET change, especially when only two data points are present [66]. However, the tracer can sufficiently track dose-related amyloid change in investigational medication trials [67], suggesting that if our failure to observe changes was related to measurement error, exercise is unlikely to have a large effect on cerebral amyloid levels.

It is possible that our inclusion of individuals in the subthreshold range (n = 38) who were not elevated reduced our ability to detect reductions in amyloid by enhancing a floor effect. However, when assessing only those in the elevated group (n = 79), there were no trends suggesting an effect of aerobic exercise on amyloid accumulation. Additionally, the potential benefits of aerobic exercise to influence cerebral amyloid may require a longer duration than 52 weeks. One year may not be long enough to meaningfully alter amyloid levels or the rate of accumulation. Future studies looking at more than two amyloid PET time points to reduce scan to scan variance and longer time interval (at least 2 years) may be important to investigate whether exercise can impact the rate of amyloid accumulation. The non-significantly higher proportion of E4 carriers in the treatment group may have subtly impacted cognitive decline and amyloid accumulation, potentially obscuring our ability to detect a benefit of the intervention. As a sensitivity analysis, we also tested our models with SUVR as a covariate, and with APOE4 and APOE4 by Treatment Arm as factors. There was no appreciable change in our results in these analyses (data not shown). Though we detected no difference in carrier versus non-carrier performance, brain volume change, or amyloid accumulation, over 1-year, future studies may wish to consider E4 carriage as a blocking variable for randomization

Our lack of effect on our secondary outcomes of brain volume and cognitive performance was surprising, especially given the strong physiologic effects of the exercise intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness. Practice effects, especially in cognitively normal older adults, reduce power to discern group differences in cognitive performance [68,69] but despite this, a number of well-designed RCTs have shown that aerobic exercise benefits cognition in older adults, though not specifically in those with elevated cerebral amyloid [25,50]. Many studies have also demonstrated benefits to whole brain gray matter and hippocampal volume, with one notable study reporting a decrease in whole brain gray matter volume after 12 months of resistance training [70]. We have previously suggested that cardiorespiratory fitness gains are critical for cognitive or brain improvements [4,49,71]. Simply exercising without increasing cardiorespiratory fitness, and therefore eliciting associated physiological and biochemical adaptations, does not appear to support brain or cognitive changes. Despite significantly increasing maximal cardiorespiratory capacity in this trial, we did not identify the same relationship in the present study. This may suggest that those with elevated amyloid are more resistant to the putative brain benefits of aerobic exercise.

There are several additional limitations to this study. Our sample was almost exclusively White, non-Hispanic and highly educated. This severely limits the generalizability of our findings and highlights structural racism and inequity related to clinical trial access. As a result, we have begun assessing the design of our trials and increased our efforts to inclusively design our exercise trials with and for underrepresented communities [7275]. An additional limitation is the use of self-reported physical activity versus an activity monitor and lack of a treatment fidelity analysis. It is possible that exercise activity increased in the control group. However, consistent with participant self-report we saw evidence of fitness change only in the exercise group. Finally, it may be possible that the selected dose of exercise (duration and intensity) is insufficient or ill-suited to change amyloid accumulation. Future work should consider resistance training, or alternate intensities.

It is critical to note that the results of the study do not suggest that aerobic exercise is not beneficial. Aerobic exercise continues to have tremendous and unquestionable benefits for the body. Potential mechanisms for benefits observed with exercise include the upregulation of proteins involved in the clearance of amyloid [25,76] and reduction of systemic inflammation [77]. Tailoring exercise prescription may maximize the engagement of these processes. Our aerobic exercise group, for example, increased VO2 peak by 11%, with 11 individuals moving from a state of potentially impaired independence with a VO2 peak below 20 mL·kg-1·min-1 [78], to a more fully functional cardiorespiratory state of a VO2 peak above 20 mL·kg-1·min-1. Only one individual in the control group made that positive change, whereas 5 individuals in the group dropped below a VO2 peak of 20 mL·kg-1·min-1 during the study.

Conclusions

The results of this trial do not support the hypothesis that 52 weeks of aerobic exercise influences amyloid burden in cognitively normal older adults. Additionally, secondary outcomes did not support prior work indicating that aerobic exercise benefits measures of brain health or cognition, at least in a cohort of cognitively normal older adults at elevated risk for Alzheimer’s due to elevated cerebral amyloid burden. The observed lack of cognitive or brain structure benefits, despite strong systemic cardiorespiratory effects of the intervention, suggests brain benefits of exercise reported in other studies are likely to be related to non-amyloid effects.

A large-scale, definitive trial is currently underway which will help to confirm or refute these findings [6].

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

(DOC)

S1 Table. Primary and secondary outcomes of individuals with elevated amyloid.

Mean and standard deviation. Mean and standard deviation. ^ Sample size for amyloid change Educ:25/Exercise:49. Sample size for change in VO2 peak Educ:24/Exercise:49. Sample size for change in brain volumes Educ:24/Education:47. Sample size for change in cognitive measures at baseline, week 26 and week 52 are Educ:26,26,25/Education:52,51,50. SUVR = Standard Uptake Value Ratio; VO2 peak = peak oxygen consumption during graded exercise test. * For amyloid, fitness and brain volume measures, a p-value from ordinary least squares regression adjusted for sex, age, and education comparing the change (baseline to week 52) between the two groups is given. For cognitive measures, a p-value for treatment by time interaction test from linear mixed models adjusted for sex, age, education, and amyloid status among per protocol subgroup is given.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Adverse events.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the participants who gave their time for this study. We also wish to thank the YMCA of Greater Kansas City and Genesis Health Clubs for supporting community-based exercise research.

Data Availability

All files are available from the Harvard Dataverse database (Vidoni, Eric, 2020, "Alzheimer's Prevention Through Exercise (APEx) - NCT02000583", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/B9I1F8, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:pgNe0pp64djpi7AAdwhBiw== [fileUNF]).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health R01 AG043962 (JMB); K99 AG050490 (JKM) and gifts from Frank and Evangeline Thompson (JMB), The Ann and Gary Dickinson Family Charitable Foundation, John and Marny Sherman, and Brad and Libby Bergman. Institutional infrastructure support for testing was provided in part by UL1 TR000001 (RJB) and P30 AG035982 (RHS JMB). Lilly Pharmaceuticals provided a grant to support F18-AV45 doses and partial scan costs (JMB). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sabia S, Dugravot A, Dartigues JF, Abell J, Elbaz A, Kivimaki M, et al. Physical activity, cognitive decline, and risk of dementia: 28 year follow-up of Whitehall II cohort study. BMJ. 2017;357:j2709 Epub 2017/06/24. 10.1136/bmj.j2709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kramer AF, Hahn S, Cohen NJ, Banich MT, McAuley E, Harrison CR, et al. Ageing, fitness and neurocognitive function. Nature. 1999;400(6743):418–9. 10.1038/22682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Colcombe SJ, Kramer AF, Erickson KI, Scalf P, McAuley E, Cohen NJ, et al. Cardiovascular fitness, cortical plasticity, and aging. Proc Nat Acad Sciences U S A. 2004;101(9):3316–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Vidoni ED, Johnson DK, Morris JK, Van Sciver A, Greer CS, Billinger SA, et al. Dose-response of aerobic exercise on cognition: a community-based, pilot randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0131647 10.1371/journal.pone.0131647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Maass A, Duzel S, Goerke M, Becke A, Sobieray U, Neumann K, et al. Vascular hippocampal plasticity after aerobic exercise in older adults. Mol Psychiatry. 2015;20(5):585–93. Epub 2014/10/15. 10.1038/mp.2014.114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Erickson KI, Grove GA, Burns JM, Hillman CH, Kramer AF, McAuley E, et al. Investigating Gains in Neurocognition in an Intervention Trial of Exercise (IGNITE): Protocol. Contemp Clin Trials. 2019;85:105832 Epub 2019/08/30. 10.1016/j.cct.2019.105832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Norton S, Matthews FE, Barnes DE, Yaffe K, Brayne C. Potential for primary prevention of Alzheimer's disease: an analysis of population-based data. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13(8):788–94. 10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70136-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Rosenberg A, Ngandu T, Rusanen M, Antikainen R, Backman L, Havulinna S, et al. Multidomain lifestyle intervention benefits a large elderly population at risk for cognitive decline and dementia regardless of baseline characteristics: The FINGER trial. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(3):263–70. Epub 2017/10/23. 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Burns JM, Cronk BB, Anderson HS, Donnelly JE, Thomas GP, Harsha A, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and brain atrophy in early Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2008;71(3):210–6. Epub 2008/07/16. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000317094.86209.cb [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Honea RA, Thomas GP, Harsha A, Anderson HS, Donnelly JE, Brooks WM, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and preserved medial temporal lobe volume in Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disorder. 2009;23(3):188–97. Epub 2009/10/09. 10.1097/WAD.0b013e31819cb8a2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Erickson KI, Raji CA, Lopez OL, Becker JT, Rosano C, Newman AB, et al. Physical activity predicts gray matter volume in late adulthood: The Cardiovascular Health Study. Neurology. 2010;75(16):1415–22. Epub 2010/10/15. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f88359 [pii] 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181f88359. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Weuve J, Kang JH, Manson JE, Breteler MM, Ware JH, Grodstein F. Physical activity, including walking, and cognitive function in older women. JAMA. 2004;292(12):1454–61. Epub 2004/09/24. 10.1001/jama.292.12.1454 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krell-Roesch J, Feder NT, Roberts RO, Mielke MM, Christianson TJ, Knopman DS, et al. Leisure-Time Physical Activity and the Risk of Incident Dementia: The Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. J Alzheimers Dis. 2018;63(1):149–55. Epub 2018/04/05. 10.3233/JAD-171141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pereira AC, Huddleston DE, Brickman AM, Sosunov AA, Hen R, McKhann GM, et al. An in vivo correlate of exercise-induced neurogenesis in the adult dentate gyrus. Proc Nat Acad Sciences U S A. 2007;104(13):5638–43. 10.1073/pnas.0611721104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Erickson KI, Voss MW, Prakash RS, Basak C, Szabo A, Chaddock L, et al. Exercise training increases size of hippocampus and improves memory. Proc Nat Acad Sciences U S A. 2011;108(7):3017–22. Epub 2011/02/02. 1015950108 [pii] 10.1073/pnas.1015950108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Adlard PA, Perreau VM, Pop V, Cotman CW. Voluntary Exercise Decreases Amyloid Load in a Transgenic Model of Alzheimer's Disease. J Neurosci. 2005;25(17):4217–21. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0496-05.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nation DA, Hong S, Jak AJ, Delano-Wood L, Mills PJ, Bondi MW, et al. Stress, exercise, and Alzheimer's disease: a neurovascular pathway. Med Hypotheses. 2011;76(6):847–54. Epub 2011/03/15. S0306-9877(11)00085-5 [pii] 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.02.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Radak Z, Ihasz F, Koltai E, Goto S, Taylor AW, Boldogh I. The redox-associated adaptive response of brain to physical exercise. Free Radical Res. 2014;48(1):84–92. 10.3109/10715762.2013.826352 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Radak Z, Hart N, Sarga L, Koltai E, Atalay M, Ohno H, et al. Exercise plays a preventive role against Alzheimer's disease. 2010;J Alzheimers Dis. 20(3):777–83. Epub 2010/02/26. 10.3233/JAD-2010-091531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garcia-Mesa Y, Lopez-Ramos JC, Gimenez-Llort L, Revilla S, Guerra R, Gruart A, et al. Physical exercise protects against Alzheimer's disease in 3xTg-AD mice. J Alzheimers Dis. 2011;24(3):421–54. Epub 2011/02/08. 847Q3J85285P1U07 [pii] 10.3233/JAD-2011-101635 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Leem YH, Lee YI, Son HJ, Lee SH. Chronic exercise ameliorates the neuroinflammation in mice carrying NSE/htau23. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;406(3):359–65. Epub 2011/02/19. S0006-291X(11)00238-5 [pii] 10.1016/j.bbrc.2011.02.046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Maesako M, Uemura K, Kubota M, Kuzuya A, Sasaki K, Hayashida N, et al. Exercise is more effective than diet control in preventing high fat diet-induced beta-amyloid deposition and memory deficit in amyloid precursor protein transgenic mice. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(27):23024–33. Epub 2012/05/09. 10.1074/jbc.M112.367011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhang J, Guo Y, Wang Y, Song L, Zhang R, Du Y. Long-term treadmill exercise attenuates Abeta burdens and astrocyte activation in APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neurosci Lett. 2018;666:70–7. Epub 2017/12/17. 10.1016/j.neulet.2017.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kang EB, Cho JY. Effects of treadmill exercise on brain insulin signaling and beta-amyloid in intracerebroventricular streptozotocin induced-memory impairment in rats. J Exerc Nutrition Biochem. 2014;18(1):89–96. Epub 2015/01/08. 10.5717/jenb.2014.18.1.89 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moore KM, Girens RE, Larson SK, Jones MR, Restivo JL, Holtzman DM, et al. A spectrum of exercise training reduces soluble Abeta in a dose-dependent manner in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Dis. 2016;85:218–24. 10.1016/j.nbd.2015.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brown BM, Sohrabi HR, Taddei K, Gardener SL, Rainey-Smith SR, Peiffer JJ, et al. Habitual exercise levels are associated with cerebral amyloid load in presymptomatic autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(11):1197–206. Epub 2017/05/16. 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.03.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Liang KY, Mintun MA, Fagan AM, Goate AM, Bugg JM, Holtzman DM, et al. Exercise and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in cognitively normal older adults. Ann Neurol. 2010;68(3):311–8. 10.1002/ana.22096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Head D, Bugg JM, Goate AM, Fagan AM, Mintun MA, Benzinger T, et al. Exercise Engagement as a Moderator of the Effects of APOE Genotype on Amyloid Deposition. Arch Neurol. 2012;69(5):636–43. Epub 2012/01/11. 10.1001/archneurol.2011.845 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Brown BM, Peiffer JJ, Taddei K, Lui JK, Laws SM, Gupta VB, et al. Physical activity and amyloid-beta plasma and brain levels: results from the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle Study of Ageing. Mol Psychiatry. 2012;18(8):875–81. Epub 2012/08/15. 10.1038/mp.2012.107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Daniele S, Pietrobono D, Fusi J, Iofrida C, Chico L, Petrozzi L, et al. alpha-Synuclein Aggregates with beta-Amyloid or Tau in Human Red Blood Cells: Correlation with Antioxidant Capability and Physical Exercise in Human Healthy Subjects. Mol Neurobiol. 2018;55(3):2653–75. Epub 2017/04/20. 10.1007/s12035-017-0523-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Matthews DC, Davies M, Murray J, Williams S, Tsui WH, Li Y, et al. Physical Activity, Mediterranean Diet and Biomarkers-Assessed Risk of Alzheimer's: A Multi-Modality Brain Imaging Study. Adv J Mol Imaging. 2014;4(4):43–57. Epub 2015/01/20. 10.4236/ami.2014.44006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yoon DH, Lee JY, Shin SA, Kim YK, Song W. Physical Frailty and Amyloid-beta Deposits in the Brains of Older Adults with Cognitive Frailty. J Clin Med. 2018;7(7):169 Epub 2018/07/11. 10.3390/jcm7070169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brown BM, Peiffer JJ, Martins RN. Multiple effects of physical activity on molecular and cognitive signs of brain aging: can exercise slow neurodegeneration and delay Alzheimer’s disease? Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18(8):864–74. 10.1038/mp.2012.162 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Law LL, Rol RN, Schultz SA, Dougherty RJ, Edwards DF, Koscik RL, et al. Moderate intensity physical activity associates with CSF biomarkers in a cohort at risk for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:188–95. Epub 2018/03/13. 10.1016/j.dadm.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Okonkwo OC, Schultz SA, Oh JM, Larson J, Edwards D, Cook D, et al. Physical activity attenuates age-related biomarker alterations in preclinical AD. Neurology. 2014;83(19):1753–60. Epub 2014/10/10. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000964 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Aisen PS, Andrieu S, Sampaio C, Carrillo M, Khachaturian ZS, Dubois B, et al. Report of the task force on designing clinical trials in early (predementia) AD. Neurology. 2011;76(3):280–6. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318207b1b9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Landau SM, Horng A, Jagust WJ. Memory decline accompanies subthreshold amyloid accumulation. Neurology. 2018;90(17):e1452–e1460. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005354 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.McMillan CT, Chételat G. Amyloid “accumulators”. The next generation of candidates for amyloid-targeted clinical trials? Neurology. 2018;90(17):759–60. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000005362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 9th ed Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Vidoni ED, Bothwell RJ, Burns JM, Dwyer JR. Novel recruitment models will drive Alzheimer's trial success. Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(1):117–9. 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.10.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mayer CJ, Steinman L, Williams B, Topolski TD, LoGerfo J. Developing a Telephone Assessment of Physical Activity (TAPA) questionnaire for older adults. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008;5(1):A24 Epub 2007/12/18 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Burns JM, Johnson DK, Liebmann EP, Bothwell RJ, Morris JK, Vidoni ED. Safety of disclosing amyloid status in cognitively normal older adults. Alzheimers Dement. 2017;13(9):1024–30. Epub 2017/03/07. 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.01.022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Morris JC. The Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR): current version and scoring rules. Neurology. 1993;43(11):2412–4. 10.1212/wnl.43.11.2412-a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Weintraub S, Besser L, Dodge HH, Teylan M, Ferris S, Goldstein FC, et al. Version 3 of the Alzheimer Disease Centers' Neuropsychological Test Battery in the Uniform Data Set (UDS). Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2018;32(1):10–7. 10.1097/WAD.0000000000000223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Harn NR, Hunt SL, Hill J, Vidoni E, Perry M, Burns JM. Augmenting Amyloid PET Interpretations With Quantitative Information Improves Consistency of Early Amyloid Detection. Clin Nucl Med. 2017;42(8):577–81. Epub 2017/06/03. 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Clark CM, Pontecorvo MJ, Beach TG, Bedell BJ, Coleman RE, Doraiswamy PM, et al. Cerebral PET with florbetapir compared with neuropathology at autopsy for detection of neuritic amyloid-beta plaques: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Neurol. 2012;11(8):669–78. 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70142-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Joshi AD, Pontecorvo MJ, Clark CM, Carpenter AP, Jennings DL, Sadowsky CH, et al. Performance characteristics of amyloid PET with florbetapir F 18 in patients with alzheimer's disease and cognitively normal subjects. J Nuc Med. 2012;53(3):378–84. Epub 2012/02/15. 10.2967/jnumed.111.090340 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Vidoni ED, Van Sciver A, Johnson DK, He J, Honea R, Haines B, et al. A community-based approach to trials of aerobic exercise in aging and Alzheimer's disease. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(6):1105–16. Epub 2012/08/21. 10.1016/j.cct.2012.08.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Morris JK, Vidoni ED, Johnson DK, Van Sciver A, Mahnken JD, Honea RA, et al. Aerobic exercise for Alzheimer's disease: A randomized controlled pilot trial. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0170547 10.1371/journal.pone.0170547 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dustman RE, Ruhling RO, Russell EM, Shearer DE, Bonekat HW, Shigeoka JW, et al. Aerobic Exercise Training and Improved Neuropsychological Function of Older Individuals. Neurobiol Aging. 1984;5(1):35–42. 10.1016/0197-4580(84)90083-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Reuter M, Schmansky NJ, Rosas HD, Fischl B. Within-subject template estimation for unbiased longitudinal image analysis. Neuroimage. 2012;61(4):1402–18. Epub 2012/03/21. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.084 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Goodglass H, Kaplan E. The assessment of aphasia and related disorders. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1983. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Armitage SG. An analysis of certain psychological tests used in the evaluation of brain injury. Psychological Monographs. 1946;60:1–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wechsler D. Wechsler Memory Scale III: Administration and scoring manual. Orlando, FL: Psychological Corporation; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Stroop J. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol. 1935;18:643–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Grober E, Buschke H, Crystal H, Bang S, Dresner R. Screening for dementia by memory testing. Neurology. 1988;38:900–3. 10.1212/wnl.38.6.900 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ekstrom R, French J, Harman H, Dermen D. Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Princeton NJ: Electronic Testing Service; 1976. Available from: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/Kit_of_Factor-Referenced_Cognitive_Tests.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Rinne JO, Brooks DJ, Rossor MN, Fox NC, Bullock R, Klunk WE, et al. 11C-PiB PET assessment of change in fibrillar amyloid-beta load in patients with Alzheimer's disease treated with bapineuzumab: a phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled, ascending-dose study. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9(4):363–72. Epub 2010/03/02. 10.1016/S1474-4422(10)70043-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Stewart AL, Verboncoeur CJ, McLellan BY, Gillis DE, Rush S, Mills KM, et al. Physical Activity Outcomes of CHAMPS II: A Physical Activity Promotion Program for Older Adults. J Gerontol A: Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(8):M465–70. 10.1093/gerona/56.8.m465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fjell AM, Walhovd KB, Fennema-Notestine C, McEvoy LK, Hagler DJ, Holland D, et al. One-year brain atrophy evident in healthy aging. J Neurosci. 2009;29(48):15223–31. Epub 2009/12/04. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3252-09.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Guadagni V, Drogos L, Tyndall A, Davenport M, Anderson T, Eskes G, et al. Aerobic exercise improves cognition and cerebrovascular regulation in older adults Neurology. 2020;94(21):e2245–e3357 Epub 05/13/2020. 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Baker LD, Frank LL, Foster-Schubert K, Green PS, Wilkinson CW, McTiernan A, et al. Aerobic exercise improves cognition for older adults with glucose intolerance, a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;22(2):569–79. Epub 2010/09/18. 10.3233/JAD-2010-100768 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Baker LD, Frank LL, Foster-Schubert K, Green PS, Wilkinson CW, McTiernan A, et al. Effects of aerobic exercise on mild cognitive impairment: a controlled trial. Arch Neurol. 2010;67(1):71–9. Epub 2010/01/13. 67/1/71 [pii] 10.1001/archneurol.2009.307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Frederiksen KS, Madsen K, Andersen BB, Beyer N, Garde E, Hogh P, et al. Moderate- to high-intensity exercise does not modify cortical beta-amyloid in Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019;5:208–15. Epub 2019/06/15. 10.1016/j.trci.2019.04.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Petersen RC, Wiste HJ, Weigand SD, Rocca WA, Roberts RO, Mielke MM, et al. Association of Elevated Amyloid Levels With Cognition and Biomarkers in Cognitively Normal People From the Community. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73(1):85–92. Epub 2015/11/26. 10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.3098 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Schwarz CG, Gunter JL, Lowe VJ, Weigand S, Vemuri P, Senjem ML, et al. A Comparison of Partial Volume Correction Techniques for Measuring Change in Serial Amyloid PET SUVR. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;67(1):181–95. Epub 2018/11/27. 10.3233/JAD-180749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Sevigny J, Chiao P, Bussiere T, Weinreb PH, Williams L, Maier M, et al. The antibody aducanumab reduces Abeta plaques in Alzheimer's disease. Nature. 2016;537(7618):50–6. Epub 2016/09/02. 10.1038/nature19323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Machulda MM, Pankratz VS, Christianson TJ, Ivnik RJ, Mielke MM, Roberts RO, et al. Practice effects and longitudinal cognitive change in normal aging vs. incident mild cognitive impairment and dementia in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Clin Neuropsychol. 2013;27(8):1247–64. 10.1080/13854046.2013.836567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Machulda MM, Hagen CE, Wiste HJ, Mielke MM, Knopman DS, Roberts RO, et al. Practice effects and longitudinal cognitive change in clinically normal older adults differ by Alzheimer imaging biomarker status. Clin Neuropsychol. 2017;31(1):99–117. Epub 2016/10/12. 10.1080/13854046.2016.1241303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Liu-Ambrose T, Nagamatsu LS, Graf P, Beattie BL, Ashe MC, Handy TC. Resistance training and executive functions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(2):170–8. Epub 2010/01/27. 170/2/170 [pii] 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Billinger SA, Vidoni ED, Morris JK, Thyfault JP, Burns JM. Exercise Test Performance Reveals Support of the Cardiorespiratory Fitness Hypothesis. J Aging Phys Act. 2016;25(2):240–246. 10.1123/japa.2015-0321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Vidoni ED, Szabo-Reed A, Kang C, Shaw AR, Perales-Puchalt J, Grove G, et al. The IGNITE trial: Participant recruitment lessons prior to SARS-CoV-2. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020;20:100666 Epub 2020/10/15. 10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Blocker EM, Fry AC, Luebbers PE, Burns JM, Perales-Puchalt J, Hansen DM, et al. Promoting Alzheimer's Risk-Reduction through Community-Based Lifestyle Education and Exercise in Rural America: A Pilot Intervention. Kans J Med. 2020;13:179–85. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Perales-Puchalt J, Shaw A, McGee JL, Moore WT, Hinton L, Resendez J, et al. Preliminary Efficacy of a Recruitment Educational Strategy on Alzheimer's Disease Knowledge, Research Participation Attitudes, and Enrollment Among Hispanics. Hisp Health Care Int. 2020;18(3):144–9. Epub 2019/12/17. 10.1177/1540415319893238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Shaw AR, Perales-Puchalt J, Bright B, Moore WT, Robinson M, Hill CV, et al. Recruitment of Older African Amricans in Alzheimers Disease Clinical Trials Using a Community Based Research Approach. medRxiv. 2020. 10.1101/2020.07.16.20155556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Di Loreto S, Falone S, D'Alessandro A, Santini S Jr., Sebastiani P, Cacchio M, et al. Regular and moderate exercise initiated in middle age prevents age-related amyloidogenesis and preserves synaptic and neuroprotective signaling in mouse brain cortex. Exp Gerontol. 2014;57:57–65. Epub 2014/05/20. 10.1016/j.exger.2014.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Nichol KE, Poon WW, Parachikova AI, Cribbs DH, Glabe CG, Cotman CW. Exercise alters the immune profile in Tg2576 Alzheimer mice toward a response coincident with improved cognitive performance and decreased amyloid. J Neuroinflammation. 2008;5:13 Epub 2008/04/11. 10.1186/1742-2094-5-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Cress ME, Meyer M. Maximal voluntary and functional performance levels needed for independence in adults aged 65 to 97 years. Phys Ther. 2003;83(1):37–48. Epub 2002/12/24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ashley I Bush

9 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-24208

Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burns,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ashley I Bush, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:

'Federalwide Assurance (FWA) has been approved for KUMC. The FWA covers two IRBs which operate at the KUMC main campus in Kansas City as well as other IRBs designated by the KUMC HRPP as reviewing IRBs.

Institutional Organization #: IORG0000100

Federalwide Assurance #: FWA00003411

KUMC IRBs

IRB 1#: IRB00000161

IRB 3#: IRB00006196

University of Kansas Medical Center Human Subjects committee (HSC#13376) written informed consent was obtained from all participants.'

a. Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure  section:

'This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health R01 AG043962 (JMB); K99 AG050490 (JKM) and gifts from Frank and Evangeline Thompson (JMB), The Ann and Gary Dickinson Family Charitable Foundation, John and Marny Sherman, and Brad and Libby Bergman. Institutional infrastructure support for testing was provided in part by UL1 TR000001 (RJB) and P30 AG035982 (RHS JMB). Lilly Pharmaceuticals provided a grant to support F18-AV45 doses and partial scan costs (JMB). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Lilly Pharmaceuticals

a. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

b. Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well-written manuscript with appropriate methodology. The efficacy of lifestyle interventions to reduce dementia risk is of profound import to society given the burden of neurocognitive disorders world-wide.

Inclusion of amyloid PET is a particular strength of this study. Unfortunately, the MRI protocol was rather limited, and it would have been nice if vascular burden had been measured, e.g. with T2/FLAIR sequences. This would have facilitated an analysis of whether exercise had any effect on cerebrovascular burden, which is of interest given the lack of impact on amyloid accumulation in this study as measured by florbetapir PET.

In line 276, the authors report that there were no differences across intervention groups, as shown in Table 1. Would the authors please clarify if they mean no significant differences, and at what p value? Of particular note here is the higher proportion of ApoE E4 carriers in the aerobic exercise group. In theory, a significantly higher proportion of ApoE E4 alleles in the treatment group could increase the risk of cognitive decline and amyloid accumulation in these subjects, thus potentially reducing the likelihood of detecting a true benefit of the intervention.

The fact that an effect of exercise on measures of amyloid or cognitive performance was not found does not diminish the importance of this study. The authors provide a comprehensive discussion about potential weaknesses. The risk of a Type II error is especially important given the sample size and duration of intervention. The authors also appropriately comment that brain benefits of exercise (which were not demonstrated in this study) may well be mediated by mechanisms other than an effect on amyloid. This is particularly important given the large number of amyloid-lowering clinical trials to date that have failed to meet primary endpoints. The argument for considering aspects of neuropathology aside from amyloid in Alzheimer's disease is getting stronger. The authors address the relevance of their findings to this body of work in a sensible fashion, concluding that their null findings support a hypothesis that the reported brain benefits of exercise are modest and may be driven by factors other than the mitigation of amyloid pathology.

In summary, this is an appropriately-designed, well-written study with important findings. I recommend that this manuscript is published, once the authors have clarified the issue mentioned above regarding significance of difference in line 276 and Table 1.

Reviewer #2: The authors performed a RCT to investigate the effect of a 52-week supervised exercise intervention on markers of brain health including brain volume (whole brain and hippocampal), cognitive assessments and cerebral amyloid (as measured with 18F-AV45 PET) in a group of 117 cognitively normal older, almost exclusively white and educated (only 1 African American in the intervention group), adults with elevated (n=79) and sub-threshold (n=38) levels of cerebral amyloid. They compared the effects of 150 minutes per week of aerobic exercise to an education control intervention. Participants were tested at baseline, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. Cardiorespiratory fitness testing was performed at baseline and Week 52 to assess response to exercise.

One hundred and ten participants completed the study. The aerobic exercise group significantly improved cardiorespiratory fitness (11% vs. 1% in the control group) but there were no differences in change measures of amyloid, brain volume, or cognitive performance compared to control.

They found that aerobic exercise was not associated with reduced amyloid accumulation in cognitively normal older adults with cerebral amyloid. They conclude that the brain benefits of exercise are likely to be related to non-amyloid effects.

.

I have some other questions and comments for the authors:

1. Note that the data access statement is incomplete in this submission.

2. Introduction: “Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related change in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time.” This is true but is very diffuse. Given that this is the hypothesis for this study I think specific detail is required here.

3. Was sedentary/under active an inclusion or exclusion criterion? This needs to be stated in the abstract.

4. How could this be a convenience sample? This is a RCT?

5. What did you compare your study group to in terms of annual amyloid accumulation? Did you already know the expected increase in amyloid for your participants? If so, please state.

6. Please give more information on how you defined a study certified exercise facility.

7. What training did you give to the personal trainers? How did you ensure blinding? Did different EPs perform the fitness testing?

8. Did you perform a treatment fidelity analysis? If so, when and with how many participants?

9. Minor point but why not an isotropic MPRAGE acquisition?

10. Line 242 there is a double full-stop.

11. Your intervention was predicated on an effect size of 40%. That’s large. What evidence did you have for this? Most exercise interventions have small-medium effect sizes, depending on the outcome. It is highly likely that your study is very underpowered. You state “93% power to detect this conservative 265 anticipated effect of exercise on amyloid burden”. This is not conservative at all.

12. What was the rationale for increasing the sample to 120? Surely the expected effect size on people with sub-threshold amyloid would be substantially less.

13. Why use self-report of exercise? It would have been easy to fit your subjects with a physical activity monitor. It is possible that exercise increased in both and that this affected their amyloid.

14. Apart from fitness, did you measure any other cardiovascular effects? BP, change in BMI, blood cholesterol, etc.?

15. In Table 2, you state: “^Sample size for change in amyloid is Educ:35/Exercise:74. Sample sizes for change in fitness and volumes are Educ:34/Exercise:70 Sample sizes for cognitive measures at baseline, week 26, and week 52 are educ:39,37,36/Exercise:78,75,75.” Don’t you mean number of participants?

16. 122 is a lot of AEs related to aerobic exercise. Please include a table of these. Also, include details of the safety monitoring committee, how these were reported and adjudicated, how many SAEs, etc.

17. Discussion, line 337-8: “Despite this, however, individuals with elevated levels of amyloid appeared resistant to aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures.” You can’t state that. You can only state that you found no difference.

18. Line 348: “likely enriched with unmeasured (and currently poorly defined) resilience factors”. Surely the fact that they were all white and educated should be discussed?

19. The discussion should be abbreviated given the fact you were likely very underpowered. You may need hundreds in each arm of the study to show difference in your chosen outcomes at 12 months. It would be important to publish the natural history of change in amyloid as measured by your tracer.

Reviewer #3: Vidoni et al. have produced a well-written manuscript reporting findings from a 12-month RCT investigating the effect of aerobic exercise on amyloid accumulation, MRI, fitness, and cognitive outcomes in pre-clinical AD.

Beyond the impact of the intervention on fitness, the manuscript reports null findings, which are in my opinion, as important a contribution to the literature as positive results.

The following comments and suggestions are listed by manuscript section:

Introduction:

Line 65 "Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related change in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time.[3, 9-13]" - please be explicit regarding the nature of the relationship.

Line 67 "In randomized controlled trials, aerobic exercise promotes brain plasticity and attenuates hippocampal atrophy while improving spatial memory.[3, 5, 14, 15]" - ref 15 reports increased hippocampal volume rather than attenuated atrophy; please amend sentence accordingly.

Line 79 "...cognitively healthy adults..." - the term cognitively normal is used everywhere else in the manuscript, suggest amending for consistency.

"...and those at high genetic risk for AD.[26, 33, 34]" - ref 29 needs adding here as the reported benefits of exercise on brain amyloid are in APOE e4 carriers.

Line 91-94 "Individuals with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid (individuals with non-elevated amyloid

PET but with quantitative measures near the threshold for being elevated) may be more likely to

accumulate amyloid and have memory decline,[36] suggesting they are good candidates for

prevention studies.[37]" - to be "subthreshold" these individuals must have already accumulated some amyloid so the wording of "may be more likely to accumulate amyloid" needs amending.

Line 98 "..those with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid" - needs amending to '...those who are CN but with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid' (CN is implicit in preclinical AD in the earlier part of the sentence, but not in the subthreshold group).

Line 98-99 "We hypothesized that 52 weeks of aerobic exercise would be associated with reduced amyloid burden, reduced hippocampal atrophy,..." - "reduced amyloid burden", or a slowing of amyloid accumulation?

Methods:

Line 176 "Heart Rate Reserve" - change to HRR as defined on the previous line.

Line 247-248 "...other covariates (age, sex, education, and PET amyloid status [elevated vs. subthreshold])..." - I am extremely interested to know if the authors controlled for baseline continuous SUVR rather than the categorical of elevated/subthreshold in any analyses undertaken that have not been reported here. As the authors rightly point out in the Discussion, amyloid accumulation is a sigmoidal curve and I do wonder if combining elevated and subthreshold may reduce the sensitivity of the analysis (particularly when combined with the test/re-test variability of FBP, and having only two amyloid scans).

Results:

Line 280 Table 1 - please change ApoE to APOE to reflect gene rather than protein.

Also, this is the first and only time that APOE is mentioned in the entire manuscript; consequently it needs defining and explaining.

On this topic, I am curious as to why APOE e4 status hasn't been included anywhere in the analysis, particularly given this statement on Line 77 "...greater amounts of self-reported physical activity (i.e., volitional

behavior that is part of daily function) is associated with evidence of lower cerebral amyloid levels among cognitively healthy adults,[26-32] and those at high genetic risk for AD." where the published studies on "high genetic risk for AD" include APOE e4. Plus, we know that APOE e4 impacts amyloid accumulation, and cognitive performance (particularly in preclinical AD). Therefore, I believe this additional analysis is certainly warranted.

Table 1 - no need to include % in columns when % is included in the row header. Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

Table 2 - Is "Intent-to-Treat" needed twice in the Table heading?

Global amyloid burden / change / 0.01 (.04), missing a '0'. Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

Table 3 - Is "Per-Protocol" needed twice in the Table heading?

Curious that the loss of brain volume in the Exercise Group is twice that of the Control Group - I wonder if this is related to, the higher % of APOE e4 carriers in the Exercise Group, where individuals are on the sigmoidal amyloid accumulation curve, or both (another reason why it could be insightful to include APOE e4 and continuous SUVR in the analysis). Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

Discussion:

Line 333 "... individuals who are at highest risk of amyloid accumulation." - see earlier comment regarding Line 91-94.

Line 336-340 "Despite this, however, individuals with elevated levels of amyloid appeared resistant to aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures. We believe these null findings support a hypothesis that the widely reported brain benefits of exercise are modest and driven mechanistically by the mitigation of non-amyloid pathologies." - this is most certainly a possibility. However, some consideration should also be given in the Discussion to the fact that it is also possible that the selected aerobic intervention wasn't effective (despite the improvements in fitness observed). Perhaps higher intensity of aerobic exercise is needed to slow amyloid accumulation?

Line 342 "...skewed towards fewer age-related pathologies, such as subclinical cerebrovascular disease,..." - perhaps; although it is also highly likely that your sample includes individuals with vascular amyloid deposits.

Line 362 sudden introduction of the term "Aβ" whilst "amyloid" has been used thus far - either need to define or stick with amyloid.

Line 381 "Additionally, the potential benefits of aerobic exercise to influence cerebral amyloid may require a longer duration than 52 weeks." - or more intense aerobic exercise?

General Comments:

Please pay close attention to the comments above around factoring in APOE e4 and baseline continuous SUVR into the analysis.

I also wonder if the authors have considered whether there are indirect effects of the intervention on the outcome measures that relate to improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness? Specifically, there were no observed effects on amyloid, MRI and cognitive outcomes when comparing group performance from pre- to post-intervention. However, it is possible that changes in cardiorespiratory fitness from pre- to post-intervention are associated with changes in the outcome measures. It is also possible that APOE genotype may moderate these effects.

For a later date, it may well also be valuable to assess the impact of the intervention of blood levels of amyloid species using the new generation of ultra sensitive assays that appear to be extremely promising.

Reviewer #4: This is an excellent study, clearly reported. I have a few minor comments.

The authors should give details of how the randomisation schedule was produced, eg. whether blocking or stratification were used etc.

I think that the first sentence of the statistical analysis section should read ‘…including means, standard deviations and…’

Statistical analysis, second sentence: two-sample t-tests and paired t-tests are different things. What the authors should have used here are two-sample t-tests comparing the change from baseline between the two groups. I am not sure which they have actually used.

The intention to treat and per protocol populations should be defined in the methods rather than in the results.

Figure 1 is of poor resolution.

The results from Tables 2 and 3 are reported in the text only in terms of their p-values. It would be helpful for the authors to discuss the clinical significance of the differences, even where there is a lack of statistical significance. Eg. Whole brain volume has a p-value >0.05 but there does seem to have been more of a decrease in the exercise group. Is the magnitude of the difference clinically significant? (I am a statistician and I genuinely do not know if the drops in whole brain volume and the magnitude of the difference between the groups is clinically relevant).

Table 2: number formats should be the same within outcomes, eg. Baseline global amyloid should be 1.20 rather than 1.2 and the SE of the change should be 0.04, not .04.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sarah J.E. Barry

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244893.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Nov 2020

Dr. Bush,

Academic Editor, PLOS One

We appreciate the thoughtful reviews of our manuscript PONE-D-20-24208, “Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial”. We have carefully considered each critique and responded. Critiques are listed and numbered, and the responses begins with “>>”. In some instances, we have provided text changes in the response document as well for the ease of the Reviewer. These are in “quotes”.

We have provided a markup copy as well as a clean copy of our revised manuscript. We thank the reviewers for helping us to improve the manuscript and look forward to positive reception.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Burns, MD, MS

University of Kansas Medical Center.

Editorial Review:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

>>We have adjusted our formatting and file names to our best interpretation of the instructions.

2.Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

>>We have amended our Ethics Statement in the submission and manuscript to read:

“University of Kansas Medical Center Human Subjects committee approved the protocol (HSC#13376) and written informed consent was obtained from all participants.”

3. Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

>>We have included our competing interests statement in the cover letter with the additional statement that "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.”

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager.

>>We have linked the ORCID iD of the corresponding author in Editorial Manager.

Reviewer #1:

1. In line 276, the authors report that there were no differences across intervention groups, as shown in Table 1. Would the authors please clarify if they mean no significant differences, and at what p value? Of particular note here is the higher proportion of ApoE E4 carriers in the aerobic exercise group. In theory, a significantly higher proportion of ApoE E4 alleles in the treatment group could increase the risk of cognitive decline and amyloid accumulation in these subjects, thus potentially reducing the likelihood of detecting a true benefit of the intervention.

>>We have amended the line per the Reviewer’s recommendation and added a “p-value” column to Table 1. We agree it’s possible that the non-significant difference in E4 carriage between the two groups could adversely impact the interpretation of our outcomes. However, in response to other reviewers we also conducted some secondary sensitivity analyses and found no interaction of treatment group and E4 carriage on our outcomes. Nevertheless, we have added this as a potential future direction.

“The non-significantly higher proportion of E4 carriers in the treatment group may have subtly impacted cognitive decline and amyloid accumulation, potentially obscuring our ability to detect a benefit of the intervention. Though we detected no difference in carrier versus non-carrier performance, brain volume change, or amyloid accumulation, over 1-year, future studies may wish to consider E4 carriage as a blocking variable for randomization.”

2. The fact that an effect of exercise on measures of amyloid or cognitive performance was not found does not diminish the importance of this study. The authors provide a comprehensive discussion about potential weaknesses. The risk of a Type II error is especially important given the sample size and duration of intervention. The authors also appropriately comment that brain benefits of exercise (which were not demonstrated in this study) may well be mediated by mechanisms other than an effect on amyloid. This is particularly important given the large number of amyloid-lowering clinical trials to date that have failed to meet primary endpoints. The argument for considering aspects of neuropathology aside from amyloid in Alzheimer's disease is getting stronger. The authors address the relevance of their findings to this body of work in a sensible fashion, concluding that their null findings support a hypothesis that the reported brain benefits of exercise are modest and may be driven by factors other than the mitigation of amyloid pathology.

>>We appreciate this thoughtful and well-stated perspective.

Reviewer #2:

1. Note that the data access statement is incomplete in this submission.

>>We have revised our data access statement and have archived the data for public availability.

“All files are available from the Harvard Dataverse database (Vidoni, Eric, 2020, "Alzheimer's Prevention Through Exercise (APEx) - NCT02000583", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/B9I1F8, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:pgNe0pp64djpi7AAdwhBiw== [fileUNF]).”

2. Introduction: “Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related change in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time.” This is true but is very diffuse. Given that this is the hypothesis for this study I think specific detail is required here.

>>Thank you for this comment. We have amended the sentence to read:

“Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related improvements or attenuated decline in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time”

3. Was sedentary/under active an inclusion or exclusion criterion? This needs to be stated in the abstract.

>>We have added this criterion to the abstract.

4. How could this be a convenience sample? This is a RCT?

>>Our participants were drawn from individuals who self-selected to present for exercise research. We did not purposively sample to recruit and match regional demographics. As such, the participant population was that which was “close at hand”. The participants were indeed randomized, but we cannot claim that they accurately represent the larger population within those randomly assigned groups.

5. What did you compare your study group to in terms of annual amyloid accumulation? Did you already know the expected increase in amyloid for your participants? If so, please state.

>>Amyloid accumulation was calculated in units normalized to cerebellar amyloid signal (SUVR). Change over the 52-week study was calculated as the individual difference from baseline to week 52 global amyloid signal (noted in our Outcomes section) We did not attempt to compare amyloid signal between our participants and previously published 18F-AV45 accumulation rates.

6. Please give more information on how you defined a study certified exercise facility.

>>Study certified exercise facilities are those which have undergone extensive training and vetting for appropriate safety and privacy controls. As noted in the manuscript we have published our method for delivering community-based exercise protocols with fidelity and adherence (Vidoni et al. Contemp Clin Trials 2012).

7. What training did you give to the personal trainers? How did you ensure blinding? Did different EPs perform the fitness testing?

>>Personal trainers were not blinded to intervention as they were required to oversee exercise. As no doubt the Reviewer knows, EPs and personal trainers are not the same profession. Personal Trainers provided the oversight and guidance on exercise at community locations. Exercise Physiologists were employed by the institution to oversee exercise testing. Neither the trainers nor the raters had any interaction with participants beyond their respective roles, which did not overlap. This allowed the raters to remain blinded to the intervention.

We have revised these sections to make it clear that the trainers were employed by the exercise facility and raters had no interaction with participants beyond their appointed testing visits.

8. Did you perform a treatment fidelity analysis? If so, when and with how many participants?

>>We did not. We have added this as a limitation (see point 13) and we appreciate the suggestion for our future studies.

9. Minor point but why not an isotropic MPRAGE acquisition?

>>We have adopted ADNI imaging protocols for nearly all our studies to allow for maximum shareability. At the time of study start-up our protocol matched the ADNI2 protocol to the extent our scanner would allow.

10. Line 242 there is a double full-stop.

>>We have amended this as suggested.

11. Your intervention was predicated on an effect size of 40%. That’s large. What evidence did you have for this? Most exercise interventions have small-medium effect sizes, depending on the outcome. It is highly likely that your study is very underpowered. You state “93% power to detect this conservative 265 anticipated effect of exercise on amyloid burden”. This is not conservative at all.

>>At the time of study inception, amyloid imaging was still very new with little clarity on how 18F-AV45 would respond to intervention. In the Statistical Analysis section we noted multiple effect sizes from pharmaceutical trials, at that time, the only work we could base our study on. We extensively discuss the possibility of Type II error in the Discussion.

12. What was the rationale for increasing the sample to 120? Surely the expected effect size on people with sub-threshold amyloid would be substantially less.

>>It’s not clear that the effect on subthreshold individuals would be less in our view. In fact, there is substantial evidence of an S-curve in amyloid accumulation, which would suggest that subthreshold individuals experience greater accumulation rates, and perhaps the greatest amyloid removal rates if possible. The sample size of 120 was a scientific and financial compromise.

13. Why use self-report of exercise? It would have been easy to fit your subjects with a physical activity monitor. It is possible that exercise increased in both and that this affected their amyloid.

>>In retrospect, the use of a monitor would have been appropriate. It is possible that exercise increased in the control group. However, we saw no such evidence of fitness change consistent with self-report. This validates our belief that only the intervention group significantly increased their exercise activity. However, we have added this as a limitation in the Discussion.

“An additional limitation is the use of self-reported physical activity versus an activity monitor and lack of a treatment fidelity analysis. It is possible that exercise activity increased in the control group. However, consistent with participant self-report we saw evidence of fitness change only in the exercise group.”

14. Apart from fitness, did you measure any other cardiovascular effects? BP, change in BMI, blood cholesterol, etc.?

>>In following CONSORT best practice, we have limited this report to our primary outcome and prespecified secondary outcomes of interest. If we analyze at these important tertiary outcomes in future manuscripts we will clearly state that these are secondary outcomes.

15. In Table 2, you state: “^Sample size for change in amyloid is Educ:35/Exercise:74. Sample sizes for change in fitness and volumes are Educ:34/Exercise:70 Sample sizes for cognitive measures at baseline, week 26, and week 52 are educ:39,37,36/Exercise:78,75,75.” Don’t you mean number of participants?

>>We have made the requested change.

16. 122 is a lot of AEs related to aerobic exercise. Please include a table of these. Also, include details of the safety monitoring committee, how these were reported and adjudicated, how many SAEs, etc.

>>We appreciate the opportunity to revise this section as we were not clear that this indicates the full breadth of adverse events, not just those related to the intervention. We have revised this section and added a supplementary table, S2 Table, for clarity.

17. Discussion, line 337-8: “Despite this, however, individuals with elevated levels of amyloid appeared resistant to aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures.” You can’t state that. You can only state that you found no difference.

>>We have amended the sentence as requested.

“Despite this, however, we did not find aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures.”

18. Line 348: “likely enriched with unmeasured (and currently poorly defined) resilience factors”. Surely the fact that they were all white and educated should be discussed?

>>Thank you. This is an extremely important point. We have added the following limitation section to our Discussion.

“Our sample was almost exclusively White, non-Hispanic and highly educated. This severely limits the generalizability of our findings and highlights structural racism and inequity related to clinical trial access. As a result we have begun assessing the design of our trials and increased our efforts to inclusively design our exercise trials with and for underrepresented communities (Vidoni et al. Contemp Clin Trials 2020; Perales et al. Hisp Health Care int. 2020; Shaw et al. Ethn Health In Press; Blocker et al Kansas J Med 2020).”

19. The discussion should be abbreviated given the fact you were likely very underpowered. You may need hundreds in each arm of the study to show difference in your chosen outcomes at 12 months. It would be important to publish the natural history of change in amyloid as measured by your tracer.

>>We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughts and concerns on this. However, our approach to the results was very measured and deliberate. We have avoided making definitive declarations about effect or lack thereof.

Reviewer #3:

Introduction:

1. Line 65 "Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related change in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time.[3, 9-13]" - please be explicit regarding the nature of the relationship.

>>We have amended the sentence to read:

“Higher levels of aerobic fitness are associated with age-related improvements or attenuated decline in brain volume and cognition at both cross-section and over time”

2. Line 67 "In randomized controlled trials, aerobic exercise promotes brain plasticity and attenuates hippocampal atrophy while improving spatial memory.[3, 5, 14, 15]" - ref 15 reports increased hippocampal volume rather than attenuated atrophy; please amend sentence accordingly.

>>Thank you for pointing out our imprecise language. We have amended the sentence to read as follows:

“In randomized controlled trials, aerobic exercise promotes brain plasticity, attenuate hippocampal atrophy, or even promotes hippocampal volume increase while improving spatial memory.[3, 5, 14, 15]”

3.Line 79 "...cognitively healthy adults..." - the term cognitively normal is used everywhere else in the manuscript, suggest amending for consistency.

>>We have made the suggested wording change.

4. "...and those at high genetic risk for AD.[26, 33, 34]" - ref 29 needs adding here as the reported benefits of exercise on brain amyloid are in APOE e4 carriers.

>>We have added the references as suggested.

5. Line 91-94 "Individuals with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid (individuals with non-elevated amyloid PET but with quantitative measures near the threshold for being elevated) may be more likely to accumulate amyloid and have memory decline,[36] suggesting they are good candidates for

prevention studies.[37]" - to be "subthreshold" these individuals must have already accumulated some amyloid so the wording of "may be more likely to accumulate amyloid" needs amending.

>>We agree the sentence should be more precise. We have amended it to read as follows:

“Individuals with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid (individuals with non-elevated amyloid PET but with quantitative measures near the threshold for being elevated) may be more likely to accumulate clinically significant levels of amyloid and have memory decline,[36] suggesting they are good candidates for prevention studies.[37]“

6. Line 98 "..those with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid" - needs amending to '...those who are CN but with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid' (CN is implicit in preclinical AD in the earlier part of the sentence, but not in the subthreshold group).

>>We have changed the wording as follows to clarify the cognitive status of the “subthreshold” participants.

“Our study examined the effects of a 52-week aerobic exercise program on AD pathophysiology (amyloid burden), associated “downstream” neurodegeneration (whole brain and hippocampal volume change) and cognitive decline in cognitively normal individuals with either preclinical AD or with subthreshold levels of cerebral amyloid. “

7. Line 98-99 "We hypothesized that 52 weeks of aerobic exercise would be associated with reduced amyloid burden, reduced hippocampal atrophy,..." - "reduced amyloid burden", or a slowing of amyloid accumulation?

>>We appreciate the opportunity to provide extra precision to the hypothesis statement without being revisionist. The language in our manuscript, protocol and grant was a bit ambiguous, to be sure. We hypothesized that there would be an attenuated increase or “reduced amyloid burden” as compared to the non-aerobic exercisers. We did not expect that aerobic exercise would reduce the level of amyloid appreciably below baseline levels. We have revised the hypothesis statement to clarify this expectation.

“We hypothesized that 52 weeks of aerobic exercise would be associated with reduced amyloid accumulation, reduced hippocampal atrophy, and improved performance on a cognitive test battery.”

Methods:

8. Line 176 "Heart Rate Reserve" - change to HRR as defined on the previous line.

>>We have amended as suggested.

9. Line 247-248 "...other covariates (age, sex, education, and PET amyloid status [elevated vs. subthreshold])..." - I am extremely interested to know if the authors controlled for baseline continuous SUVR rather than the categorical of elevated/subthreshold in any analyses undertaken that have not been reported here. As the authors rightly point out in the Discussion, amyloid accumulation is a sigmoidal curve and I do wonder if combining elevated and subthreshold may reduce the sensitivity of the analysis (particularly when combined with the test/re-test variability of FBP, and having only two amyloid scans).

Line 280 Table 1 - please change ApoE to APOE to reflect gene rather than protein.

Also, this is the first and only time that APOE is mentioned in the entire manuscript; consequently it needs defining and explaining.

On this topic, I am curious as to why APOE e4 status hasn't been included anywhere in the analysis, particularly given this statement on Line 77 "...greater amounts of self-reported physical activity (i.e., volitional behavior that is part of daily function) is associated with evidence of lower cerebral amyloid levels among cognitively healthy adults,[26-32] and those at high genetic risk for AD." where the published studies on "high genetic risk for AD" include APOE e4. Plus, we know that APOE e4 impacts amyloid accumulation, and cognitive performance (particularly in preclinical AD). Therefore, I believe this additional analysis is certainly warranted.

>>Treatment of the SUVR and APOE in our models seem to be related questions so we have addressed them together. We chose not to present these secondary analyses because we want to adhere to good CONSORT reporting practices and present clear trial outcomes. We feel it is best to report per our primary outcomes and pre-planned analyses which are consistent with our protocol and ClinicalTrials.gov. However, to be responsive to the interest of multiple reviewers and to address the possibility of differential effects of these variables of interest, we re-analyzed the data.

We tested a general linear model to examine the relationship of a continuous measure of change in SUVR. Per reviewer suggestions baseline SUVR, APOE4 status, and an interaction between exercise and E4 status were added. This model controls for baseline SUVR and includes e4 status as well as the interaction of E4 status with treatment groups to account for the imbalance of e4 status observed among groups. The p-value of 0.8385 indicated that this model was not adequate to explain the variance of change in SUVR.

Likewise, we also tested these models on the continuous measure of change in brain volume. The p-value of 0.2857 indicated that this model was not adequate to explain the variance of change in brain volume. This model with baseline whole brain volume, e4 status and related interaction is no better at explaining the variance

We used the continuous quantified values for baseline global SUVR as a covariate in our analysis. We also tested models where APOE4 was substituted for PET group (subthreshold vs. elevated) with an APOE by Treatment Arm interaction included. None of these models changed our results, and we now note this and the subsequent analysis of APOE4 in our Discussion. We have also changed ApoE to APOE throughout the manuscript.

“As a sensitivity analysis, we also tested our models with SUVR as a covariate, and with APOE4 and APOE4 by Treatment Arm as factors. There was no appreciable change in our results in these analyses.”

10. Table 1 - no need to include % in columns when % is included in the row header. Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

>>We have amended this as suggested.

11. Table 2 - Is "Intent-to-Treat" needed twice in the Table heading? Table 3 - Is "Per-Protocol" needed twice in the Table heading?

>>We have removed the repeats.

12. Global amyloid burden / change / 0.01 (.04), missing a '0'. Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

>>We have amended as suggested.

13. Curious that the loss of brain volume in the Exercise Group is twice that of the Control Group - I wonder if this is related to, the higher % of APOE e4 carriers in the Exercise Group, where individuals are on the sigmoidal amyloid accumulation curve, or both (another reason why it could be insightful to include APOE e4 and continuous SUVR in the analysis). Please also define abbreviations in the Table footnotes.

>>Please see our response above. Inclusion of APOE4 in our models yielded no changes in our interpretation of the results.

Discussion:

14. Line 333 "... individuals who are at highest risk of amyloid accumulation." - see earlier comment regarding Line 91-94.

>>Same fix as above.

“We found no evidence that one year of aerobic exercise influences cerebral amyloid burden in a cohort of cognitively normal participants with elevated and subthreshold levels of amyloid, individuals who are at highest risk of clinically significant amyloid accumulation.”

15. Line 336-340 "Despite this, however, individuals with elevated levels of amyloid appeared resistant to aerobic exercise effects on whole brain volume, hippocampal volume, or cognitive measures. We believe these null findings support a hypothesis that the widely reported brain benefits of exercise are modest and driven mechanistically by the mitigation of non-amyloid pathologies." - this is most certainly a possibility. However, some consideration should also be given in the Discussion to the fact that it is also possible that the selected aerobic intervention wasn't effective (despite the improvements in fitness observed). Perhaps higher intensity of aerobic exercise is needed to slow amyloid accumulation?

>>We have added this a limitation.

“Finally, it may be possible that the selected dose of exercise (duration and intensity) is insufficient or ill-suited to change amyloid accumulation. Future work should consider resistance training, or alternate intensities.”

16. Line 342 "...skewed towards fewer age-related pathologies, such as subclinical cerebrovascular disease,..." - perhaps; although it is also highly likely that your sample includes individuals with vascular amyloid deposits.

>> This is quite possible. As technologies evolve and the ability to classify individuals using the ATN (and perhaps V) framework matures, multi-domain etiological definition will be critical for clinical trials.

17. Line 362 sudden introduction of the term "Aβ" whilst "amyloid" has been used thus far - either need to define or stick with amyloid.

>>We have stuck with amyloid and amended the sentence.

18. Line 381 "Additionally, the potential benefits of aerobic exercise to influence cerebral amyloid may require a longer duration than 52 weeks." - or more intense aerobic exercise?

General Comments:

19. Please pay close attention to the comments above around factoring in APOE e4 and baseline continuous SUVR into the analysis.

>>As noted above, we are hesitant to further subdivide or add in additional covariates to planned analyses for our primary and secondary outcomes (i.e. looking at SUVR as a continuous measure). We have presented the analyses above an and briefly discussed the non-significance of APOE4 in the discussion as noted previously

20. I also wonder if the authors have considered whether there are indirect effects of the intervention on the outcome measures that relate to improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness? Specifically, there were no observed effects on amyloid, MRI and cognitive outcomes when comparing group performance from pre- to post-intervention. However, it is possible that changes in cardiorespiratory fitness from pre- to post-intervention are associated with changes in the outcome measures. It is also possible that APOE genotype may moderate these effects.

>>This is not only possible but likely. However, as in our prior work, we have elected to largely report our findings following CONSORT guidance, saving secondary analyses that were not pre-planned for follow up reports. Vidoni et al PLOS One 2015; Billinger et al. JAPA 2017). It does not appear that APOE4 effects are sufficiently strong to impact our results. However, we do note in the limitations that block randomization based on APOE4 may be a valuable strategy in the future.

For a later date, it may well also be valuable to assess the impact of the intervention of blood levels of amyloid species using the new generation of ultra-sensitive assays that appear to be extremely promising.

We agree and are very excited about the prospect of these assays. Imaging is valuable but we recognize its limitations.

Reviewer #4:

1. The authors should give details of how the randomisation schedule was produced, eg. whether blocking or stratification were used etc.

>>We have provided additional information in the Allocation section.

“A study statistician constructed an allocation schedule that was applied by study staff after baseline testing was completed. The study statistician used random number generator to generate blocks of nine in a 2:1 ratio to protect against imbalance if recruitment fell short Participants were prospectively assigned to treatment versus control from this schedule using REDCap’s randomization module which restricts access and viewing once uploaded.”

2. I think that the first sentence of the statistical analysis section should read ‘…including means, standard deviations and…’

>>We have amended this as requested.

3. Statistical analysis, second sentence: two-sample t-tests and paired t-tests are different things. What the authors should have used here are two-sample t-tests comparing the change from baseline between the two groups. I am not sure which they have actually used.

>>We have corrected the error. We used two-sample t-tests of change scores.

4. The intention to treat and per protocol populations should be defined in the methods rather than in the results.

>>We define the criterion for inclusion in ITT vs PP in the Adherence and Safety Section of the Methods. Because we do not present overall enrollment in the Methods, we feel it is best to keep the specific size of these sets in the Results where we discuss the overall enrollment.

5. The results from Tables 2 and 3 are reported in the text only in terms of their p-values. It would be helpful for the authors to discuss the clinical significance of the differences, even where there is a lack of statistical significance. Eg. Whole brain volume has a p-value >0.05 but there does seem to have been more of a decrease in the exercise group. Is the magnitude of the difference clinically significant? (I am a statistician and I genuinely do not know if the drops in whole brain volume and the magnitude of the difference between the groups is clinically relevant).

>>This is a really important question, but also one that is difficult to answer. Fjell et al (2009 J Neurosci) reported 1-year rates of average volume change in cognitively normal older adults from 0.2 to 0.8% depending on region. Specific hippocampal volume loss average 0.84%. Atrophy is also dependent on age. This makes any definitive statement on our results difficult. However, our atrophy rates of 0.2 to 0.5% globally and 0.9-1.0% don’t appear to be particularly outside the normal range. Fjell also reported global atrophy rates of atrophy in people with dementia to be 0.2-3.8% depending on region while hippocampal atrophy averaged 3.75% in people with dementia. Thus, our atrophy rates fall well below that which might be associated with clinical symptoms.

We are hesitant to make any definitive statement on clinical significance, or lack thereof, of our data. However, we have added the following sentence to our Discussion.

“Our observed atrophy rates are consistent with those previously reported in cognitively normal older adults (Fjell et all 2009).”

6. Table 2: number formats should be the same within outcomes, eg. Baseline global amyloid should be 1.20 rather than 1.2 and the SE of the change should be 0.04, not .04.

>>Amended as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: APEX Primary R2R 11.5.2020.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ashley I Bush

8 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24208R1

Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Burns,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The revised version is acceptable but has one small error still in need of correcting. Please submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses this.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ashley I Bush, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: I commend the authors for thoroughly addressing my comments. However, one has been missed:

"I think that the first sentence of the statistical analysis section should read ‘…including means, standard deviations and…’ "

- The word 'deviations' is still missing.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Amy Brodtmann

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sarah Barry

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 14;16(1):e0244893. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244893.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


15 Dec 2020

Dr. Bush,

Academic Editor, PLOS One

We appreciate the final reviews of our manuscript PONE-D-20-24208R1, “Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial”. We have made the final requested correction

In the analysis section our sentence now reads:

“Descriptive statistics were generated, including means, standard deviations and ranges for continuous measures, and frequencies and relative frequencies for categorical measures.”

We have provided a “clean” copy of our revised manuscript. We thank the reviewers for helping us to improve the manuscript and look forward to positive reception.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Burns, MD, MS

University of Kansas Medical Center.

Attachment

Submitted filename: APEX Primary R2R 12.15.2020.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ashley I Bush

18 Dec 2020

Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

PONE-D-20-24208R2

Dear Dr. Burns,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ashley I Bush, MD PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Ashley I Bush

22 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24208R2

  Effect of Aerobic Exercise on Amyloid Accumulation in Preclinical Alzheimer’s: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Trial

Dear Dr. Burns:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ashley I Bush

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial*.

    (DOC)

    S1 Table. Primary and secondary outcomes of individuals with elevated amyloid.

    Mean and standard deviation. Mean and standard deviation. ^ Sample size for amyloid change Educ:25/Exercise:49. Sample size for change in VO2 peak Educ:24/Exercise:49. Sample size for change in brain volumes Educ:24/Education:47. Sample size for change in cognitive measures at baseline, week 26 and week 52 are Educ:26,26,25/Education:52,51,50. SUVR = Standard Uptake Value Ratio; VO2 peak = peak oxygen consumption during graded exercise test. * For amyloid, fitness and brain volume measures, a p-value from ordinary least squares regression adjusted for sex, age, and education comparing the change (baseline to week 52) between the two groups is given. For cognitive measures, a p-value for treatment by time interaction test from linear mixed models adjusted for sex, age, education, and amyloid status among per protocol subgroup is given.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Adverse events.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: APEX Primary R2R 11.5.2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: APEX Primary R2R 12.15.2020.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All files are available from the Harvard Dataverse database (Vidoni, Eric, 2020, "Alzheimer's Prevention Through Exercise (APEx) - NCT02000583", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/B9I1F8, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:pgNe0pp64djpi7AAdwhBiw== [fileUNF]).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES