Belloy · JAMA neurology 2023 · Multi-cohort genetic association study · n=68756

APOE Genotype and Alzheimer Disease Risk Across Age, Sex, and Population Ancestry.

Cited 301 times in the scientific literature.

Level 3 - non-randomized controlled study

Multi-cohort observational genetic association study combining case-control, longitudinal, and family cohorts

PubMed 37930705 · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.3599 · record verified 2026-08-29

What was done

Analyzed genetic and clinical data from case-control, family-based, population-based, and longitudinal cohorts comprising 68,756 unique individuals: 21,852 East Asian, 5,738 Hispanic, 7,145 non-Hispanic Black, and 34,021 non-Hispanic White participants. Researchers evaluated the associations of APOE genotypes with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk using logistic regression (odds ratios [ORs]) and conversion risk using Cox proportional hazards regression, stratifying across sex, age, race/ethnicity, and global population ancestry.

What was found

AD risk associated with APOE*34 showed a stepwise attenuation across groups: East Asian (OR 4.54; 95% CI, 3.99–5.17), White (OR 3.46; 95% CI, 3.27–3.65), Black (OR 2.18; 95% CI, 1.90–2.49), and Hispanic individuals (OR 1.90; 95% CI, 1.65–2.18). Protective associations of APOE*22+23 were observed in White (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.48–0.58) and Black individuals (OR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57–0.84), but not in Hispanic (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72–1.10) or East Asian individuals (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77–1.23). In Black individuals, higher global European ancestry was associated with increased APOE*4-related AD risk. A sex-by-age interaction showing higher APOE*34 risk in women aged 60 to 70 was observed in White individuals (OR 1.48; 95% CI, 1.10–2.01) and in a pooled meta-analysis of Black and Hispanic individuals (OR 1.72; 95% CI, 1.01–2.94).

Why it matters

This study shows that standard APOE-related risk estimates derived from White populations do not apply uniformly across ancestries, which has major implications for AD genetic risk assessment, clinical trial stratification, and drug targeting across diverse global populations.

Limits

Demographic covariates were unavailable for the East Asian cohort. The study combined varied recruitment designs (referred, volunteer, case-control, and population-based) which may introduce selection bias, and global ancestry estimates could not fully explain differences in effect sizes among Hispanic individuals.

Cited by