Langa, Kenneth M.

AbstractThe poor generalizability of clinical research data due to the enrollment of highly educated, non‐Latinx White participants hampers the development of therapies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Black and Latinx older adults have a greater risk for dementia, yet it is unclear how health‐care disparities and sociocultural factors influence potential AD therapies and prognosis. Low enrollment of under‐represented populations may be attributable to several factors including greater exclusion due to higher rates of comorbidities, lower access to AD clinics, and the legacy of unethical treatment in medical research. This perspective outlines solutions tested in the Brain Health Registry (BHR) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), including culturally‐informed digital research methods, community‐engaged research strategies, leadership from under‐represented communities, and the reduction of exclusion criteria based on comorbidities. Our successes demonstrate that it is possible to increase the inclusion and engagement of under‐represented populations into US‐based clinical studies, thereby increasing the generalizability of their results.

AbstractTo address the pending public health crisis due to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related neurodegenerative disorders, the Marian S. Ware Alzheimer Program at the University of Pennsylvania held a meeting entitled “State of the Science Conference on the Advancement of Alzheimer's Diagnosis, Treatment and Care,” on June 21‐22, 2012. The meeting comprised four workgroups focusing on Biomarkers; Clinical Care and Health Services Research; Drug Development; and Health Economics, Policy, and Ethics. The workgroups shared, discussed, and compiled an integrated set of priorities, recommendations, and action plans, which are presented in this article.

This article focuses on the effects of operational differences in case ascertainment on estimates of prevalence and incidence of cognitive impairment and/or dementia of the Alzheimer type. Experience and insights are discussed by investigators from the Framingham Heart Study, the East Boston Senior Health Project, the Chicago Health and Aging Project, the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, and the Aging, Demographics, and Memory Study. There is a general consensus that the single most important factor determining prevalence estimates of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the severity of cognitive impairment used as a threshold to define cases. Studies that require a level of cognitive impairment in which persons are unable to provide self‐care will have much lower estimates than the studies aimed at identifying persons in the earliest stages of AD. There are limited autopsy data from the aforementioned epidemiological studies to address accuracy in the diagnosis of etiological subtype, namely the specification of AD alone or in combination with other types of pathology. However, other community‐based cohort studies show that many persons with mild cognitive impairment and also some persons without dementia or mild cognitive impairment meet pathological criteria for AD, thereby suggesting that the number of persons who would benefit from an effective secondary prevention intervention is probably higher than the published prevalence estimates. Improved accuracy in the clinical diagnosis of AD is anticipated with the addition of molecular and structural biomarkers in the next generation of epidemiological studies.

Declines in heart disease and stroke mortality rates are conventionally attributed to reductions in cigarette smoking, recognition and treatment of hypertension and diabetes, effective medications to improve serum lipid levels and to reduce clot formation, and general lifestyle improvements. Recent evidence implicates these and other cerebrovascular factors in the development of a substantial proportion of dementia cases. Analyses were undertaken to determine whether corresponding declines in age‐specific prevalence and incidence rates for dementia and cognitive impairment have occurred in recent years. Data spanning 1 or 2 decades were examined from community‐based epidemiological studies in Minnesota, Illinois, and Indiana, and from the Health and Retirement Study, which is a national survey. Although some decline was observed in the Minnesota cohort, no statistically significant trends were apparent in the community studies. A significant reduction in cognitive impairment measured by neuropsychological testing was identified in the national survey. Cautious optimism appears justified.