Cedarbaum, Jesse M.

Abstract Introduction The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) was established in 2004 to facilitate the development of effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) by validating biomarkers for AD clinical trials. Methods We searched for ADNI publications using established methods. Results ADNI has (1) developed standardized biomarkers for use in clinical trial subject selection and as surrogate outcome measures; (2) standardized protocols for use across multiple centers; (3) initiated worldwide ADNI; (4) inspired initiatives investigating traumatic brain injury and post‐traumatic stress disorder in military populations, and depression, respectively, as an AD risk factor; (5) acted as a data‐sharing model; (6) generated data used in over 600 publications, leading to the identification of novel AD risk alleles, and an understanding of the relationship between biomarkers and AD progression; and (7) inspired other public‐private partnerships developing biomarkers for Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Discussion ADNI has made myriad impacts in its first decade. A competitive renewal of the project in 2015 would see the use of newly developed tau imaging ligands, and the continued development of recruitment strategies and outcome measures for clinical trials.

Abstract The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is an ongoing, longitudinal, multicenter study designed to develop clinical, imaging, genetic, and biochemical biomarkers for the early detection and tracking of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The initial study, ADNI‐1, enrolled 400 subjects with early mild cognitive impairment (MCI), 200 with early AD, and 200 cognitively normal elderly controls. ADNI‐1 was extended by a 2‐year Grand Opportunities grant in 2009 and by a competitive renewal, ADNI‐2, which enrolled an additional 550 participants and will run until 2015. This article reviews all papers published since the inception of the initiative and summarizes the results to the end of 2013. The major accomplishments of ADNI have been as follows: (1) the development of standardized methods for clinical tests, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in a multicenter setting; (2) elucidation of the patterns and rates of change of imaging and CSF biomarker measurements in control subjects, MCI patients, and AD patients. CSF biomarkers are largely consistent with disease trajectories predicted by β‐amyloid cascade (Hardy, J Alzheimer's Dis 2006;9(Suppl 3):151–3) and tau‐mediated neurodegeneration hypotheses for AD, whereas brain atrophy and hypometabolism levels show predicted patterns but exhibit differing rates of change depending on region and disease severity; (3) the assessment of alternative methods of diagnostic categorization. Currently, the best classifiers select and combine optimum features from multiple modalities, including MRI, [ 18 F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose‐PET, amyloid PET, CSF biomarkers, and clinical tests; (4) the development of blood biomarkers for AD as potentially noninvasive and low‐cost alternatives to CSF biomarkers for AD diagnosis and the assessment of α‐syn as an additional biomarker; (5) the development of methods for the early detection of AD. CSF biomarkers, β‐amyloid 42 and tau, as well as amyloid PET may reflect the earliest steps in AD pathology in mildly symptomatic or even nonsymptomatic subjects and are leading candidates for the detection of AD in its preclinical stages; (6) the improvement of clinical trial efficiency through the identification of subjects most likely to undergo imminent future clinical decline and the use of more sensitive outcome measures to reduce sample sizes. Multimodal methods incorporating APOE status and longitudinal MRI proved most highly predictive of future decline. Refinements of clinical tests used as outcome measures such as clinical dementia rating‐sum of boxes further reduced sample sizes; (7) the pioneering of genome‐wide association studies that leverage quantitative imaging and biomarker phenotypes, including longitudinal data, to confirm recently identified loci, CR1, CLU , and PICALM and to identify novel AD risk loci; (8) worldwide impact through the establishment of ADNI‐like programs in Japan, Australia, Argentina, Taiwan, China, Korea, Europe, and Italy; (9) understanding the biology and pathobiology of normal aging, MCI, and AD through integration of ADNI biomarker and clinical data to stimulate research that will resolve controversies about competing hypotheses on the etiopathogenesis of AD, thereby advancing efforts to find disease‐modifying drugs for AD; and (10) the establishment of infrastructure to allow sharing of all raw and processed data without embargo to interested scientific investigators throughout the world.

The current criteria for classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have deficiencies that limit drug development, research, and practice. The current standard for the clinical diagnosis of AD, the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (now known as the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) criteria, are nearly 25 years old and have not been revised to incorporate advances in the epidemiology and genetics of AD, studies of clinicopathologic correlations and recent studies of potential diagnostic biomarkers. In a very real sense our ability to diagnose AD with a very high level of certainty has outpaced our current diagnostic criteria. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting in April 2009 to discuss new data and technologies that could, with further development, enable improvements in the clinical diagnosis of AD, especially in its earliest and mildest stages. This meeting reviewed the current standards for detecting and defining the clinical presentation of AD and discussed areas that could contribute to earlier and more accurate definitive clinical diagnosis. These included clinical, neuropsychological, and other performance‐based assessments, genetic contributions, and biochemical and neuroimaging biomarkers that could reflect AD pathology and lead to better ascertainment of AD, mild cognitive impairment, and presymptomatic AD.