Scheltens, Philip

Abstract There is increasing evidence that subjective cognitive decline (SCD) in individuals with unimpaired performance on cognitive tests may represent the first symptomatic manifestation of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The research on SCD in early AD, however, is limited by the absence of common standards. The working group of the Subjective Cognitive Decline Initiative (SCD‐I) addressed this deficiency by reaching consensus on terminology and on a conceptual framework for research on SCD in AD. In this publication, research criteria for SCD in pre‐mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are presented. In addition, a list of core features proposed for reporting in SCD studies is provided, which will enable comparability of research across different settings. Finally, a set of features is presented, which in accordance with current knowledge, increases the likelihood of the presence of preclinical AD in individuals with SCD. This list is referred to as SCD plus .

Abstract Posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) is a clinicoradiologic syndrome characterized by progressive decline in visual processing skills, relatively intact memory and language in the early stages, and atrophy of posterior brain regions. Misdiagnosis of PCA is common, owing not only to its relative rarity and unusual and variable presentation, but also because patients frequently first seek the opinion of an ophthalmologist, who may note normal eye examinations by their usual tests but may not appreciate cortical brain dysfunction. Seeking to raise awareness of the disease, stimulate research, and promote collaboration, a multidisciplinary group of PCA research clinicians formed an international working party, which had its first face‐to‐face meeting on July 13, 2012 in Vancouver, Canada, prior to the Alzheimer's Association International Conference.

Background and purposeThe European Federation of the Neurological Societies (EFNS) guidelines on the use of neuroimaging in the diagnosis and management of dementia are designed to revise and expand previous EFNS recommendations for the diagnosis and management of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and to provide an overview of the evidence for the use of neuroimaging techniques in non‐AD dementias, as well as general recommendations that apply to all types of dementia in clinical practice.MethodsThe task force working group reviewed evidence from original research articles, meta‐analyses and systematic reviews, published before April 2012. The evidence was classified, and consensus recommendations were given and graded according to the EFNS guidance regulations.ResultsStructural imaging, which should be performed at least once in the diagnostic work‐up of patients with cognitive impairment, serves to exclude other potentially treatable diseases, to recognize vascular lesions and to identify specific findings to help distinguish different forms of neurodegenerative types of dementia. Although typical cases of dementia may not benefit from routine functional imaging, these tools are recommended in those cases where diagnosis remains in doubt after clinical and structural imaging work‐up and in particular clinical settings. Amyloid imaging is likely to find clinical utility in several fields, including the stratification of patients with mild cognitive impairment into those with and without underlying AD and the evaluation of atypical AD presentations.ConclusionsA number of recommendations and good practice points are made to improve the diagnosis of AD and other dementias.

BackgroundThe promise of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers has led to their incorporation in new diagnostic criteria and in therapeutic trials; however, significant barriers exist to widespread use. Chief among these is the lack of internationally accepted standards for quantitative metrics. Hippocampal volumetry is the most widely studied quantitative magnetic resonance imaging measure in Alzheimer's disease and thus represents the most rational target for an initial effort at standardization.Methods and ResultsThe authors of this position paper propose a path toward this goal. The steps include the following: (1) Establish and empower an oversight board to manage and assess the effort, (2) adopt the standardized definition of anatomic hippocampal boundaries on magnetic resonance imaging arising from the European Alzheimer's Disease Centers–Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative hippocampal harmonization effort as a reference standard, (3) establish a scientifically appropriate, publicly available reference standard data set based on manual delineation of the hippocampus in an appropriate sample of subjects (Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative), and (4) define minimum technical and prognostic performance metrics for validation of new measurement techniques using the reference standard data set as a benchmark.ConclusionsAlthough manual delineation of the hippocampus is the best available reference standard, practical application of hippocampal volumetry will require automated methods. Our intent was to establish a mechanism for credentialing automated software applications to achieve internationally recognized accuracy and prognostic performance standards that lead to the systematic evaluation and then widespread acceptance and use of hippocampal volumetry. The standardization and assay validation process outlined for hippocampal volumetry was envisioned as a template that could be applied to other imaging biomarkers.

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all‐cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.

Background Different cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid-beta 1–42 (A β 1–42 ), total Tau (Tau) and Tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (P-Tau) levels are reported, but currently there is a lack of quality control programmes. The aim of this study was to compare the measurements of these CSF biomarkers, between and within centres. Methods Three CSF-pool samples were distributed to 13 laboratories in 2004 and the same samples were again distributed to 18 laboratories in 2008. In 2004 six laboratories measured A β 1–42 , Tau and P-Tau and seven laboratories measured one or two of these marker(s) by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). In 2008, 12 laboratories measured all three markers, three laboratories measured one or two marker(s) by ELISAs and three laboratories measured the markers by Luminex. Results In 2004, the ELISA intercentre coefficients of variance (interCV) were 31%, 21% and 13% for A β 1–42 , Tau and P-Tau, respectively. These were 37%, 16% and 15%, respectively, in 2008. When we restricted the analysis to the Innotest ® ( N = 13) for A β 1–42 , lower interCV were calculated (22%). The centres that participated in both years ( N = 9) showed interCVs of 21%, 15% and 9% and intra-centre coefficients (intraCV) of variance of 25%,18% and 7% in 2008. Conclusions The highest variability was found for A β 1–42 . The variabilities for Tau and P-Tau were lower in both years. The centres that participated in both years showed a high intraCV comparable to their interCV, indicating that there is not only a high variation between but also within centres. Besides a uniform standardization of (pre)analytical procedures, the same assay should be used to decrease the inter/intracentre variation.