Gatchel, Jennifer R.

Abstract Background Cognitive impairment often goes undetected by clinicians due to time constraints, limited expertise, and lack of standardized tools. Structured cognitive assessments improve detection accuracy compared to unstructured clinical judgment. In 2013, the Alzheimer’s Association published recommendations to help primary care clinicians incorporate cognitive assessments into the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Since then, advances in cognitive assessment tools, availability of disease‐modifying therapies, and shifting expectations around early diagnosis have highlighted the need for updated guidance. In response, the Alzheimer’s Association is developing an evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for cognitive testing in primary care, using the GRADE approach, informed by a systematic review of the best available evidence. Method A multidisciplinary panel formulated a clinical question to inform the development of this guideline. A systematic review was conducted (search range: 1999‐2024) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ten cognitive tests (5‐Cog, AD8, GPCOG, IQCODE, Mini‐Cog, MIS, MoCA, QDRS, RUDAS, and SLUMS) for the early detection of cognitive impairment (including MCI and dementia), in adults aged 55+ in ambulatory settings. The panel also narratively summarized data on emerging digital tools. Result Forty‐one studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review. Results were analyzed separately by test (including short‐IQCODE and short‐MoCA) and for primary care and for ambulatory clinic settings (e.g., neurology, memory disorder clinics), as well as for English and Spanish language, resulting in 21 separate analyses. Only three analyses, all related to MoCA, allowed for meta‐analysis. The panel will use the evidence to inform conditional recommendations for or against each specific test. Conclusion By evaluating the diagnostic performance of selected tests, this guideline aims to support healthcare professionals in primary care settings in effective triaging of individuals who may benefit from further cognitive evaluation. To enhance real‐world applicability, considerations such as administration time, ease of scoring, and diagnostic accuracy ‐ along with appropriate cut‐offs by race/ethnicity, education, and language ‐ should be prioritized. This guideline will be regularly updated over time to reflect emerging evidence and the needs of diverse populations.

Importance Tau positron emission tomography (PET) allows in vivo detection of neurofibrillary tangles, a core neuropathologic feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective To provide estimates of the frequency of tau PET positivity and its associated risk of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal study using data pooled from 21 cohorts, comprising a convenience sample of 6514 participants from 13 countries, collected between January 2013 and June 2024. Cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD dementia, or other neurodegenerative disorders were included. Exposures Tau PET with flortaucipir F 18, amyloid-β (Aβ) PET, and clinical examinations. Tau PET scans were visually rated as positive according to a US Food and Drug Administration– and European Medicines Agency–approved method, designed to indicate the presence of advanced neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stages V-VI). Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency of tau PET positivity and absolute risk of clinical progression (eg, progression to MCI or dementia). Results Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. Of 3487 cognitively unimpaired participants, 349 (9.8%) were tau PET positive; the estimated frequency of tau PET positivity was less than 1% in those aged younger than 50 years, and increased from 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) at 60 years to 19% (95% CI, 16%-24%) at 90 years. Tau PET positivity frequency estimates increased across MCI and AD dementia clinical diagnoses (43% [95% CI, 41%-46%] and 79% [95% CI, 77%-82%] at 75 years, respectively). Most tau PET–positive individuals (92%) were also Aβ PET positive. Cognitively unimpaired participants who were positive for both Aβ PET and tau PET had a higher absolute risk of progression to MCI or dementia over the following 5 years (57% [95% CI, 45%-71%]) compared with both Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–negative (17% [95% CI, 13%-22%]) and Aβ PET–negative/tau PET–negative (6% [95% CI, 5%-8%]) individuals. Among participants with MCI at the time of the tau PET scan, an Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–positive profile was associated with a 5-year absolute risk of progression to dementia of 70% (95% CI, 59%-81%). Conclusions and Relevance In a large convenience sample, a positive tau PET scan occurred at a nonnegligible rate among cognitively unimpaired individuals, and the combination of Aβ PET positivity and tau PET positivity was associated with a high risk of clinical progression in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of AD. These findings underscore the potential of tau PET as a biomarker for staging AD pathology.

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Psychotic phenomena are among the most severe and disruptive symptoms of dementias and appear in 30% to 50% of patients. They are associated with a worse evolution and great suffering to patients and caregivers. Their current treatments obtain limited results and are not free of adverse effects, which are sometimes serious. It is therefore crucial to develop new treatments that can improve this situation. We review available data that could enlighten the future design of clinical trials with psychosis in dementia as main target. Along with an explanation of its prevalence in the common diseases that cause dementia, we present proposals aimed at improving the definition of symptoms and what should be included and excluded in clinical trials. A review of the available information regarding the neurobiological basis of symptoms, in terms of pathology, neuroimaging, and genomics, is provided as a guide towards new therapeutic targets. The correct evaluation of symptoms is transcendental in any therapeutic trial and these aspects are extensively addressed. Finally, a critical overview of existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments is made, revealing the unmet needs, in terms of efficacy and safety. Our work emphasizes the need for better definition and measurement of psychotic symptoms in dementias in order to highlight their differences with symptoms that appear in non-dementing diseases such as schizophrenia. Advances in neurobiology should illuminate the development of new, more effective and safer molecules for which this review can serve as a roadmap in the design of future clinical trials.