Lista, Simone

Abstract Background Donepezil is an approved therapy for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Results across clinical trials have been inconsistent, which may be explained by design-methodological issues, the pathophysiological heterogeneity of AD, and diversity of included study participants. We investigated whether response to Donepezil differs in mild cognitive impaired (MCI) individuals demonstrating different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) subtypes. Methods From the Hippocampus Study double-blind, randomized clinical trial, we included 173 MCI individuals (donepezil = 83; placebo = 90) with structural MRI data, at baseline and at clinical follow-up assessments (6-12-month). Efficacy outcomes were the annualized percentage change (APC) in hippocampal, ventricular, and total grey matter volumes, as well as in the AD cortical thickness signature. Participants were classified into MRI subtypes as typical-AD, limbic-predominant, hippocampal-sparing, or minimal atrophy at baseline. We compared two subtyping approaches: the conventional categorical approach and an approach based on continuous dimensions. Results Donepezil treated MCI individuals showed slower atrophy rates compared to the placebo group, but only if they belonged to the minimal atrophy or hippocampal sparing subtypes. Importantly, only the continuous subtyping approach, but not the conventional categorical approach, captured this differential response. Conclusions Our data suggest that individuals with MCI, with hippocampal sparing or minimal atrophy subtype, may have improved benefit from donepezil, as compared with MCI individuals with typical or limbic predominant patterns of atrophy. The newly proposed continuous subtyping approach may have advantages compared to the conventional categorical approach. Future research is warranted to demonstrate the potential of subtype stratification for disease prognosis and response to treatment. Trial registration: Clinical Trial.gov Number: NCT00403520, Submission Date: November 21, 2006.

AbstractThe last decade has seen a substantial increase in research focused on the identification of blood‐based biomarkers that have utility in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Blood‐based biomarkers have significant advantages of being time‐ and cost‐efficient as well as reduced invasiveness and increased patient acceptance. Despite these advantages and increased research efforts, the field has been hampered by lack of reproducibility and an unclear path for moving basic discovery toward clinical utilization. Here we reviewed the recent literature on blood‐based biomarkers in AD to provide a current state of the art. In addition, a collaborative model is proposed that leverages academic and industry strengths to facilitate the field in moving past discovery only work and toward clinical use. Key resources are provided. This new public‐private partnership model is intended to circumvent the traditional handoff model and provide a clear and useful paradigm for the advancement of biomarker science in AD and other neurodegenerative diseases.

Abstract During the past decade, a conceptual shift occurred in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) considering the disease as a continuum. Thanks to evolving biomarker research and substantial discoveries, it is now possible to identify the disease even at the preclinical stage before the occurrence of the first clinical symptoms. This preclinical stage of AD has become a major research focus as the field postulates that early intervention may offer the best chance of therapeutic success. To date, very little evidence is established on this “silent” stage of the disease. A clarification is needed about the definitions and lexicon, the limits, the natural history, the markers of progression, and the ethical consequence of detecting the disease at this asymptomatic stage. This article is aimed at addressing all the different issues by providing for each of them an updated review of the literature and evidence, with practical recommendations.

AbstractIntroductionThis study investigated the comparability of potential Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers across blood fractions and assay platforms.MethodsNonfasting serum and plasma samples from 300 participants (150 AD patients and 150 controls) were analyzed. Proteomic markers were obtained via electrochemiluminescence or Luminex technology. Comparisons were conducted via Pearson correlations. The relative importance of proteins within an AD diagnostic profile was examined using random forest importance plots.ResultsOn the Meso Scale Discovery multiplex platform, 10 of the 21 markers shared >50% of the variance across blood fractions (serum amyloid A R2 = 0.99, interleukin (IL)10 R2 = 0.95, fatty acid‐binding protein (FABP) R2 = 0.94, I309 R2 = 0.94, IL‐5 R2 = 0.94, IL‐6 R2 = 0.94, eotaxin3 R2 = 0.91, IL‐18 R2 = 0.87, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 R2 = 0.85, and pancreatic polypeptide R2 = 0.81). When examining protein concentrations across platforms, only five markers shared >50% of the variance (beta 2 microglobulin R2 = 0.92, IL‐18 R2 = 0.80, factor VII R2 = 0.78, CRP R2 = 0.74, and FABP R2 = 0.70).DiscussionThe current findings highlight the importance of considering blood fractions and assay platforms when searching for AD relevant biomarkers.

Abstract The lack of readily available biomarkers is a significant hindrance toward progressing to effective therapeutic and preventative strategies for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Blood‐based biomarkers have potential to overcome access and cost barriers and greatly facilitate advanced neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker approaches. Despite the fact that preanalytical processing is the largest source of variability in laboratory testing, there are no currently available standardized preanalytical guidelines. The current international working group provides the initial starting point for such guidelines for standardized operating procedures (SOPs). It is anticipated that these guidelines will be updated as additional research findings become available. The statement provides (1) a synopsis of selected preanalytical methods utilized in many international AD cohort studies, (2) initial draft guidelines/SOPs for preanalytical methods, and (3) a list of required methodological information and protocols to be made available for publications in the field to foster cross‐validation across cohorts and laboratories.