Dubois, Bruno

Importance Depressive symptoms are associated with cognitive decline in older individuals. Uncertainty about underlying mechanisms hampers diagnostic and therapeutic efforts. This large-scale study aimed to elucidate the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology. Objective To examine the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology and its dependency on age, sex, education, and APOE genotype in older individuals without dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional analyses were performed using data from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. Data from 49 research, population-based, and memory clinic studies were pooled and harmonized. The Amyloid Biomarker Study has been collecting data since 2012 and data collection is ongoing. At the time of analysis, 95 centers were included in the Amyloid Biomarker Study. The study included 9746 individuals with normal cognition (NC) and 3023 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) aged between 34 and 100 years for whom data on amyloid biomarkers, presence of depressive symptoms, and age were available. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Amyloid-β1-42 levels in cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid positron emission tomography scans were used to determine presence or absence of amyloid pathology. Presence of depressive symptoms was determined on the basis of validated depression rating scale scores, evidence of a current clinical diagnosis of depression, or self-reported depressive symptoms. Results In individuals with NC (mean [SD] age, 68.6 [8.9] years; 5664 [58.2%] female; 3002 [34.0%] APOE ε4 carriers; 937 [9.6%] had depressive symptoms; 2648 [27.2%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was not associated with amyloid pathology (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.40; P = .29). In individuals with MCI (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.7] years; 1481 [49.0%] female; 1046 [44.8%] APOE ε4 carriers; 824 [27.3%] had depressive symptoms; 1668 [55.8%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology (OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = .001). When considering subgroup effects, in individuals with NC, the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in APOE ε4 noncarriers (mean difference, 5.0%; 95% CI 1.0-9.0; P = .02) but not in APOE ε4 carriers. This was not the case in individuals with MCI. Conclusions and Relevance Depressive symptoms were not consistently associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in participants with NC and were associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology in participants with MCI. These findings were not influenced by age, sex, or education level. Mechanisms other than amyloid accumulation may commonly underlie depressive symptoms in late life.

Abstract Introduction A classification framework for posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) is proposed to improve the uniformity of definition of the syndrome in a variety of research settings. Methods Consensus statements about PCA were developed through a detailed literature review, the formation of an international multidisciplinary working party which convened on four occasions, and a Web‐based quantitative survey regarding symptom frequency and the conceptualization of PCA. Results A three‐level classification framework for PCA is described comprising both syndrome‐ and disease‐level descriptions. Classification level 1 (PCA) defines the core clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging features and exclusion criteria of the clinico‐radiological syndrome. Classification level 2 (PCA‐pure, PCA‐plus) establishes whether, in addition to the core PCA syndrome, the core features of any other neurodegenerative syndromes are present. Classification level 3 (PCA attributable to AD [PCA‐AD], Lewy body disease [PCA‐LBD], corticobasal degeneration [PCA‐CBD], prion disease [PCA‐prion]) provides a more formal determination of the underlying cause of the PCA syndrome, based on available pathophysiological biomarker evidence. The issue of additional syndrome‐level descriptors is discussed in relation to the challenges of defining stages of syndrome severity and characterizing phenotypic heterogeneity within the PCA spectrum. Discussion There was strong agreement regarding the definition of the core clinico‐radiological syndrome, meaning that the current consensus statement should be regarded as a refinement, development, and extension of previous single‐center PCA criteria rather than any wholesale alteration or redescription of the syndrome. The framework and terminology may facilitate the interpretation of research data across studies, be applicable across a broad range of research scenarios (e.g., behavioral interventions, pharmacological trials), and provide a foundation for future collaborative work.

ABSTRACT This article describes research criteria and probability methodology for the diagnosis of prodromal PD. Prodromal disease refers to the stage wherein early symptoms or signs of PD neurodegeneration are present, but classic clinical diagnosis based on fully evolved motor parkinsonism is not yet possible. Given the lack of clear neuroprotective/disease‐modifying therapy for prodromal PD, these criteria were developed for research purposes only. The criteria are based upon the likelihood of prodromal disease being present with probable prodromal PD defined as ≥80% certainty. Certainty estimates rely upon calculation of an individual's risk of having prodromal PD, using a Bayesian naïve classifier. In this methodology, a previous probability of prodromal disease is delineated based upon age. Then, the probability of prodromal PD is calculated by adding diagnostic information, expressed as likelihood ratios. This diagnostic information combines estimates of background risk (from environmental risk factors and genetic findings) and results of diagnostic marker testing. In order to be included, diagnostic markers had to have prospective evidence documenting ability to predict clinical PD. They include motor and nonmotor clinical symptoms, clinical signs, and ancillary diagnostic tests. These criteria represent a first step in the formal delineation of early stages of PD and will require constant updating as more information becomes available. © 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

AbstractThis document presents the Movement Disorder Society Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's disease (PD). The Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research but also may be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark for these criteria is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise in PD diagnosis. Although motor abnormalities remain central, increasing recognition has been given to nonmotor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core feature of the disease, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies on three categories of diagnostic features: absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of the PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: clinically established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity) and probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). The Movement Disorder Society criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, the Movement Disorder Society criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances. © 2015 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society