Citations

Acute lung injury affects a subset of hospitalized patients but is not universal. This syndrome can substantially delay ventilator liberation, prolong intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and increase mortality. As with many critical illness syndromes, the available treatment options are limited in number and impact. Once a patient develops lung injury, the best known strategy is supportive care. Observational studies have identified potential risk factors and have suggested that the use and timing of certain critical care interventions may influence the likelihood of developing lung injury. These findings suggest that a well designed screening tool and the systematic application of best practices in critical care may limit the risk of lung injury. An effective prediction score may also facilitate enrollment in pharmacopreventive trials. Development of such tools is accelerated by multicenter collaboration.

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.

Better tools for assessing cognitive impairment in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are required to enable diagnosis of the disease before substantial neurodegeneration has taken place and to allow for detection of subtle changes in the early stages of progression of the disease. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened a meeting to discuss state‐of‐the art methods for cognitive assessment, including computerized batteries, as well as new approaches in the pipeline. Speakers described research using novel tests of object recognition, spatial navigation, attentional control, semantic memory, semantic interference, prospective memory, false memory, and executive function as among the tools that could provide earlier identification of individuals with AD. In addition to early detection, there is a need for assessments that reflect real‐world situations so as to better assess functional disability. It is especially important to develop assessment tools that are useful in ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse populations as well as in individuals with neurodegenerative disease other than AD.

The demand for rapidly administered, sensitive, and reliable cognitive assessments that are specifically designed for identifying individuals in the earliest stages of cognitive decline (and to measure subtle change over time) has escalated as the emphasis in Alzheimer's disease clinical research has shifted from clinical diagnosis and treatment toward the goal of developing presymptomatic neuroprotective therapies. To meet these changing clinical requirements, cognitive measures or tailored batteries of tests must be validated and determined to be fit‐for‐use for the discrimination between cognitively healthy individuals and persons who are experiencing very subtle cognitive changes that likely signal the emergence of early mild cognitive impairment. We sought to collect and review data systematically from a wide variety of (mostly computer‐administered) cognitive measures, all of which are currently marketed or distributed with the claims that these instruments are sensitive and reliable for the early identification of disease or, if untested for this purpose, are promising tools based on other variables. The survey responses for 16 measures/batteries are presented in brief in this review; full survey responses and summary tables are archived and publicly available on the Campaign to Prevent Alzheimer's Disease by 2020 Web site (http://pad2020.org). A decision tree diagram highlighting critical decision points for selecting measures to meet varying clinical trials requirements has also been provided. Ultimately, the survey questionnaire, framework, and decision guidelines provided in this review should remain as useful aids for the evaluation of any new or updated sets of instruments in the years to come.