Citations

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.

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

Introduction/Objectives: We aimed to investigate the effect of family structure on depression program outcomes for adolescents enrolled in a depression-focused, primary care-based collaborative care program. Methods: This was a retrospective study of primary care patients ages 12 to 18 years seen at a Midwestern academic center with data obtained by medical record review. We used logistic regression models to assess the effect of family structure on program graduation and achievement of a single Patient Health Questionnaire 9–Modified for Adolescents (PHQ-9M) score <5 at any time while enrolled. Results: Adolescents were divided into 2 groups, Both Parents in Household (n = 179) and Parents Not Together (n = 161). The Both Parents in Household group had higher rates of graduation (38.0% vs 23.6%, P = .005) and achieving single PHQ-9M scores <5 (64.1% vs 46.2%, P = .002) than the Parents Not Together group. Discussion: Youth residing with both parents had higher rates of successful outcomes in a depression-focused collaborative care program.