Citations

Abstract Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is a clear, transparent fluid derived from blood plasma that protects the brain and spinal cord against mechanical shock, provides buoyancy, clears metabolic waste and transports extracellular components to remote sites in the brain. Given its contact with the brain and the spinal cord, CSF is the most informative biofluid for studies of the central nervous system (CNS). In addition to other components, CSF contains extracellular vesicles (EVs) that carry bioactive cargoes (e.g., lipids, nucleic acids, proteins), and that can have biological functions within and beyond the CNS. Thus, CSF EVs likely serve as both mediators of and contributors to communication in the CNS. Accordingly, their potential as biomarkers for CNS diseases has stimulated much excitement for and attention to CSF EV research. However, studies on CSF EVs present unique challenges relative to EV studies in other biofluids, including the invasive nature of CSF collection, limited CSF volumes and the low numbers of EVs in CSF as compared to plasma. Here, the objectives of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles CSF Task Force are to promote the reproducibility of CSF EV studies by providing current reporting and best practices, and recommendations and reporting guidelines, for CSF EV studies. To accomplish this, we created and distributed a world‐wide survey to ISEV members to assess methods considered ‘best practices’ for CSF EVs, then performed a detailed literature review for CSF EV publications that was used to curate methods and resources. Based on responses to the survey and curated information from publications, the CSF Task Force herein provides recommendations and reporting guidelines to promote the reproducibility of CSF EV studies in seven domains: (i) CSF Collection, Processing, and Storage; (ii) CSF EV Separation/Concentration; (iii) CSF EV Size and Number Measurements; (iv) CSF EV Protein Studies; (v) CSF EV RNA Studies; (vi) CSF EV Omics Studies and (vii) CSF EV Functional Studies.

AbstractBackgroundNo specific clinical rating scale currently exists for Lewy body dementia (LBD). Clinical rating scales developed for other diseases are therefore used instead for LBD clinical trials. However, these scales are not optimized for LBD and may not sufficiently reflect the complex array of LBD‐related phenomenology, making it more difficult to interpret outcome data from LBD clinical trials.MethodA working group comprised of 14 members bridging various international LBD‐focused research groups was convened to develop the first iteration of the LBD‐DRS with a focus on inclusion of key LBD related symptom domains, ensuring that any scale is mapped to regulatory expectations, and an emphasis on being patient‐centered. This draft was then subsequently presented to a broader stakeholder group (»50 participants) at the International Lewy body Dementia Conference in June 2022 for further feedback, leading to a further iteration of the scale.ResultThe LBD‐DRS has been designed to capture ratings of the frequency and severity of symptoms across the key domains relevant to LBD – cognitive, neuropsychiatric, motor, autonomic and sleep – as well as the functional impact and perceived burden of symptoms for patients and their care partners. An international Delphi exercise is now planned with many LBD‐relevant stakeholders, which will be coupled with workgroup engagement (for example, with patient‐caregiver groups) to further develop the scale with the resulting final draft anticipated for pilot use in the near future.ConclusionsIn this presentation we will elaborate on the development of the scale, key areas that it will cover as well as challenge points and next steps. Upon completion of the development and refinement of the LBD‐DRS, we propose that this scale will have utility as valid and LBD specific outcome measure in LBD clinical trials.

ImportanceIncreased white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume is a common magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) finding in both autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease (ADAD) and late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD), but it remains unclear whether increased WMH along the AD continuum is reflective of AD-intrinsic processes or secondary to elevated systemic vascular risk factors.ObjectiveTo estimate the associations of neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis with WMH accumulation and investigate whether systemic vascular risk is associated with WMH beyond these AD-intrinsic processes.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used data from 3 longitudinal cohort studies conducted in tertiary and community-based medical centers—the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN; February 2010 to March 2020), the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI; July 2007 to September 2021), and the Harvard Aging Brain Study (HABS; September 2010 to December 2019).Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcomes were the independent associations of neurodegeneration (decreases in gray matter volume), parenchymal amyloidosis (assessed by amyloid positron emission tomography), and vessel amyloidosis (evidenced by cerebral microbleeds [CMBs]) with cross-sectional and longitudinal WMH.ResultsData from 3960 MRI sessions among 1141 participants were included: 252 pathogenic variant carriers from DIAN (mean [SD] age, 38.4 [11.2] years; 137 [54%] female), 571 older adults from ADNI (mean [SD] age, 72.8 [7.3] years; 274 [48%] female), and 318 older adults from HABS (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [7.6] years; 194 [61%] female). Longitudinal increases in WMH volume were greater in individuals with CMBs compared with those without (DIAN: t = 3.2 [P = .001]; ADNI: t = 2.7 [P = .008]), associated with longitudinal decreases in gray matter volume (DIAN: t = −3.1 [P = .002]; ADNI: t = −5.6 [P < .001]; HABS: t = −2.2 [P = .03]), greater in older individuals (DIAN: t = 6.8 [P < .001]; ADNI: t = 9.1 [P < .001]; HABS: t = 5.4 [P < .001]), and not associated with systemic vascular risk (DIAN: t = 0.7 [P = .40]; ADNI: t = 0.6 [P = .50]; HABS: t = 1.8 [P = .06]) in individuals with ADAD and LOAD after accounting for age, gray matter volume, CMB presence, and amyloid burden. In older adults without CMBs at baseline, greater WMH volume was associated with CMB development during longitudinal follow-up (Cox proportional hazards regression model hazard ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.72-4.03; P < .001).Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings suggest that increased WMH volume in AD is associated with neurodegeneration and parenchymal and vessel amyloidosis but not with elevated systemic vascular risk. Additionally, increased WMH volume may represent an early sign of vessel amyloidosis preceding the emergence of CMBs.

Introduction: Lewy body dementia (LBD) is common, yet under-recognized and under-researched. To plan studies with the highest impact, engagement of the community personally affected by these conditions is essential. Methods: A web-based survey of people living with LBD and current and former caregivers of people with LBD queried research priorities through forced ranking and exploration of burden of LBD symptoms. Specific caregiving needs in LBD and perceptions of research participation were also investigated. Results: Between April 7, 2021 and July 1, 2021, 984 responses were recorded. Top research priorities included disease-modifying therapies and improved disease detection and staging. People with LBD were interested in pathophysiology and more bothered by motor symptoms; caregivers were interested in risk factors and symptomatic therapies and more bothered by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Few available LBD treatments and resources were rated as helpful, and many valuable services were never received. Previous participation in LBD research was infrequent, but interest was high. Discussion: People with LBD and caregivers highlighted the need for research across all aspects of LBD, from pathophysiology and disease modification to prognosis, education, symptomatic treatments, and caregiver support. Funders should increase support for all aspects of LBD research to target the many needs identified by individuals and families living with LBD.

Abstract The regulatory path for drug approval is increasingly well defined. Drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) need to show statistically significant benefit over placebo with respect to cognitive and functional measures, with the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale being among the most often used instruments in AD clinical trials. In contrast, there are no validated instruments for use in clinical trials of drugs for the treatment of dementia with Lewy bodies. This poses challenges for drug development because the regulatory pathway to drug approval requires demonstrable efficacy measures. In December 2021, the Lewy Body Dementia Association advisory group met with representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss the lack of approved drugs and treatments, discernment of efficacy measures, and identification of biomarkers. Highlights The Lewy Body with Dementia Association convened a listening session with the US Food and Drug Administration on dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and clinical trial design. Gaps include DLB‐specific measures, alpha synuclein biomarkers, and coexisting pathologies. DLB clinical trial design should focus on clinical value and disease specificity.

Introduction: In 2015, the US Alzheimer’s Disease Centers (ADC) implemented Version 3 of the Uniform Data Set (UDS). This paper describes the history of Version 3 development and the UDS data that are freely available to researchers. Methods: UDS Version 3 was developed after years of coordination between the National Institute on Aging-appointed Clinical Task Force (CTF), clinicians from ∼30 ADCs, and the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center (NACC). The CTF recognized the need for updates to align with the state of the science in dementia research, while being flexible to the diverse needs and diseases studied at the ADCs. Version 3 also developed a nonproprietary neuropsychological battery. Results: This paper focuses on the substantial Version 3 changes to the UDS forms related to clinical diagnosis and characterization of clinical symptoms to match updated consensus-based diagnostic criteria. Between March 2015 and March 2018, 4820 participants were enrolled using UDS Version 3. Longitudinal data were available for 25,337 of the 37,568 total participants using all UDS versions. Discussion: The results from utilization of the UDS highlight the possibility for numerous research institutions to successfully collaborate, produce, and use standardized data collection instruments for over a decade.