Carrillo, María C.

Abstract Introduction The overall goal of the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) is to validate biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. ADNI is a multisite, longitudinal, observational study that has collected many biomarkers since 2004. Recent publications highlight the multifactorial nature of late‐onset AD. We discuss selected topics that provide insights into AD progression and outline how this knowledge may improve clinical trials. Methods We used standard methods to identify nearly 600 publications using ADNI data from 2016 and 2017 (listed in Supplementary Material and searchable at http://adni.loni.usc.edu/news‐publications/publications/ ). Results (1) Data‐driven AD progression models supported multifactorial interactions rather than a linear cascade of events. (2) β‐Amyloid (Aβ) deposition occurred concurrently with functional connectivity changes within the default mode network in preclinical subjects and was followed by specific and progressive disconnection of functional and anatomical networks. (3) Changes in functional connectivity, volumetric measures, regional hypometabolism, and cognition were detectable at subthreshold levels of Aβ deposition. 4. Tau positron emission tomography imaging studies detailed a specific temporal and spatial pattern of tau pathology dependent on prior Aβ deposition, and related to subsequent cognitive decline. 5. Clustering studies using a wide range of modalities consistently identified a “typical AD” subgroup and a second subgroup characterized by executive impairment and widespread cortical atrophy in preclinical and prodromal subjects. 6. Vascular pathology burden may act through both Aβ dependent and independent mechanisms to exacerbate AD progression. 7. The APOE ε4 allele interacted with cerebrovascular disease to impede Aβ clearance mechanisms. 8. Genetic approaches identified novel genetic risk factors involving a wide range of processes, and demonstrated shared genetic risk for AD and vascular disorders, as well as the temporal and regional pathological associations of established AD risk alleles. 9. Knowledge of early pathological changes guided the development of novel prognostic biomarkers for preclinical subjects. 10. Placebo populations of randomized controlled clinical trials had highly variable trajectories of cognitive change, underscoring the importance of subject selection and monitoring. 11. Selection criteria based on Aβ positivity, hippocampal volume, baseline cognitive/functional measures, and APOE ε4 status in combination with improved cognitive outcome measures were projected to decrease clinical trial duration and cost. 12. Multiple concurrent therapies targeting vascular health and other AD pathology in addition to Aβ may be more effective than single therapies. Discussion ADNI publications from 2016 and 2017 supported the idea of AD as a multifactorial disease and provided insights into the complexities of AD disease progression. These findings guided the development of novel biomarkers and suggested that subject selection on the basis of multiple factors may lower AD clinical trial costs and duration. The use of multiple concurrent therapies in these trials may prove more effective in reversing AD disease progression.

AbstractThe Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable met in November 2017 to explore the new National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association Research Framework for Alzheimer's disease. The meeting allowed experts in the field from academia, industry, and government to provide perspectives on the new National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association Research Framework. This review will summarize the “A, T, N System” (Amyloid, Tau, and Neurodegeneration) using biomarkers and how this may be applied to clinical research and drug development. In addition, challenges and barriers to the potential adoption of this new framework will be discussed. Finally, future directions for research will be proposed.

Abstract In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six‐stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker‐based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker‐based research should not be considered a template for all research into age‐related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β‐amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

Abstract The Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable met in November 2016 to explore how best to measure changes in cognition and function in the preclinical stage of Alzheimer's disease. This review will cover the tools and instruments currently available to identify populations for prevention trials, and measure subtle disease progression in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease, and will include discussions of suitable cognitive, behavioral, functional, composite, and biological endpoints for prevention trials. Current prevention trials are reviewed including TOMMOROW, Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Autosomal Dominant Alzheimer's Disease Trial, the Alzheimer's Prevention Initiative Generation Study, and the Anti‐Amyloid Treatment in Asymptomatic Alzheimer's to compare current approaches and tools that are being developed.

In the history of medicine, one means to progress is when we make the decision that our assumptions and definitions of disease are no longer consistent with the scientific evidence, and no longer serve our health care needs. The arc of scientific progress is now requiring a change in how we diagnose Alzheimer's disease. Both the National Institute on Aging—Alzheimer's Association (NIA‐AA) 2011 workgroup and the International Work Group (IWG) have proposed guidelines that use detectable measures of biological changes in the brain, commonly known as biological markers, or biomarkers, as part of the diagnosis. This Special Report examines how the development and validation of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers—including those detectable in the blood or cerebral spinal fluid, or through neuroimaging—is a top research priority. This has the potential to markedly change how we diagnose Alzheimer's disease and, as a result, how we count the number of people with this disease. As research advances a biomarker‐based method for diagnosis and treatment at the earliest stages of Alzheimer's disease, we envision a future in which Alzheimer's disease is placed in the same category as other chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes, which can be readily identified with biomarkers and treated before irrevocable disability occurs.