Mahinrad, Simin

Importance Multidomain lifestyle interventions slow cognitive decline in at-risk older adults, but effects on cerebrovascular injury and whether any effect differs by age or across magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers remain unclear. Objectives To test whether a structured multidomain lifestyle intervention, vs a self-guided program, alters trajectories of cerebrovascular MRI markers and whether baseline diffusion MRI estimates subsequent vascular injury. Design, Setting, and Participants POINTER Imaging was a prespecified secondary imaging analysis of the US POINTER (US Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk) randomized clinical trial conducted at multiple US sites. Starting August 1, 2020, and continuing until March 1, 2023, all newly enrolled US POINTER trial participants who met criteria, including being 60 to 79 years of age and at increased risk for cognitive decline, were given the opportunity to enroll in POINTER Imaging. Annual MRIs were performed at baseline and up to 2 follow-up visits at 12 and 24 months. The imaging study ended May 14, 2025. Interventions Structured multidomain lifestyle arm (supervised exercise, dietary counseling, cognitive and social engagement, and health coaching) vs self-guided educational arm. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were cerebrovascular MRI markers of global white matter free water (FW), fractional anisotropy (FA), peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD), analysis along the perivascular space (ALPS) index, white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, and incident cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). Age-group analyses (<70 vs ≥70 years) were prespecified. Linear mixed-effects models tested time, intervention arm, age group, and interactions for continuous outcomes; logistic regression evaluated incident CMBs. All analyses were adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking and were conducted for the evaluable population. Data were analyzed September 5 to December 11, 2025. Results For 959 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 68 (5) years, and 594 (61.9%) were female. A significant time × arm × age group interaction was observed for FW (β = 0.050; SE = 0.018; P = .006). In participants younger than 70 years, the structured intervention, compared with the self-guided intervention, attenuated the FW increase over time (β = −0.031; SE = 0.012; P = .009); no intervention arm difference was observed in participants aged 70 years or older (β = 0.019; SE = 0.014; P = .18). No intervention-related interactions were detected (eg, time × intervention arm interaction) for WMH (β = 0.002; SE = 0.016; P = .90), FA (β = 0.016; SE = 0.016; P = .30), PSMD (β = −0.011; SE = 0.021; P = .60), or ALPS (β = 0.006; SE = 0.021; P = .79). Overall, greater odds of incident CMBs were associated with higher baseline FW (odds ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.24-2.14]; P < .001) and PSMD (odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.81]; P < .001). Greater WMH progression was associated with higher baseline FW (β = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .02) and lower baseline FA (β = −0.018; SE = 0.006; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary imaging analysis of a randomized clinical trial, FW was the cerebrovascular MRI marker most responsive to lifestyle intervention in adults 60 to 70 years of age, showing attenuated small-vessel disease–related injury. Findings suggested greater microvascular benefit when intensive lifestyle intervention is implemented earlier in late life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688126

Abstract The Tau Global Conference 2025, hosted by the Alzheimer's Association, CurePSP, and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, convened international experts from academia, industry, government, and philanthropy to explore advances and challenges in tauopathy research. The meeting highlighted progress across tau biology, including emerging models of tau regulation, degradation, and propagation; advances in biomarker development for the diagnosis and staging of tauopathies; and evolving therapeutic strategies targeting diverse aspects of tau pathophysiology. Discussions also emphasized the importance of cross‐sector collaboration, and global initiatives to address disparities in tau research. This report synthesizes key insights from the conference and underscores the critical role of interdisciplinary, biomarker‐driven, and globally inclusive approaches in accelerating the translation of tau research into effective clinical applications.

Abstract Since 2016, the Alzheimer's Association and the Fondation Alzheimer have hosted Global Alzheimer's Leadership Series (GoALS) global think tanks, with world‐leading experts for innovative discussions to advance Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care. The second GoALS think tank, held in June 2024 in Paris, focused on the relationship between biological changes and clinical manifestations of AD in the context of the evolving therapeutic landscape. Discussions spanned real‐world experiences of providers, patients, and their families, theoretical considerations, and health system challenges. The lived experience perspective was central to these discussions. The importance of shared decision‐making, clear and transparent communication, and the need for real‐world data to holistically support patients during their experiences were highlighted. This manuscript shares key insights from both the think tank meeting in Paris and a featured research session at the 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference that expanded the discussion themes for broader dissemination with the community.

Abstract In 2011, a workgroup of the Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable introduced recommendations for detecting and monitoring amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) clinical trials. Since then, anti‐amyloid immunotherapies have received regulatory approval for AD treatment and are beginning to enter clinical practice, underscoring the importance of informing healthcare providers, researchers, and patients about ARIA's implications in real‐world settings. In response, the Alzheimer's Association convened a new workgroup to review current knowledge of ARIA, including underlying mechanisms, clinical presentations, associated risk factors, mitigation strategies, radiologic detection methods, patients’ perspectives in treatment decision‐making, and outstanding challenges. Here, we outline key insights from this workgroup, highlighting that effective ARIA detection and monitoring in clinical practice requires adherence to robust protocols to mitigate risks and enhance patient safety. Limited availability of clinical and pathologic data on predictors of symptomatic and severe ARIA underscores the importance of continued real‐world data collection.

Abstract Latin America is undergoing rapid population aging alongside a rising burden of dementia. While the region holds substantial potential for dementia risk reduction, challenges remain, such as delayed diagnoses, limited access to specialized care and biomarker testing, persistent stigma, and deep‐rooted structural inequities. To address these gaps and foster regionally informed solutions, the Alzheimer's Association convened the 2025 Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) Satellite Symposium in Lima, Peru, on May 14–15, in collaboration with the Global Brain Health Institute (GBHI) and the Atlantic Fellows for Equity in Brain Health. The meeting aimed to bring core elements of the global AAIC meeting to regional Latin American settings, recognizing that national and cultural contexts demand tailored approaches to dementia prevention, risk reduction, treatment and care all aimed at promoting brain health in the region. This manuscript synthesizes the symposium's key discussions, scientific advances, and opportunities for collaboration across the region.

Abstract Background Cognitive impairment often goes undetected by clinicians due to time constraints, limited expertise, and lack of standardized tools. Structured cognitive assessments improve detection accuracy compared to unstructured clinical judgment. In 2013, the Alzheimer’s Association published recommendations to help primary care clinicians incorporate cognitive assessments into the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit. Since then, advances in cognitive assessment tools, availability of disease‐modifying therapies, and shifting expectations around early diagnosis have highlighted the need for updated guidance. In response, the Alzheimer’s Association is developing an evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for cognitive testing in primary care, using the GRADE approach, informed by a systematic review of the best available evidence. Method A multidisciplinary panel formulated a clinical question to inform the development of this guideline. A systematic review was conducted (search range: 1999‐2024) to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ten cognitive tests (5‐Cog, AD8, GPCOG, IQCODE, Mini‐Cog, MIS, MoCA, QDRS, RUDAS, and SLUMS) for the early detection of cognitive impairment (including MCI and dementia), in adults aged 55+ in ambulatory settings. The panel also narratively summarized data on emerging digital tools. Result Forty‐one studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review. Results were analyzed separately by test (including short‐IQCODE and short‐MoCA) and for primary care and for ambulatory clinic settings (e.g., neurology, memory disorder clinics), as well as for English and Spanish language, resulting in 21 separate analyses. Only three analyses, all related to MoCA, allowed for meta‐analysis. The panel will use the evidence to inform conditional recommendations for or against each specific test. Conclusion By evaluating the diagnostic performance of selected tests, this guideline aims to support healthcare professionals in primary care settings in effective triaging of individuals who may benefit from further cognitive evaluation. To enhance real‐world applicability, considerations such as administration time, ease of scoring, and diagnostic accuracy ‐ along with appropriate cut‐offs by race/ethnicity, education, and language ‐ should be prioritized. This guideline will be regularly updated over time to reflect emerging evidence and the needs of diverse populations.

Abstract Background In recent years, blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with some now approaching readiness for clinical implementation. This progress aligns with the growing importance of accurate early diagnostics and availability of anti‐Aβ therapies for the treatment of early symptomatic AD, reinforcing the need for more rapid and early diagnostic capabilities. To address this need, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, subject‐matter specialists, and guideline methodologists to conduct a systematic review and develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic evaluation of AD. The scope of this guideline is focused on individuals with cognitive impairment ‐ either MCI or dementia ‐ who are undergoing diagnostic assessment in secondary or tertiary care settings. Method The panel conducted a systematic review to assess BBMs' diagnostic test accuracy in detecting amyloid pathology for triaging (≥90% sensitivity, ≥75% specificity) and confirmatory (≥90% sensitivity and specificity) diagnostic workup. The BBMs of interest included plasma p ‐tau and Aβ tests measuring the following analytes: p ‐tau217, % p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The reference standard tests included CSF, amyloid PET, or neuropathology examination. The panel applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision Framework to develop its recommendations. Result Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were evaluated. Using predefined decision thresholds, the panel determined whether each test has 1) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be used as a triaging test where a positive test is to be confirmed by PET or CSF, 2) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy as a confirmatory test to replace PET or CSF, or 3) insufficient diagnostic test accuracy to recommend current use in clinical practice. Recommendations will be provided in case any BBMs met a priori DTA thresholds. Conclusion BBMs can improve early AD diagnosis and expand access to disease‐modifying therapies. Evidence‐based guidelines are key to standardizing their use and will be updated as new evidence and applications emerge.

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Decades of research on biomarker identification and integration in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) have helped to advance biologically driven disease models, disease subtypes, and disease-modifying treatments. Key lessons learned from AD biomarker development include the need for integration of new biological insights, investment in large cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, a multicomponent biomarker approach, and recruitment of clinical trial cohorts and biosamples that are representative of the target population. We describe how these lessons are being applied in Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and psychotic disorders as use cases to inform biomarker-based approaches across central nervous system disorders.

Abstract As Alzheimer's disease (AD) research advances, tau has emerged as both a critical biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, central to understanding disease mechanisms, tracking progression, and guiding treatment development. The Fall 2024 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened experts from academia, industry, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to explore current progress and future directions in tau‐centered diagnostics and therapeutics. Discussions addressed the integration of tau biomarkers into the 2024 Revised Diagnostic Criteria for AD, updates to amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, and modeling of biomarker trajectories. Presenters highlighted tau‐targeting therapeutics including antisense oligonucleotides, monoclonal antibodies, and small molecules, alongside innovations in drug delivery. The interplay between anti‐amyloid and anti‐tau therapies and strategic design of combination trials were key themes. Regulatory insights facilitated discussions on drug approval pathways. The meeting highlighted the rapid evolution of tau research and emphasized opportunities to improve diagnostics, trial design, and treatment strategies in AD. Highlights The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) convened leaders from industry, academia, and government, to explore current progress and future directions in tau‐centered diagnostics and therapeutics. Tau has emerged as both a critical biomarker and a promising therapeutic target, central to understanding disease mechanisms, tracking progression, and guiding treatment development. Discussions addressed the integration of tau biomarkers into the 2024 revised diagnostic criteria for AD, updates to amyloid and tau PET imaging, modeling of biomarker trajectories, tau‐targeting therapeutics, and interplay between anti‐amyloid and anti‐tau therapies and strategic design of combination trials.