Miller, David S.

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 Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are common in dementia and in predementia syndromes such as mild cognitive impairment (MCI). NPS in MCI confer a greater risk for conversion to dementia in comparison to MCI patients without NPS. NPS in older adults with normal cognition also confers a greater risk of cognitive decline in comparison to older adults without NPS. Mild behavioral impairment (MBI) has been proposed as a diagnostic construct aimed to identify patients with an increased risk of developing dementia, but who may or may not have cognitive symptoms. We propose criteria that include MCI in the MBI framework, in contrast to prior definitions of MBI. Although MBI and MCI can co‐occur, we suggest that they are different and that both portend a higher risk of dementia. These MBI criteria extend the previous literature in this area and will serve as a template for validation of the MBI construct from epidemiologic, neurobiological, treatment, and prevention perspectives.

AbstractSeveral lines of evidence from Alzheimer's disease (AD) research continue to support the notion that the biological changes associated with AD are occurring possibly several decades before an individual will experience the cognitive and functional changes associated with the disease. The National Institute on Aging—Alzheimer's Association revised criteria for AD provided a framework for this new thinking. As a result of this growing understanding, several research efforts have launched or will be launching large secondary prevention trials in AD. These and other efforts have clearly demonstrated a need for better measures of cognitive and functional change in people with the earliest changes associated with AD. Recent draft guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration further elevated the importance of cognitive and functional assessments in early stage clinical trials by proposing that even in the pre‐symptomatic stages of the disease, approval will be contingent on demonstrating clinical meaningfulness. The Alzheimer's Association's Research Roundtable addressed these issues at its fall meeting October 28–29, 2013, in Washington, D.C. The focus of the discussion included the need for improved cognitive and functional outcome measures for clinical of participants with preclinical AD and those diagnosed with Mild Cognitive Impairment due to AD.

Abstract In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association (NIA‐AA) proposed revising the criteria for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD), which had been established more than 25 years earlier by the National Institute on Neurologic and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (NINCDS) and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (ADRDA), now called the Alzheimer's Association. The NIA‐AA initiative also built upon research criteria for AD proposed by the International Working Group (IWG) in 2007 and updated in 2010. These efforts to revise the criteria reflect the need to improve diagnostic accuracy, facilitate clinical trials, and establish a common set of criteria that are universally accepted across domains of clinical practice, research, and drug development. To ensure that the proposed NIA‐AA criteria remain as current as possible, the Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting in Washington, DC, on October 1 and 2, 2012, bringing together international stakeholders from industry, academia, and regulatory agencies to identify areas of agreement and research gaps respective of NIA‐AA criteria and IWG recommendations.

Abstract Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) in Alzheimer's disease (AD) are widespread and disabling. This has been known since Dr. Alois Alzheimer's first case, Frau Auguste D., presented with emotional distress and delusions of infidelity/excessive jealousy, followed by cognitive symptoms. Being cognizant of this, in 2010 the Alzheimer's Association convened a research roundtable on the topic of NPS in AD. A major outcome of the roundtable was the founding of a Professional Interest Area (PIA) within the International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment (ISTAART). The NPS‐PIA has prepared a series of documents that are intended to summarize the literature and provide more detailed specific recommendations for NPS research. This overview paper is the first of these living documents that will be updated periodically as the science advances. The overview is followed by syndrome‐specific synthetic reviews and recommendations prepared by NPS‐PIA workgroups on depression, apathy, sleep, agitation, and psychosis.

The current criteria for classification of Alzheimer's disease (AD) have deficiencies that limit drug development, research, and practice. The current standard for the clinical diagnosis of AD, the National Institute of Neurological and Communicative Disorders and Stroke (now known as the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke), and the Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (now known as the Alzheimer's Association) criteria, are nearly 25 years old and have not been revised to incorporate advances in the epidemiology and genetics of AD, studies of clinicopathologic correlations and recent studies of potential diagnostic biomarkers. In a very real sense our ability to diagnose AD with a very high level of certainty has outpaced our current diagnostic criteria. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting in April 2009 to discuss new data and technologies that could, with further development, enable improvements in the clinical diagnosis of AD, especially in its earliest and mildest stages. This meeting reviewed the current standards for detecting and defining the clinical presentation of AD and discussed areas that could contribute to earlier and more accurate definitive clinical diagnosis. These included clinical, neuropsychological, and other performance‐based assessments, genetic contributions, and biochemical and neuroimaging biomarkers that could reflect AD pathology and lead to better ascertainment of AD, mild cognitive impairment, and presymptomatic AD.

Purpose On the basis of reported activity of methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) or topotecan plus cisplatin in advanced cervix cancer, we undertook a randomized trial comparing these combinations versus cisplatin alone, to determine whether survival is improved with either combination compared with cisplatin alone, and to compare toxicities and quality of life (QOL) among the regimens. Patients and Methods Eligible patients were randomly allocated to receive cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (CPT); cisplatin 50 mg/m2 day 1 plus topotecan 0.75 mg/m2 days 1 to 3 every 3 weeks (CT); or methotrexate 30 mg/m2 days 1, 15, and 22, vinblastine 3 mg/m2 days 2, 15, and 22, doxorubicin 30 mg/m2 day 2, and cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2 every 4 weeks (MVAC). Survival was the primary end point; response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. QOL data are reported separately. Results The MVAC arm was closed by the Data Safety Monitoring Board after four treatment-related deaths occurred among 63 patients, and is not included in this analysis. Two hundred ninety-four patients enrolled onto the remaining regimens: 146 to CPT and 147 to CT. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity was more common with CT. Patients receiving CT had statistically superior outcomes to those receiving CPT, with median overall survival of 9.4 and 6.5 months (P = .017), median PFS of 4.6 and 2.9 months (P = .014), and response rates of 27% and 13%, respectively. Conclusion This is the first randomized phase III trial to demonstrate a survival advantage for combination chemotherapy over cisplatin alone in advanced cervix cancer.