Siemers, Eric

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.

Current research including the basic biology of Alzheimer's disease (AD) provides a foundation to explore whether our current state of knowledge is sufficient to initiate prevention studies and allow us to believe prevention of AD is possible. Current research and recently revised criteria for the diagnosis of AD by the National Institutes on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association suggest a continuum of disease from preclinical asymptomatic to symptomatic Alzheimer's dementia. In light of these revised criteria, the possibility of secondary prevention and even primary prevention is under discussion. The Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened a meeting to discuss the rationale and feasibility of conducting secondary prevention trials in AD.

BackgroundCerebral vasogenic edema (VE) has been reported to occur during antiamyloid immunotherapy. VE may be associated with central nervous system pathology with blood–brain barrier disruptions; however, less is known about the prevalence of naturally occurring VE in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD).MethodsFluid‐attenuated inversion recovery imaging sequences were obtained from four ongoing multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trials in patients with mild‐to‐moderate AD. The first set of baseline scans was from patients in volumetric magnetic resonance imaging addenda in the Interrupting Alzheimer's Dementia by EvaluatiNg Treatment of Amyloid PaThologY (IDENTITY) studies examining semagacestat, a γ‐secretase inhibitor (cohort 1, n = 621). The second set of baseline scans was from the EXPanding Alzheimer's Disease InvestigaTIONs (EXPEDITION) studies examining solanezumab, an anti‐Aβ monoclonal antibody (cohort 2, n = 2141). Readers were blinded to patient‐identifying information and future treatment. A third set of baseline scans was from the first 700 patients who underwent protocol‐specified magnetic resonance imaging before randomization in the EXPEDITION studies (cohort 3). The analysis used three neuroradiologists: two performed independent primary interpretations and the third was the adjudicator. Readers were blinded to patient information, treatment, protocol, and time point.ResultsFour cases of asymptomatic VE were detected at baseline/screening. Two VE cases were due to underlying extra‐axial mass lesions. The third VE case was associated with numerous microhemorrhages in keeping with cerebral amyloid angiopathy‐related inflammation or Aβ‐related angiitis. The final VE case demonstrated localized sulcal fluid‐attenuated inversion recovery imaging hyperintensity. No VE was detected in cohort 3 by readers blinded to patient baseline status.ConclusionsVE seems to be rare at baseline in patients with AD in clinical trials, 2 of 2762 associated with AD. Additional cohorts should be evaluated to support these findings.

The pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is thought to begin many years before the diagnosis of AD dementia. This long “preclinical” phase of AD would provide a critical opportunity for therapeutic intervention; however, we need to further elucidate the link between the pathological cascade of AD and the emergence of clinical symptoms. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened an international workgroup to review the biomarker, epidemiological, and neuropsychological evidence, and to develop recommendations to determine the factors which best predict the risk of progression from “normal” cognition to mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia. We propose a conceptual framework and operational research criteria, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies. These recommendations are solely intended for research purposes and do not have any clinical implications at this time. It is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD, and ultimately, aid the field in moving toward earlier intervention at a stage of AD when some disease‐modifying therapies may be most efficacious.

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.