Citations

AbstractEpidemiological studies increasingly inform Alzheimer's disease (AD) public health impact, prevention strategies, drug targets, therapeutic interventions, and clinical trial design. For this reason, the Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable convened an international group of AD experts with experience in conducting both observational and clinical trials for a meeting on October 19 and 20, 2010, in Washington, DC, to discuss the role of epidemiologic studies in AD research and therapeutic advances. Topics included wellness markers and risk factors, with a focus on special populations such as those at elevated risk, super agers, and underserved populations. Discussions also highlighted lessons learned from observational studies of aging, cardiovascular disease, and other disease areas, as well as how new technologies have enabled the gathering of data relevant to drug development and clinical trial conduct.

Abstract A consensus panel from the United States and Europe was convened recently to update and revise the 1997 consensus guidelines for the neuropathologic evaluation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other diseases of brain that are common in the elderly. The new guidelines recognize the pre‐clinical stage of AD, enhance the assessment of AD to include amyloid accumulation as well as neurofibrillary change and neuritic plaques, establish protocols for the neuropathologic assessment of Lewy body disease, vascular brain injury, hippocampal sclerosis, and TDP‐43 inclusions, and recommend standard approaches for the workup of cases and their clinico‐pathologic correlation.

BackgroundThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid β (Aβ)‐42, total‐tau (T‐tau), and phosphorylated‐tau (P‐tau) demonstrate good diagnostic accuracy for Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, there are large variations in biomarker measurements between studies, and between and within laboratories. The Alzheimer's Association has initiated a global quality control program to estimate and monitor variability of measurements, quantify batch‐to‐batch assay variations, and identify sources of variability. In this article, we present the results from the first two rounds of the program.MethodsThe program is open for laboratories using commercially available kits for Aβ, T‐tau, or P‐tau. CSF samples (aliquots of pooled CSF) are sent for analysis several times a year from the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Mölndal campus of the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. Each round consists of three quality control samples.ResultsForty laboratories participated. Twenty‐six used INNOTEST enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay kits, 14 used Luminex xMAP with the INNO‐BIA AlzBio3 kit (both measure Aβ‐(1‐42), P‐tau(181P), and T‐tau), and 5 used Meso Scale Discovery with the Aβ triplex (AβN‐42, AβN‐40, and AβN‐38) or T‐tau kits. The total coefficients of variation between the laboratories were 13% to 36%. Five laboratories analyzed the samples six times on different occasions. Within‐laboratory precisions differed considerably between biomarkers within individual laboratories.ConclusionsMeasurements of CSF AD biomarkers show large between‐laboratory variability, likely caused by factors related to analytical procedures and the analytical kits. Standardization of laboratory procedures and efforts by kit vendors to increase kit performance might lower variability, and will likely increase the usefulness of CSF AD biomarkers.

Better tools for assessing cognitive impairment in the early stages of Alzheimer's disease (AD) are required to enable diagnosis of the disease before substantial neurodegeneration has taken place and to allow for detection of subtle changes in the early stages of progression of the disease. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened a meeting to discuss state‐of‐the art methods for cognitive assessment, including computerized batteries, as well as new approaches in the pipeline. Speakers described research using novel tests of object recognition, spatial navigation, attentional control, semantic memory, semantic interference, prospective memory, false memory, and executive function as among the tools that could provide earlier identification of individuals with AD. In addition to early detection, there is a need for assessments that reflect real‐world situations so as to better assess functional disability. It is especially important to develop assessment tools that are useful in ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse populations as well as in individuals with neurodegenerative disease other than AD.

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of developing criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD. The workgroup developed the following two sets of criteria: (1) core clinical criteria that could be used by healthcare providers without access to advanced imaging techniques or cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and (2) research criteria that could be used in clinical research settings, including clinical trials. The second set of criteria incorporate the use of biomarkers based on imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measures. The final set of criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to AD has four levels of certainty, depending on the presence and nature of the biomarker findings. Considerable work is needed to validate the criteria that use biomarkers and to standardize biomarker analysis for use in community settings.

Background Criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) were established in 1984. A broad consensus now exists that these criteria should be revised to incorporate state‐of‐the‐art scientific knowledge. Methods The National Institute on Aging (NIA) and the Alzheimer's Association sponsored a series of advisory round table meetings in 2009 whose purpose was to establish a process for revising diagnostic and research criteria for AD. The recommendation from these advisory meetings was that three separate work groups should be formed with each assigned the task of formulating diagnostic criteria for one phase of the disease: the dementia phase; the symptomatic, pre‐dementia phase; and the asymptomatic, preclinical phase of AD. Results Two notable differences from the AD criteria published in 1984 are incorporation of biomarkers of the underlying disease state and formalization of different stages of disease in the diagnostic criteria. There was a broad consensus within all three workgroups that much additional work is needed to validate the application of biomarkers for diagnostic purposes. In the revised NIA‐Alzheimer's Association criteria, a semantic and conceptual distinction is made between AD pathophysiological processes and clinically observable syndromes that result, whereas this distinction was blurred in the 1984 criteria. Conclusions The new criteria for AD are presented in three documents. The core clinical criteria of the recommendations regarding AD dementia and MCI due to AD are intended to guide diagnosis in the clinical setting. However, the recommendations of the preclinical AD workgroup are intended purely for research purposes.

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all‐cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.

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.