Citations

AbstractDespite its high prevalence among dementias, Lewy body dementia (LBD) remains poorly understood with a limited, albeit growing, evidence base. The public‐health burden that LBD imposes is worsened by overlapping pathologies, which contribute to misdiagnosis, and lack of treatments. For this report, we gathered and analyzed public‐domain information on advocacy, funding, research outputs, and the therapeutic pipeline to identify gaps in each of these key elements. To further understand the current gaps, we also conducted interviews with leading experts in regulatory/governmental agencies, LBD advocacy, academic research, and biopharmaceutical research, as well as with funding sources. We identified wide gaps across the entire landscape, the most critical being in research. Many of the experts participated in a workshop to discuss the prioritization of research areas with a view to accelerating therapeutic development and improving patient care. This white paper outlines the opportunities for bridging the major LBD gaps and creates the framework for collaboration in that endeavor.Highlights A group representing academia, government, industry, and consulting expertise was convened to discuss current progress in Dementia with Lewy Body care and research. Consideration of expert opinion,natural language processing of the literature as well as publicly available data bases, and Delphi inspired discussion led to a proposed consensus document of priorities for the field.

AbstractBackgroundNo specific clinical rating scale currently exists for Lewy body dementia (LBD). Clinical rating scales developed for other diseases are therefore used instead for LBD clinical trials. However, these scales are not optimized for LBD and may not sufficiently reflect the complex array of LBD‐related phenomenology, making it more difficult to interpret outcome data from LBD clinical trials.MethodA working group comprised of 14 members bridging various international LBD‐focused research groups was convened to develop the first iteration of the LBD‐DRS with a focus on inclusion of key LBD related symptom domains, ensuring that any scale is mapped to regulatory expectations, and an emphasis on being patient‐centered. This draft was then subsequently presented to a broader stakeholder group (»50 participants) at the International Lewy body Dementia Conference in June 2022 for further feedback, leading to a further iteration of the scale.ResultThe LBD‐DRS has been designed to capture ratings of the frequency and severity of symptoms across the key domains relevant to LBD – cognitive, neuropsychiatric, motor, autonomic and sleep – as well as the functional impact and perceived burden of symptoms for patients and their care partners. An international Delphi exercise is now planned with many LBD‐relevant stakeholders, which will be coupled with workgroup engagement (for example, with patient‐caregiver groups) to further develop the scale with the resulting final draft anticipated for pilot use in the near future.ConclusionsIn this presentation we will elaborate on the development of the scale, key areas that it will cover as well as challenge points and next steps. Upon completion of the development and refinement of the LBD‐DRS, we propose that this scale will have utility as valid and LBD specific outcome measure in LBD clinical trials.

ImportanceNomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer’s Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement.ObjectiveTo establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes.Evidence ReviewThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups.FindingsFrom working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia.Conclusions and RelevanceThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.

Introduction: Lewy body dementia (LBD) is common, yet under-recognized and under-researched. To plan studies with the highest impact, engagement of the community personally affected by these conditions is essential. Methods: A web-based survey of people living with LBD and current and former caregivers of people with LBD queried research priorities through forced ranking and exploration of burden of LBD symptoms. Specific caregiving needs in LBD and perceptions of research participation were also investigated. Results: Between April 7, 2021 and July 1, 2021, 984 responses were recorded. Top research priorities included disease-modifying therapies and improved disease detection and staging. People with LBD were interested in pathophysiology and more bothered by motor symptoms; caregivers were interested in risk factors and symptomatic therapies and more bothered by neuropsychiatric symptoms. Few available LBD treatments and resources were rated as helpful, and many valuable services were never received. Previous participation in LBD research was infrequent, but interest was high. Discussion: People with LBD and caregivers highlighted the need for research across all aspects of LBD, from pathophysiology and disease modification to prognosis, education, symptomatic treatments, and caregiver support. Funders should increase support for all aspects of LBD research to target the many needs identified by individuals and families living with LBD.

Abstract The regulatory path for drug approval is increasingly well defined. Drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) need to show statistically significant benefit over placebo with respect to cognitive and functional measures, with the Clinical Dementia Rating scale and Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale being among the most often used instruments in AD clinical trials. In contrast, there are no validated instruments for use in clinical trials of drugs for the treatment of dementia with Lewy bodies. This poses challenges for drug development because the regulatory pathway to drug approval requires demonstrable efficacy measures. In December 2021, the Lewy Body Dementia Association advisory group met with representatives from the US Food and Drug Administration to discuss the lack of approved drugs and treatments, discernment of efficacy measures, and identification of biomarkers. Highlights The Lewy Body with Dementia Association convened a listening session with the US Food and Drug Administration on dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and clinical trial design. Gaps include DLB‐specific measures, alpha synuclein biomarkers, and coexisting pathologies. DLB clinical trial design should focus on clinical value and disease specificity.

Abstract Objective 11-oxygenated androgens significantly contribute to the circulating androgen pool. Understanding the physiological variation of 11-oxygenated androgens and their determinants is essential for clinical interpretation, for example, in androgen excess conditions. We quantified classic and 11-oxygenated androgens in serum and saliva across the adult age and body mass index (BMI) range, also analyzing diurnal and menstrual cycle-dependent variation. Design Cross-sectional. Morning serum samples were collected from 290 healthy volunteers (125 men, 22-95 years; 165 women, 21-91 years). Morning saliva samples were collected by a sub-group (51 women and 32 men). Diurnal saliva profiles were collected by 13 men. Twelve women collected diurnal saliva profiles and morning saliva samples on 7 consecutive days during both follicular and luteal menstrual cycle phases. Methods Serum and salivary steroids were quantified by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry profiling assays. Results Serum classic androgens decreased with age-adjusted BMI, for example, %change kg/m2 for 5α-dihydrotestosterone: men −5.54% (95% confidence interval (CI) −8.10 to −2.98) and women −1.62% (95%CI −3.16 to −0.08). By contrast, 11-oxygenated androgens increased with BMI, for example, %change kg/m2 for 11-ketotestosterone: men 3.05% (95%CI 0.08-6.03) and women 1.68% (95%CI −0.44 to 3.79). Conversely, classic androgens decreased with age in both men and women, while 11-oxygenated androgens did not. Salivary androgens showed a diurnal pattern in men and in the follicular phase in women; in the luteal phase, only 11-oxygenated androgens showed diurnal variation. Conclusions Classic androgens decrease while active 11-oxygenated androgens increase with increasing BMI, pointing toward the importance of adipose tissue mass for the activation of 11-oxygenated androgens. Classic but not 11-oxygenated androgens decline with age.

Abstract Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is clinically defined by the presence of visual hallucinations, fluctuations, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep behavioral disorder, and parkinsonism. Neuropathologically, it is characterized by the presence of Lewy pathology. However, neuropathological studies have demonstrated the high prevalence of coexistent Alzheimer's disease, TAR DNA‐binding protein 43 (TDP‐43), and cerebrovascular pathologic cases. Due to their high prevalence and clinical impact on DLB individuals, clinical trials should account for these co‐pathologies in their design and selection and the interpretation of biomarkers values and outcomes. Here we discuss the frequency of the different co‐pathologies in DLB and their cross‐sectional and longitudinal clinical impact. We then evaluate the utility and possible applications of disease‐specific and disease‐nonspecific biomarkers and how co‐pathologies can impact these biomarkers. We propose a framework for integrating multi‐modal biomarker fingerprints and step‐wise selection and assessment of DLB individuals for clinical trials, monitoring target engagement, and interpreting outcomes in the setting of co‐pathologies.

Background: Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is one of the most common degenerative dementias. Clinical trials for individuals with DLB are increasing. We aimed to identify commonly used outcome measures for trials in DLB. Methods: A pragmatic literature search of PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov identified interventional studies including populations with DLB. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with DLB and met the National Institutes of Health criteria for a clinical trial. Data were collected using standardized forms. Outcome measures were categorized according to core and supportive features of DLB. Results: After de-duplication, 58 trials were identified. The most common cognitive outcome measures were the Mini Mental State Examination (n=24) and Cognitive Drug Research computerized Assessment System (n=5). The Clinician’s Assessment of Fluctuations was the most commonly used measure for fluctuations (n=4). Over half of studies used the Neuropsychiatric Inventory to assess behavioral symptoms (n=31). The Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale was frequently used for motor assessment (n=23). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical trial outcomes used in DLB are rarely validated in this population and some lack face validity. There is a need to validate existing scales in DLB and develop DLB-specific outcome measures.