Citations

Abstract In response to a Cochrane review (published in April 2026) on the clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies targeting beta amyloid, this perspective outlines a number of critiques. The scientists, methodologists, subject‐matter experts, and clinicians on this perspective strongly recommend that the Cochrane editorial board consider a call for editorial response, correction of press materials, or commissioned reply to this review for four overarching reasons: (1) decision to pool antibodies that do and do not clear beta amyloid, (2) decision to include studies from a time when biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease were not available, (3) analytical and methodological limitations of the approach used, (4) conflating the distinct roles and methodological processes of systematic review and guideline methodologies, (5) contextualizing the present critique within the existing evidence‐synthesis literature, and (6) mechanistic inference beyond the scope of the presented analyses. Conclusions that may not accurately reflect treatment‐specific effects could cause significant downstream clinical and psychosocial harm to those currently undergoing treatment and their family members as well as individuals considering participation in Alzheimer's clinical trials.

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 Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominant atrophy is an emerging area of interest. Recent findings by the International Working Group (IWG) have identified this subtype as having a distinct clinical profile within the FTD spectrum (Ulugut et al., 2024, A&D). However, its genetic and pathological underpinnings remain unexplored in large, multicultural cohorts. Methods Retrospective analyses encompassing clinical, genetic, pathological, and neuroimaging data from 23 IWG sites across 13 countries in Asia, Middle East, Europe, North and South America were conducted. The study included 444 patients with FTD exhibiting predominant RATL atrophy. Results Genetic screening was performed on 51% ( n = 225) of the cohort for at least the major frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) mutations including microtubule‐associated protein tau ( MAPT ), progranulin ( GRN ), and chromosome 9 open reading frame 72 ( C9orf72 ), or dementia panels encompassing extended sets of genes. Of these, 81% were sporadic, showing negative results for the screened genes and a modified Goldman Score of ≥ 3, indicating a negative family history for dementia. The MAPT mutation was the most common genetic variant, identified in 7% of the screened cases (Figure 1). Pathological confirmation was available for 63 patients. Among the sporadic cases, transactive response DNA‐binding protein 43 type C (TDP‐C) pathology was most prevalent (60%, n = 32), while tau‐MAPT pathology was most common in the genetic cases (38%, n = 16). Fifteen cases did not fit neatly into genetic or sporadic categories, displaying heterogeneous pathologies (Figure 2). At the initial visit, compared to genetic cases, patients with TDP‐C pathology were older, and more frequently exhibited semantic deficits, with less frequent attention difficulties and executive dysfunction. No differences were observed in sex distribution, symptom duration or disease severity between genetic and sporadic TDP‐C cases. However, left handedness was more common in TDP‐C cases (14%) compared to genetic cases (5%). Conclusion While FTD with RATL atrophy primarily appears sporadic, a significant proportion of cases exhibit genetic variants. These sporadic and genetic subtypes display distinct neuropathological features and clinical manifestations. Given the implications for therapeutic strategies, precise clinical and molecular subtyping is critical for enhancing patient management and ensuring appropriate enrollment in clinical trials.

AbstractBackgroundTau PET provides continuous measurements of tau tangle pathology in the human brain. However, establishing cutoffs is crucial for selecting individuals for treatment in clinical trials or practice. In the absence of postmortem data, PET cutoffs must be established using statistical methods based on what is considered normal tracer uptake. In this study, we tested the impact of various methods to determine tau positivity using two different tau PET tracers in individuals scanned head‐to‐head.MethodsWe studied 147 individuals from Head‐to‐Head Harmonization of Tau Tracers in Alzheimer's Disease (HEAD) study with tau tangle PET scans with [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240, and amyloid‐β (Aβ) PET. Tau deposition was measured with the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of each agent in the Medial Temporal Lobe (MTL) and the Entorhinal Cortex (EC). To determine Tau positivity three different methods were used: >2.5 standard deviations (SD) than the mean of the young, >1.5 SD mean of the cognitively unimpaired (CU) and >1.5 SD mean of CUAβ‐.ResultsDemographic characteristics of the study population are reported in Table 1. Using the cutoff >2.5 SD mean of young, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 35 (23.8%) and 69 (46.9%) individuals in the EC and MTL, respectively. [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 49 (33.3%) and 58 (39.5%) individuals in EC and in MTL. Using >1.5 SD mean of CUAβ‐, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 38 (25.9%) and 45 (30.6%) individuals in EC and MTL, while [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 51 (34.7%) and 50 (34.0%) in EC and in MTL (Figure 1).ConclusionsOur findings indicate variations in tau positivity when employing different methods based on either the young or CUAβ‐. [18F]Flortaucipir exhibited a higher rate of positive results when the method based on young individuals was applied in the MTL. Conversely, [18F]MK‐6240 showed more consistent and generally higher positivity when other methods were used for cutoff determination and/or in the EC region. Further research with a larger sample size is required to gain a better understanding of the optimal cutoff determination methods for these tracers.

AbstractBackgroundTau PET provides continuous measurements of tau tangle pathology in the human brain. However, establishing cutoffs is crucial for selecting individuals for treatment in clinical trials or practice. In the absence of postmortem data, PET cutoffs must be established using statistical methods based on what is considered normal tracer uptake. In this study, we tested the impact of various methods to determine tau positivity using two different tau PET tracers in individuals scanned head‐to‐head.MethodsWe studied 147 individuals from Head‐to‐Head Harmonization of Tau Tracers in Alzheimer's Disease (HEAD) study with tau tangle PET scans with [18F]Flortaucipir and [18F]MK‐6240, and amyloid‐ß (Aß) PET. Tau deposition was measured with the standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) of each agent in the Medial Temporal Lobe (MTL) and the Entorhinal Cortex (EC). To determine Tau positivity three different methods were used: >2.5 standard deviations (SD) than the mean of the young, >1.5 SD mean of the cognitively unimpaired (CU) and >1.5 SD mean of CUAß‐.ResultsDemographic characteristics of the study population are reported in Table 1. Using the cutoff >2.5 SD mean of young, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 35 (23.8%) and 69 (46.9%) individuals in the EC and MTL, respectively. [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 49 (33.3%) and 58 (39.5%) individuals in EC and in MTL. Using >1.5 SD mean of CUAß‐, [18F]Flortaucipir was positive in 38 (25.9%) and 45 (30.6%) individuals in EC and MTL, while [18F]MK‐6240 was positive in 51 (34.7%) and 50 (34.0%) in EC and in MTL (Figure 1).ConclusionsOur findings indicate variations in tau positivity when employing different methods based on either the young or CUAß‐. [18F]Flortaucipir exhibited a higher rate of positive results when the method based on young individuals was applied in the MTL. Conversely, [18F]MK‐6240 showed more consistent and generally higher positivity when other methods were used for cutoff determination and/or in the EC region. Further research with a larger sample size is required to gain a better understanding of the optimal cutoff determination methods for these tracers.

Importance Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations. Objective To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states. Evidence Review PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched. Findings In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease. Conclusions and Relevance The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Although frontotemporal dementia (FTD) with right anterior temporal lobe (RATL) predominance has been recognized, a uniform description of the syndrome is still missing. This multicenter study aims to establish a cohesive clinical phenotype. METHODS Retrospective clinical data from 18 centers across 12 countries yielded 360 FTD patients with predominant RATL atrophy through initial neuroimaging assessments. RESULTS Common symptoms included mental rigidity/preoccupations (78%), disinhibition/socially inappropriate behavior (74%), naming/word‐finding difficulties (70%), memory deficits (67%), apathy (65%), loss of empathy (65%), and face‐recognition deficits (60%). Real‐life examples unveiled impairments regarding landmarks, smells, sounds, tastes, and bodily sensations (74%). Cognitive test scores indicated deficits in emotion, people, social interactions, and visual semantics however, lacked objective assessments for mental rigidity and preoccupations. DISCUSSION This study cumulates the largest RATL cohort unveiling unique RATL symptoms subdued in prior diagnostic guidelines. Our novel approach, combining real‐life examples with cognitive tests, offers clinicians a comprehensive toolkit for managing these patients. Highlights This project is the first international collaboration and largest reported cohort. Further efforts are warranted for precise nomenclature reflecting neural mechanisms. Our results will serve as a clinical guideline for early and accurate diagnoses.

AbstractBackgroundMulticentric initiatives to study brain cognition in the elderly offers us a unique collection of brain imaging data accompanied by detailed neuroclinical and neuropsychological evaluations. U.S. POINTER and LatAm‐FINGERS, part of the World Wide FINGERS, are both large‐scale investigations of lifestyle interventions and its impact on cognitive function. These large‐scale detailed data may offer an unprecedented opportunity to compare diverse populations.MethodBaseline MRI of subjects from multiple US centers (POINTER‐US), distributed in 5 geographical regions, and from 9 latin‐american countries (LatAm‐FINGERS). The protocols vary from basic (3D T1, 3D FLAIR,T2* GRE, Cor T2 hippocampus, DWI) to advanced which also included ASL, rs‐FMRI and DTI. Demographic information and clinical, cognitive and neuropsychological assessment were also included.ResultMRI data was collected from 662 participants in the United States (about 65% of the total anticipated U.S. POINTER neuroimaging sample) and from 542 subjects from 9 countries in latin‐america (about 80% of the total anticipated LatAm‐FINGERS neuroimaging sample), with around 1200 participants scanned (table1).All participants have 3D T1, 3D FLAIR, T2* GRE images and either DWI or DTI images.Comparative demographics from the 2 datasets shows similar mean age, a predominance of females, and slight differences in education (table 2). This will allow us to compare multiethnic and multicultural volumetric and functional brain MRI information, as well as disease markers, associated with thorough neurological and clinical assessment. Reasons for not acquiring MRI were mainly due to claustrophobia or scanner unavailability.ConclusionThis is an exceptional opportunity to have comparative large‐scale databases, with anatomical and functional brain imaging from different populations, allowing us to study real world diverse brain data and better understand its relationships with demographics, health and risk characteristics, and cognition.

Abstract The behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) is a frequent cause of early-onset dementia. The diagnosis of bvFTD remains challenging because of the limited accuracy of neuroimaging in the early disease stages and the absence of molecular biomarkers, and therefore relies predominantly on clinical assessment. BvFTD shows significant symptomatic overlap with non-degenerative primary psychiatric disorders including major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism spectrum disorders and even personality disorders. To date, ∼50% of patients with bvFTD receive a prior psychiatric diagnosis, and average diagnostic delay is up to 5–6 years from symptom onset. It is also not uncommon for patients with primary psychiatric disorders to be wrongly diagnosed with bvFTD. The Neuropsychiatric International Consortium for Frontotemporal Dementia was recently established to determine the current best clinical practice and set up an international collaboration to share a common dataset for future research. The goal of the present paper was to review the existing literature on the diagnosis of bvFTD and its differential diagnosis with primary psychiatric disorders to provide consensus recommendations on the clinical assessment. A systematic literature search with a narrative review was performed to determine all bvFTD-related diagnostic evidence for the following topics: bvFTD history taking, psychiatric assessment, clinical scales, physical and neurological examination, bedside cognitive tests, neuropsychological assessment, social cognition, structural neuroimaging, functional neuroimaging, CSF and genetic testing. For each topic, responsible team members proposed a set of minimal requirements, optimal clinical recommendations, and tools requiring further research or those that should be developed. Recommendations were listed if they reached a ≥ 85% expert consensus based on an online survey among all consortium participants. New recommendations include performing at least one formal social cognition test in the standard neuropsychological battery for bvFTD. We emphasize the importance of 3D-T1 brain MRI with a standardized review protocol including validated visual atrophy rating scales, and to consider volumetric analyses if available. We clarify the role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET for the exclusion of bvFTD when normal, whereas non-specific regional metabolism abnormalities should not be over-interpreted in the case of a psychiatric differential diagnosis. We highlight the potential role of serum or CSF neurofilament light chain to differentiate bvFTD from primary psychiatric disorders. Finally, based on the increasing literature and clinical experience, the consortium determined that screening for C9orf72 mutation should be performed in all possible/probable bvFTD cases or suspected cases with strong psychiatric features.