Michael S. Rafii

The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened three separate work groups in 2011 and single work groups in 2012 and 2018 to create recommendations for the diagnosis and characterization of Alzheimer's disease (AD). The present document updates the 2018 research framework in response to several recent developments. Defining diseases biologically, rather than based on syndromic presentation, has long been standard in many areas of medicine (e.g., oncology), and is becoming a unifying concept common to all neurodegenerative diseases, not just AD. The present document is consistent with this principle. Our intent is to present objective criteria for diagnosis and staging AD, incorporating recent advances in biomarkers, to serve as a bridge between research and clinical care. These criteria are not intended to provide step-by-step clinical practice guidelines for clinical workflow or specific treatment protocols, but rather serve as general principles to inform diagnosis and staging of AD that reflect current science. HIGHLIGHTS: We define Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be a biological process that begins with the appearance of AD neuropathologic change (ADNPC) while people are asymptomatic. Progression of the neuropathologic burden leads to the later appearance and progression of clinical symptoms. Early-changing Core 1 biomarkers (amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], approved cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and accurate plasma biomarkers [especially phosphorylated tau 217]) map onto either the amyloid beta or AD tauopathy pathway; however, these reflect the presence of ADNPC more generally (i.e., both neuritic plaques and tangles). An abnormal Core 1 biomarker result is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of AD and to inform clinical decision making throughout the disease continuum. Later-changing Core 2 biomarkers (biofluid and tau PET) can provide prognostic information, and when abnormal, will increase confidence that AD is contributing to symptoms. An integrated biological and clinical staging scheme is described that accommodates the fact that common copathologies, cognitive reserve, and resistance may modify relationships between clinical and biological AD stages.

Trials of monoclonal antibodies that target various forms of amyloid at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease have had mixed results. Download a PDF of the Research Summary. We tested solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid, in a phase 3 trial involving persons with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Persons 65 to 85 years of age with a global Clinical Dementia Rating score of 0 (range, 0 to 3, with 0 indicating no cognitive impairment and 3 severe dementia), a score on the Mini–Mental State Examination of 25 or more (range, 0 to 30, with lower scores indicating poorer cognition), and elevated brain amyloid levels on 18F-florbetapir positron-emission tomography (PET) were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive solanezumab at a dose of up to 1600 mg intravenously every 4 weeks or placebo. The primary end point was the change in the Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score (calculated as the sum of four z scores, with higher scores indicating better cognitive performance) over a period of 240 weeks. A total of 1169 persons underwent randomization: 578 were assigned to the solanezumab group and 591 to the placebo group. The mean age of the participants was 72 years, approximately 60% were women, and 75% had a family history of dementia. At 240 weeks, the mean change in PACC score was −1.43 in the solanezumab group and −1.13 in the placebo group (difference, −0.30; 95% confidence interval, −0.82 to 0.22; P=0.26). Amyloid levels on brain PET increased by a mean of 11.6 centiloids in the solanezumab group and 19.3 centiloids in the placebo group. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) with edema occurred in less than 1% of the participants in each group. ARIA with microhemorrhage or hemosiderosis occurred in 29.2% of the participants in the solanezumab group and 32.8% of those in the placebo group. Solanezumab, which targets monomeric amyloid in persons with elevated brain amyloid levels, did not slow cognitive decline as compared with placebo over a period of 240 weeks in persons with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others; A4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02008357.) QUICK TAKE VIDEO SUMMARYSolanezumab in Preclinical Alzheimer’s Disease 02:05

Importance: Insulin modulates aspects of brain function relevant to Alzheimer disease and can be delivered to the brain using intranasal devices. To date, the use of intranasal insulin to treat persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia remains to be examined in a multi-site trial. Objective: To examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intranasal insulin for the treatment of persons with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease dementia in a phase 2/3 multisite clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized (1:1) double-blind clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2018. Participants received 40 IU of insulin or placebo for 12 months during the blinded phase, which was followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. The clinical trial was conducted at 27 sites of the Alzheimer's Therapeutic Research Institute. A total of 432 adults were screened, and 144 adults were excluded. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 55 to 85 years with a diagnosis of amnestic mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer disease (based on National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria), a score of 20 or higher on the Mini-Mental State Examination, a clinical dementia rating of 0.5 or 1.0, and a delayed logical memory score within a specified range. A total of 289 participants were randomized. Among the first 49 participants, the first device (device 1) used to administer intranasal insulin treatment had inconsistent reliability. A new device (device 2) was used for the remaining 240 participants, who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. Data were analyzed from August 2018 to March 2019. Interventions: Participants received 40 IU of insulin (Humulin-RU-100; Lilly) or placebo (diluent) daily for 12 months (blinded phase) followed by a 6-month open-label extension phase. Insulin was administered with 2 intranasal delivery devices. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (mean score change on the Alzheimer Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale 12) was evaluated at 3-month intervals. Secondary clinical outcomes were assessed at 6-month intervals. Cerebrospinal fluid collection and magnetic resonance imaging scans occurred at baseline and 12 months. Results: A total of 289 participants (155 men [54.6%]; mean [SD] age, 70.9 [7.1] years) were randomized. Of those, 260 participants completed the blinded phase, and 240 participants completed the open-label extension phase. For the first 49 participants, the first device used to administer treatment had inconsistent reliability. A second device was used for the remaining 240 participants (123 men [51.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.8 [7.1] years), who were designated the primary intention-to-treat population. No differences were observed between treatment arms for the primary outcome (mean score change on ADAS-cog-12 from baseline to month 12) in the device 2 ITT cohort (0.0258 points; 95% CI, -1.771 to 1.822 points; P = .98) or for the other clinical or cerebrospinal fluid outcomes in the primary (second device) intention-to-treat analysis. No clinically important adverse events were associated with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, no cognitive or functional benefits were observed with intranasal insulin treatment over a 12-month period among the primary intention-to-treat cohort. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01767909.