Alzheimer Disease as a Clinical-Biological Construct—An International Working Group Recommendation

Bruno Dubois(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Nicolas Villain(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Lon S. Schneider(University of Southern California), Nick C. Fox(UK Dementia Research Institute), Noll L. Campbell(Purdue University West Lafayette), Douglas Galasko(University of California San Diego), Miia Kivipelto(Karolinska University Hospital), Frank Jessen(University of Cologne), Bernard Hanseeuw(Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc), Merçé Boada(Instituto de Salud Carlos III), Frederik Barkhof(National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery), Agneta Nordberg(Karolinska University Hospital), Lutz Froelich(Heidelberg University), Gunhild Waldemar(University of Copenhagen), Kristian Steen Frederiksen(University of Copenhagen), Alessandro Padovani(Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale degli Spedali Civili di Brescia), Vincent Planche(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Christopher C. Rowe(The University of Melbourne), Alexandre Bejanin(Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona), Agustín Ibáñez(Trinity College Dublin), Stefano F. Cappa(Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia), Paulo Caramelli(Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), Ricardo Nitríni(Universidade de São Paulo), Ricardo Allegri(University of the Coast), Andrea Slachevsky(Universidad del Desarrollo), Leonardo Cruz de Souza(Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais), Andrea Bozoki(University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Eric Widera(University of California, San Francisco), Kaj Blennow(Sahlgrenska University Hospital), Craig Ritchie(University of St Andrews), Marc Agronin, Francisco Lopera(Universidad de Antioquia), Lisa Delano‐Wood(University of California San Diego), Stéphanie Bombois(Sorbonne Université), Richard Lévy(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Madhav Thambisetty(National Institutes of Health), Jean Georges(Alzheimer Europe), David T. Jones(Mayo Clinic), Helen Lavretsky(University of California, Los Angeles), Jonathan M. Schott(UK Dementia Research Institute), Jennifer R. Gatchel(Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center), Sandra Swantek(American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry), Paul Newhouse(Vanderbilt University), Howard Feldman(University of California San Diego), Giovanni B. Frisoni(University of Geneva)
JAMA Neurology
November 1, 2024
Cited by 334Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

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.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis