Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurology Pub Date : 2024-11-12 Epub Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1212/WNL.0000000000209884
Jemma Hazan, Kathy Y Liu, Harry Costello, Jeremy D Isaacs, Madhav Thambisetty, Robert Howard
{"title":"Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease.","authors":"Jemma Hazan, Kathy Y Liu, Harry Costello, Jeremy D Isaacs, Madhav Thambisetty, Robert Howard","doi":"10.1212/WNL.0000000000209884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. These criteria advocate for diagnosing AD solely on biomarkers, without requiring clinical symptoms. This article explores the drivers behind this transition, primarily influenced by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of amyloid-lowering treatments. We evaluate the proposed criteria, which allow for an AD diagnosis based on amyloid \"A\" or phosphorylated tau \"T1\" positivity through surrogate amyloid PET imaging, CSF, or plasma biomarkers, and consider the arguments for and against their use. The merits of the new criteria include a clearer definition of AD, which is currently used interchangeably to refer to both the presence of neuropathology and the clinical syndrome. We argue that a purely biological definition risks a category error and emphasize the need for longitudinal data to establish the lifetime risk of dementia in amyloid-positive and tau-positive individuals. We also caution against limiting the scope of biomarker-based AD diagnosis to amyloid and tau alone. In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":19256,"journal":{"name":"Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000209884","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. These criteria advocate for diagnosing AD solely on biomarkers, without requiring clinical symptoms. This article explores the drivers behind this transition, primarily influenced by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of amyloid-lowering treatments. We evaluate the proposed criteria, which allow for an AD diagnosis based on amyloid "A" or phosphorylated tau "T1" positivity through surrogate amyloid PET imaging, CSF, or plasma biomarkers, and consider the arguments for and against their use. The merits of the new criteria include a clearer definition of AD, which is currently used interchangeably to refer to both the presence of neuropathology and the clinical syndrome. We argue that a purely biological definition risks a category error and emphasize the need for longitudinal data to establish the lifetime risk of dementia in amyloid-positive and tau-positive individuals. We also caution against limiting the scope of biomarker-based AD diagnosis to amyloid and tau alone. In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.

阿尔茨海默病生物学定义的挑战。
有观点认为,阿尔茨海默病(AD)的诊断方式正在经历一场深刻的变革,其标志是向基于生物标志物的方法转变,正如《阿尔茨海默病诊断和分期修订标准》所提出的那样。这些标准主张仅根据生物标志物诊断阿尔茨海默病,而无需临床症状。本文探讨了这一转变背后的驱动因素,主要是受美国食品药品管理局批准降低淀粉样蛋白治疗的影响。我们对提出的标准进行了评估,这些标准允许通过替代淀粉样蛋白 PET 成像、脑脊液或血浆生物标记物,根据淀粉样蛋白 "A "或磷酸化 tau "T1 "阳性来诊断 AD,并考虑了支持和反对使用这些标准的论点。新标准的优点包括对AD的定义更加明确,目前AD的定义被交替使用,既指神经病理学的存在,也指临床综合征。我们认为,纯生物学定义有可能造成分类错误,并强调需要纵向数据来确定淀粉样蛋白阳性和 tau 阳性个体终生罹患痴呆症的风险。我们还告诫不要将基于生物标志物的AD诊断范围仅仅局限于淀粉样蛋白和tau。总之,我们建议目前仍将该标准应用于研究领域,同时提倡在临床实践中考虑采用血浆生物标记物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurology
Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
1973
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurology, the official journal of the American Academy of Neurology, aspires to be the premier peer-reviewed journal for clinical neurology research. Its mission is to publish exceptional peer-reviewed original research articles, editorials, and reviews to improve patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism in neurology. As the leading clinical neurology journal worldwide, Neurology targets physicians specializing in nervous system diseases and conditions. It aims to advance the field by presenting new basic and clinical research that influences neurological practice. The journal is a leading source of cutting-edge, peer-reviewed information for the neurology community worldwide. Editorial content includes Research, Clinical/Scientific Notes, Views, Historical Neurology, NeuroImages, Humanities, Letters, and position papers from the American Academy of Neurology. The online version is considered the definitive version, encompassing all available content. Neurology is indexed in prestigious databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biological Abstracts®, PsycINFO®, Current Contents®, Web of Science®, CrossRef, and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信