Jemma Hazan, Kathy Y Liu, Harry Costello, Jeremy D Isaacs, Madhav Thambisetty, Robert Howard
{"title":"阿尔茨海默病生物学定义的挑战。","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":"103 9","pages":"e209884"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11449396/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"103 9\",\"pages\":\"e209884\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11449396/pdf/\",\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Challenges in a Biological Definition of Alzheimer Disease.
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.
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.