Explore the vast range of titles available.

In 2018, the US National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association proposed a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease that relies on biomarkers. Although the intended use of this framework was for research purposes, it has engendered debate and challenges regarding its use in everyday clinical practice. For instance, cognitively unimpaired individuals can have biomarker evidence of both amyloid β and tau pathology but will often not develop clinical manifestations in their lifetime. Furthermore, a positive Alzheimer's disease pattern of biomarkers can be observed in other brain diseases in which Alzheimer's disease pathology is present as a comorbidity. In this Personal View, the International Working Group presents what we consider to be the current limitations of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and, on the basis of this evidence, we propose recommendations for how biomarkers should and should not be used for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease in a clinical setting. We recommend that Alzheimer's disease diagnosis be restricted to people who have positive biomarkers together with specific Alzheimer's disease phenotypes, whereas biomarker-positive cognitively unimpaired individuals should be considered only at-risk for progression to Alzheimer's disease.

Vascular contributions to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are increasingly recognized 1 – 6 . Recent studies have suggested that breakdown of the blood–brain barrier (BBB) is an early biomarker of human cognitive dysfunction 7 , including the early clinical stages of Alzheimer’s disease 5 , 8 – 10 . The E4 variant of apolipoprotein E ( APOE4 ), the main susceptibility gene for Alzheimer’s disease 11 – 14 , leads to accelerated breakdown of the BBB and degeneration of brain capillary pericytes 15 – 19 , which maintain BBB integrity 20 – 22 . It is unclear, however, whether the cerebrovascular effects of APOE4 contribute to cognitive impairment. Here we show that individuals bearing APOE4 (with the ε3/ε4 or ε4/ε4 alleles) are distinguished from those without APOE4 (ε3/ε3) by breakdown of the BBB in the hippocampus and medial temporal lobe. This finding is apparent in cognitively unimpaired APOE4 carriers and more severe in those with cognitive impairment, but is not related to amyloid-β or tau pathology measured in cerebrospinal fluid or by positron emission tomography 23 . High baseline levels of the BBB pericyte injury biomarker soluble PDGFRβ 7 , 8 in the cerebrospinal fluid predicted future cognitive decline in APOE4 carriers but not in non-carriers, even after controlling for amyloid-β and tau status, and were correlated with increased activity of the BBB-degrading cyclophilin A-matrix metalloproteinase-9 pathway 19 in cerebrospinal fluid. Our findings suggest that breakdown of the BBB contributes to APOE4 -associated cognitive decline independently of Alzheimer’s disease pathology, and might be a therapeutic target in APOE4 carriers. Breakdown of the blood–brain barrier in individuals carrying the ε4 allele of the APOE gene, but not the ε3 allele, increases with and predicts cognitive impairment and is independent of amyloid β or tau pathology.

Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment are increasingly recognized1–5 as shown by neuropathological6,7, neuroimaging4,8–11, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker4,12 studies. Moreover, small vessel disease of the brain has been estimated to contribute to approximately 50% of all dementias worldwide, including those caused by Alzheimer’s disease (AD)3,4,13. Vascular changes in AD have been typically attributed to the vasoactive and/or vasculotoxic effects of amyloid-β (Aβ)3,11,14, and more recently tau15. Animal studies suggest that Aβ and tau lead to blood vessel abnormalities and blood–brain barrier (BBB) breakdown14–16. Although neurovascular dysfunction3,11 and BBB breakdown develop early in AD1,4,5,8–10,12,13, how they relate to changes in the AD classical biomarkers Aβ and tau, which also develop before dementia17, remains unknown. To address this question, we studied brain capillary damage using a novel cerebrospinal fluid biomarker of BBB-associated capillary mural cell pericyte, soluble platelet-derived growth factor receptor-β8,18, and regional BBB permeability using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging8–10. Our data show that individuals with early cognitive dysfunction develop brain capillary damage and BBB breakdown in the hippocampus irrespective of Alzheimer’s Aβ and/or tau biomarker changes, suggesting that BBB breakdown is an early biomarker of human cognitive dysfunction independent of Aβ and tau.Neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid analyses in humans reveal that loss of blood–brain barrier integrity and brain capillary pericyte damage are early biomarkers of cognitive impairment that occur independently of changes in amyloid-β and tau.

[...]a substantial increase in long-term funding for multidisciplinary research programmes is absolutely essential to reduce the burden of individual suffering and the enormous societal cost of AD. In 2015, almost 47 million people worldwide were estimated to be affected by dementia, and the numbers are expected to reach 75 million by 2030, and 131 million by 2050, with the greatest increase expected in low-income and middle-income countries.2 In 2012 and 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) presented reports in which it acknowledged this trend--sometimes described in terms of a fast-growing epidemic--and concluded that AD and other dementias should be regarded as a global public health priority.3,4 Similar policy declarations have been made by the European Union5 (EU) and by some individual countries. Care for people with dementia is provided by several sectors in society, with the social-care (long-term care and home services) and informal-care (provided by non-professional caregivers) sectors accounting for the greatest proportion of costs--even greater than the cost of direct medical care.6 In cost-of-illness studies, total societal cost estimates for dementia in Europe in 2010 were between $238·6 billion6 and [euro]105·6 billion.7 The economic costs of caring for a growing number of people with AD and other dementias are formidable, but the combined economic and societal burden of dementia is more daunting still, corresponding to the aggregate burden of people with dementia and their next of kin.

Background Synapse damage and loss are fundamental to the pathophysiology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and lead to reduced cognitive function. The goal of this review is to address the challenges of forging new clinical development approaches for AD therapeutics that can demonstrate reduction of synapse damage or loss. The key points of this review include the following: Synapse loss is a downstream effect of amyloidosis, tauopathy, inflammation, and other mechanisms occurring in AD. Synapse loss correlates most strongly with cognitive decline in AD because synaptic function underlies cognitive performance. Compounds that halt or reduce synapse damage or loss have a strong rationale as treatments of AD. Biomarkers that measure synapse degeneration or loss in patients will facilitate clinical development of such drugs. The ability of methods to sensitively measure synapse density in the brain of a living patient through synaptic vesicle glycoprotein 2A (SV2A) positron emission tomography (PET) imaging, concentrations of synaptic proteins (e.g., neurogranin or synaptotagmin) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), or functional imaging techniques such as quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) provides a compelling case to use these types of measurements as biomarkers that quantify synapse damage or loss in clinical trials in AD. Conclusion A number of emerging biomarkers are able to measure synapse injury and loss in the brain and may correlate with cognitive function in AD. These biomarkers hold promise both for use in diagnostics and in the measurement of therapeutic successes.

Leuco-methylthioninium bis(hydromethanesulfonate; LMTM), a stable reduced form of the methylthioninium moiety, acts as a selective inhibitor of tau protein aggregation both in vitro and in transgenic mouse models. Methylthioninium chloride has previously shown potential efficacy as monotherapy in patients with Alzheimer's disease. We aimed to determine whether LMTM was safe and effective in modifying disease progression in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. We did a 15-month, randomised, controlled double-blind, parallel-group trial at 115 academic centres and private research clinics in 16 countries in Europe, North America, Asia, and Russia with patients younger than 90 years with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Patients concomitantly using other medicines for Alzheimer's disease were permitted to be included because we considered it infeasible not to allow their inclusion; however, patients using medicines carrying warnings of methaemoglobinaemia were excluded because the oxidised form of methylthioninium in high doses has been shown to induce this condition. We randomly assigned participants (3:3:4) to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, 125 mg LMTM twice a day, or control (4 mg LMTM twice a day to maintain blinding with respect to urine or faecal discolouration) administered as oral tablets. We did the randomisation with an interactive web response system using 600 blocks of length ten, and stratified patients by severity of disease, global region, whether they were concomitantly using Alzheimer's disease-labelled medications, and site PET capability. Participants, their study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout the study. The coprimary outcomes were progression on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog) and the Alzheimer's Disease Co-operative Study–Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL) scales from baseline assessed at week 65 in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01689246) and the European Union Clinical Trials Registry (2012-002866-11). Between Jan 29, 2013, and June 26, 2014, we recruited and randomly assigned 891 participants to treatment (357 to control, 268 to 75 mg LMTM twice a day, and 266 to 125 mg LMTM twice a day). The prespecified primary analyses did not show any treatment benefit at either of the doses tested for the coprimary outcomes (change in ADAS-Cog score compared with control [n=354, 6·32, 95% CI 5·31−7·34]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day [n=257] −0·02, −1·60 to 1·56, p=0·9834, 125 mg LMTM twice a day [n=250] −0·43, −2·06 to 1·20, p=0·9323; change in ADCS-ADL score compared with control [−8·22, 95% CI −9·63 to −6·82]: 75 mg LMTM twice a day −0·93, −3·12 to 1·26, p=0·8659; 125 mg LMTM twice a day −0·34, −2·61 to 1·93, p=0·9479). Gastrointestinal and urinary effects were the most common adverse events with both high doses of LMTM, and the most common causes for discontinuation. Non-clinically significant dose-dependent reductions in haemoglobin concentrations were the most common laboratory abnormality. Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities were noted in less than 1% (8/885) of participants. The primary analysis for this study was negative, and the results do not suggest benefit of LMTM as an add-on treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. Findings from a recently completed 18-month trial of patients with mild Alzheimer's disease will be reported soon. TauRx Therapeutics.

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine do not have regulatory approval in most of the world for treatment of vascular dementia. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the evidence for efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in vascular dementia. PubMed, BIOSIS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane registries were searched for randomised, placebo-controlled trials on cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in patients with vascular dementia. Trial methods, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were extracted and checked. Meta-analytic methods using fixed-effects models were used to give summaries of each drug's effects. Three donepezil, two galantamine, one rivastigmine, and two memantine trials, comprising 3093 patients on the study drugs and 2090 patients on placebo, met the selection criteria. Trials were of 6-month duration with similar vascular dementia criteria and outcome measures. Cognitive effects on the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment scale were significant for all drugs, ranging from a −1·10 point mean difference (95% CI −2·15 to −0·05) for rivastigmine to −2·17 for 10 mg daily donepezil (95% CI −2·98 to −1·35). Only 5 mg daily donepezil had an effect on the Clinicians' Global Impression of Change scale (odds ratio 1·51 [95% CI 1·11–2·07]). No behavioural or functional benefits were observed, except for a −0·95 point difference (95% CI −1·74 to −0·16) with 10 mg daily donepezil on the Alzheimer's Disease Functional Assessment and Change Scale. Compared with placebo, more dropouts and adverse events (anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and insomnia) occurred with the cholinesterase inhibitors, but not with memantine. Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine produce small benefits in cognition of uncertain clinical significance in patients with mild to moderate vascular dementia. Data are insufficient to support widespread use of these drugs in vascular dementia. Individual patient analyses are needed to identify subgroups of patients with vascular dementia who might benefit.

Introduction Composite scales have been advanced as primary outcomes in early stage Alzheimer's disease trials, and endorsed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pivotal trials. They are generally composed of several neurocognitive subscales and may include clinical and functional activity scales. Methods We summarized the development of 12 composite scales intended as outcomes for clinical trials and assessed their characteristics. Results Composite scales have been constructed from past observational and clinical trial databases by selecting components of individual neuropsychological tests previously used in clinical trials. The atheoretical approaches to combining scales into a composite scale that have often been used risk omitting clinically important measures and so may include redundant, irrelevant, or noncontributory tests. The deliberate combining of neurocognitive scales with functional activity scales provides arbitrary weightings that also may be clinically irrelevant or obscure change in a particular domain. Basic psychometric information is lacking for most of the composites. Discussion Although composite scales are desirable for pivotal clinical trials because they, in principle, provide for a single, primary outcome combining neurocognitive and/or functional domains, they have substantial limitations, including their common derivations, inattention to basic psychometric principles, redundancy, absence of alternate forms, and, arguably, the inclusion of functional measures in some. In effect, any currently used composite is undergoing validation through its use in a trial. The assumption that a composite, by its construction alone, is more likely than an individual measure to detect an effect from any particular drug and that the effect is more clinically relevant or valid has not been demonstrated.

To describe the presence of practice effects in persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and to evaluate how practice effects affect cognitive progression and the outcome of clinical trials. Using data from a meta-database consisting of 18 studies including participants from the Alzheimer disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) and the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) with ADAS-Cog11 as the primary outcome, we defined practice effects based on the improvement in the first two ADAS-Cog11 scores and then estimated the presence of practice effects and compared the cognitive progression between participants with and without practice effects. The robustness of practice effects was investigated using CDR SB, an outcome independent the definition itself. Furthermore, we evaluated how practice effects can affect sample size estimation. The overall percent of practice effects for AD participants was 39.0% and 53.3% for MCI participants. For AD studies, the mean change from baseline to 2 years was 12.8 points for the non-practice effects group vs 7.4 for the practice effects group; whereas for MCI studies, it was 4.1 for non-practice effects group vs 0.2 for the practice effects group. AD participants without practice effects progressed 0.9 points faster than those with practice effects over a period of 2 years in CDR-SB; whereas for MCI participants, the difference is 0.7 points. The sample sizes can be different by over 35% when estimated based on participants with/without practice effects. Practice effects were prevalent and robust in persons with AD or MCI and affected the cognitive progression and sample size estimation. Planning of future AD or MCI clinical trials should account for practice effects to avoid underpower or considers target trials or stratification analysis based on practice effects.

Atypical antipsychotic medications are widely used to treat delusions, aggression, and agitation in people with Alzheimer disease (AD) and other dementia. Several clinical trials have not shown efficacy, and there have been concerns about adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess the evidence for efficacy and adverse events of atypicals for people with dementia MEDLINE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, meetings, presentations, and information obtained from sponsors were used in this study. Published and unpublished randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trials in patients with AD or dementia of atypical antipsychotics marketed in the United States were studied. Clinical and trials characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events were extracted. Data were checked by a second reviewer. Fifteen trials including 16 contrasts of atypical antipsychotics with placebo met selection criteria: aripiprazole (k = 3), olanzapine (k = 5), quetiapine (k = 3), and risperidone (k = 5). A total of 3,353 patients were randomized to drug and 1,757 to placebo. Standard meta-analysis methods were used to summarize outcomes. Quality of the reporting of trials varied. Efficacy on rating scales was observed by meta-analysis for aripiprazole and risperidone, but not for olanzapine. Response rates were frequently not reported. There were smaller effects for less severe dementia, outpatients, and patients selected for psychosis. Approximately one-third dropped out without overall differences between drug and placebo. Adverse events were mainly somnolence and urinary tract infection or incontinence across drugs, and extrapyramidal symptoms or abnormal gait with risperidone or olanzapine. Cognitive test scores worsened with drugs. There was no evidence for increased injury, falls, or syncope. There was a significant risk for cerebrovascular events, especially with risperidone; increased risk for death overall was reported elsewhere. Small statistical effect sizes on symptom rating scales support the evidence for the efficacy of aripiprazole and risperidone. Incomplete reporting restricts estimates of response rates and clinical significance. Dropouts and adverse events further limit effectiveness. Atypicals should be considered within the context of medical need and the efficacy and safety of alternatives. Individual patient meta-analyses are needed to better assess clinical significance and effectiveness.