Search

Background and Objectives: Updates in Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnostic guidelines by the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) and the International Working Group (IWG) over the past 11 years may affect clinical diagnoses. We assessed how these guidelines affect clinical AD diagnosis in a cohort of cognitively unimpaired (CU) and cognitively impaired (CI) individuals., Methods: We applied clinical and biomarker data in algorithms to classify individuals from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) cohort according to the following diagnostic guidelines for AD: 2011 NIA-AA, 2016 IWG-2, 2018 NIA-AA, and 2021 IWG-3, assigning the following generic diagnostic labels: (1) not AD (nAD), (2) increased risk of developing AD (irAD), and (3) AD. Diagnostic labels were compared according to their frequency, convergence across guidelines, biomarker profiles, and prognostic value. We also evaluated the diagnostic discordance among the criteria., Results: A total of 1,195 individuals (mean age 73.2 ± 7.2 years, mean education 16.1 ± 2.7, 44.0% female) presented different repartitions of diagnostic labels according to the 2011 NIA-AA (nAD = 37.8%, irAD = 23.0%, AD = 39.2%), 2016 IWG-2 (nAD = 37.7%, irAD = 28.7%, AD = 33.6%), 2018 NIA-AA (nAD = 40.7%, irAD = 9.3%, AD = 50.0%), and 2021 IWG-3 (nAD = 51.2%, irAD = 8.4%, AD = 48.3%) frameworks. Discordant diagnoses across all guidelines were found in 512 participants (42.8%) (138 [91.4%] occurring in only β-amyloid [CU 65.4%, CI 34.6%] and 191 [78.6%] in only tau-positive [CU 71.7%, CI 28.3%] individuals). Differences in predicting cognitive impairment between nAD and irAD groups were observed with the 2011 NIA-AA (hazard ratio [HR] 2.21, 95% CI 1.34-3.65, p = 0.002), 2016 IWG-2 (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.59-4.96, p < 0.000), and 2021 IWG-3 (HR 3.61, 95% CI 2.09-6.23, p < 0.000), but not with 2018 NIA-AA (HR 1.69, 95% CI 0.87-3.28, p = 0.115)., Discussion: Over 42% of the studied population presented discordant diagnoses when using the different examined AD criteria, mostly in individuals with a single positive biomarker. Except for 2018 NIA-AA, all guidelines identified asymptomatic individuals at risk of cognitive impairment. Our findings highlight important differences between the guidelines, emphasizing the necessity for updated criteria with enhanced staging metrics, considering clinical, research, therapeutic, and trial design aspects.

Objective: To assess the frequency of biologically defined Alzheimer disease (AD) in relation to age, sex, APOE ε4, and clinical diagnosis in a prospective cohort study evaluated with amyloid-PET and tau-PET., Methods: We assessed cognitively unimpaired (CU) elderly (n = 166), patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (n = 77), and patients with probable AD dementia (n = 62) who underwent evaluation by dementia specialists and neuropsychologists in addition to amyloid-PET with [ 18 F]AZD4694 and tau-PET with [ 18 F]MK6240. Individuals were grouped according to their AD biomarker profile. Positive predictive value for biologically defined AD was assessed in relation to clinical diagnosis. Frequency of AD biomarker profiles was assessed using logistic regressions with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: The clinical diagnosis of probable AD dementia demonstrated good agreement with biologically defined AD (positive predictive value 85.2%). A total of 7.88% of CU were positive for both amyloid-PET and tau-PET. Frequency of biologically defined AD increased with age (OR 1.14; p < 0.0001) and frequency of APOE ε4 allele carriers (single ε4: OR 3.82; p < 0.0001; double ε4: OR 17.55, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Whereas we observed strong, but not complete, agreement between clinically defined probable AD dementia and biomarker positivity for both β-amyloid and tau, we also observed that biologically defined AD was not rare in CU elderly. Abnormal tau-PET was almost exclusively observed in individuals with abnormal amyloid-PET. Our results highlight that even in tertiary care memory clinics, detailed evaluation by dementia specialists systematically underestimates the frequency of biologically defined AD and related entities., Classification of Evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that biologically defined AD (abnormal amyloid PET and tau PET) was observed in 85.2% of people with clinically defined AD and 7.88% of CU elderly., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.)