Search

Background: The wait for the upcoming disease-modifying therapies (DMT) for Alzheimer's disease in Europe is raising questions about the preparedness of national healthcare systems to conduct accurate diagnoses and effective prescriptions. In this article, we focus on the current situation in Italy. Objective: The primary goal is to propose a profile of the Italian Centers for Cognitive Disorders and Dementias (CCDDs) that could be taken into consideration by regional and autonomous provincial authorities when deciding on the prescribing centers for DMT. Methods: Based on responses to a national survey on CCDDs in Italy, we identified the CCDDs that meet the requirements for effective prescription: 1) Multidisciplinary team; 2) Minimum Core Test for the neuropsychological assessment; 3) PET, CSF, and Brain MRI assessments. Univariate and multivariate comparisons were conducted between CCDDs that met the criteria and the others. Results: Only 10.4% of CCDDs met the requirements for effective DMT prescription, mainly located in Northern Italy. They are also characterized by longer opening hours, a higher number of professionals, a university location, and a higher frequency of conducting genetic tests, and could potentially result in prescribing centers. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the Italian national healthcare system may benefit from further enhancements to facilitate the effective prescription of DMTs. This could involve initiatives to reduce fragmentation, ensure adequate resources and equipment, and secure sufficient funding to support this aspect of healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are currently among the most investigated targets for potential disease-modifying therapies in Alzheimer's disease (AD).Objective: Our objectives were to identify all registered trials investigating mAbs in MCI due to AD or AD at any stage, retrieve available published and unpublished data from all registered trials, and analyze data on safety and efficacy outcomes.Methods: A systematic search of all registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and EUCT was performed. Available results were searched on both platforms and on PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, and The Cochrane Library.Results: Overall, 101 studies were identified on 27 mAbs. Results were available for 50 trials investigating 12 mAbs. For 18 trials, data were available from both published and unpublished sources, for 21 trials only from published sources, and for 11 trials only from unpublished sources. Meta-analyses of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) events showed overall risk ratios of 10.65 for ARIA-E and of 1.75 for ARIA-H. The meta-analysis of PET-SUVR showed an overall significant effect of mAbs in reducing amyloid (SMD -0.88), but when considering clinical efficacy, data on CDR-SB showed that treated patients had a statistically significant but clinically non-relevant lower worsening (MD -0.15).Conclusion: Our results suggest that the risk-benefit profile of mAbs remains unclear. Research should focus on clarifying the effect of amyloid on cognitive decline, providing data on treatment response rate, and accounting for minimal clinically important difference. Research on mAbs should also investigate the possible long-term impact of ARIA events, including potential factors predicting their onset. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed at investigating if the main biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) neuropathology and their association with cognitive disturbances and dementia are modified by the individual's frailty status. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from participants with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD dementia enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 (ADNI2) study. Frailty was operationalized by computing a 40-item Frailty Index (FI). The following AD biomarkers were considered and analyzed according to the participants' frailty status: CSF Aβ1-42, 181P-tau, and T-tau; MRI-based hippocampus volume; cortical glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging; amyloid deposition at the 18F-AV-45 PET imaging. Logistic regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and education, were performed to explore the association of biomarkers with cognitive status at different FI levels. Subjects with higher FI scores had lower CSF levels of Aβ1-42, hippocampus volumes at the MRI, and glucose metabolism at the FDG PET imaging, and a higher amyloid deposition at the 18F-AV-45 PET. No significant differences were observed among the two frailty groups concerning ApoE genotype, CSF T-tau, and P-tau. Increasing frailty levels were associated with a weakened relationship between dementia and 18F-AV-45 uptake and hippocampus volume and with a stronger relationship of dementia with FDG PET. Frailty contributes to the discrepancies between AD pathology and clinical manifestations and influences the association of AD pathological modifications with cognitive changes. AD and dementia should increasingly be conceived as "complex diseases of aging," determined by multiple, simultaneous, and interacting pathophysiological processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of biomarkers is profoundly transforming medical research and practice. Their adoption has triggered major advancements in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) over the past years. For instance, the analysis of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and neuroimaging changes indicative of neuronal loss and amyloid deposition has led to the understanding that AD is characterized by a long preclinical phase. It is also supporting the transition towards a biology-grounded framework and definition of the disease. Nevertheless, though sufficient evidence exists about the analytical validity (i.e., accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility) of the candidate AD biomarkers, their clinical validity (i.e., how well the test measures the clinical features, and the disease or treatment outcomes) and clinical utility (i.e., if and how the test improves the patient's outcomes, confirms/changes the diagnosis, identifies at-risk individuals, influences therapeutic choices) have not been fully proven. In the present review, some of the methodological issues and challenges that should be addressed in order to better appreciate the potential benefits and limitations of AD biomarkers are discussed. The ultimate goal is to stimulate a constructive discussion aimed at filling the existing gaps and more precisely defining the directions of future research. Specifically, four main aspects of the clinical validation process are addressed and applied to the most relevant CSF biomarkers: (1) the definition of reference values; (2) the identification of reference standards for the disease of interest (i.e., AD); (3) the inclusion within the diagnostic process; and (4) the statistical process supporting the whole framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study aimed to describe and discuss the state of the art of biomarker use in ongoing Alzheimer's disease (AD) research. A review of 222 ongoing phase 1, 2, 3, and 4 protocols registered in the clinicaltrials.gov database was performed. All the trials (i) enrolling subjects with clinical disturbances and/or preclinical diagnoses falling within the AD continuum; and (ii) testing the efficacy and/or safety/tolerability of a therapeutic intervention, were analyzed. The use of biomarkers of amyloid deposition, tau pathology, and neurodegeneration among the eligibility criteria and/or study outcomes was assessed. Overall, 58.2% of ongoing interventional studies on AD adopt candidate biomarkers. They are mostly adopted by studies at the preliminary stages of the drug development process to explore the safety profile of novel therapies, and to provide evidence of target engagement and disease-modifying properties. The biologically supported selection of participants is mostly based on biomarkers of amyloid deposition, whereas the use of biomarkers as study outcomes mostly relies on markers of neurodegeneration. Biomarkers play an important role in the design and conduction of research protocols targeting AD. Nevertheless, their clinical validity, utility, and cost-effectiveness in the "real world" remain to be clarified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • A data extraction form section was specifically designed for laboratory procedures. • Available evidence on miRNAs as biomarkers for MCI is currently still inconsistent. • Further, high-quality, studies on independent cohorts are needed. • Heterogeneity of results could be due to a high variability in laboratory procedures. • Meta-analysis of data was inappropriate due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Abstract Background Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is usually described as an intermediate phase between normal cognition and dementia. Identifying the subjects at a higher risk of progressing from MCI to AD is essential to manage this condition. The diagnosis of MCI is mainly clinical. Several biomarkers have been proposed, but mostly for research purposes, as they are based on an invasive procedure to obtain the sample, such as cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). As a consequence, rapid and non-invasive biomarkers are needed to improve diagnosis. The objective of this systematic review is to summarize available evidence on the use of miRNAs as biomarkers in subjects with MCI. Methods Relevant literature published up to June 2018 was retrieved searching the databases PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and the Cochrane Database. Only studies considering microRNAs (miRNAs) and a diagnosis of MCI were included. Data were extracted using a specifically-designed standardized form, and their methodological quality was assessed using QUADAS-2 and QUIPS. Results Twenty-one studies of 153 retrieved articles met the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies included participants ranging from 6 to 330. More than 40 miRNAs resulted as dysregulated, and miR-206 was the only miRNA that was found as differentially expressed in patients with MCI by more than two studies. However, these results have either not yet been confirmed in other independent cohorts, or data are still inconsistent. Inconsistencies among included studies could be due to several issues including the selection of participants, pre-analytical and analytical procedures, and statistical analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]