Search

Timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice remains challenging. PET and CSF biomarkers are the most widely used biomarkers to aid diagnosis in clinical research but present limitations for clinical practice (i.e., cost, accessibility). Emerging blood-based markers have the potential to be accurate, cost-effective, and easily accessible for widespread clinical use, and could facilitate timely diagnosis. The EU/US CTAD Task Force met in May 2022 in a virtual meeting to discuss pathways to implementation of blood-based markers in clinical practice. Specifically, the CTAD Task Force assessed: the state-of-art for blood-based markers, the current use of blood-based markers in clinical trials, the potential use of blood-based markers in clinical practice, the current challenges with blood-based markers, and the next steps needed for broader adoption in clinical practice.

Diagnosing Alzheimer's disease (AD) poses significant challenges to health care, often resulting in delayed or inadequate patient care. The clinical integration of blood-based biomarkers (BBMs) for AD holds promise in enabling early detection of pathology and timely intervention. However, several critical considerations, such as the lack of consistent guidelines for assessing cognition, limited understanding of BBM test characteristics, insufficient evidence on BBM performance across diverse populations, and the ethical management of test results, must be addressed for widespread clinical implementation of BBMs in the United States. The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease BBM Workgroup convened to address these challenges and provide recommendations that underscore the importance of evidence-based guidelines, improved training for health-care professionals, patient empowerment through informed decision making, and the necessity of community-based studies to understand BBM performance in real-world populations. Multi-stakeholder engagement is essential to implement these recommendations and ensure credible guidance and education are accessible to all stakeholders., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Blood-based biomarkers (BBM) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are being increasingly used in clinical practice to support an AD diagnosis. In contrast to traditional diagnostic modalities, such as amyloid positron emission tomography and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, BBMs offer a more accessible and lower cost alternative for AD biomarker testing. Their unique scalability addresses the anticipated surge in demand for biomarker testing with the emergence of disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) that require confirmation of amyloid pathology. To facilitate the uptake of BBMs in clinical practice, The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a BBM Workgroup to provide recommendations for two clinical implementational pathways for BBMs: one for current use for triaging and another for future use to confirm amyloid pathology. These pathways provide a standardized diagnostic approach with guidance on interpreting BBM test results. Integrating BBMs into clinical practice will simplify the diagnostic process and facilitate timely access to DMTs for eligible patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). Alzheimer's & Dementia published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. Blood biomarker (BBM) tests for amyloid pathology are more acceptable, accessible and scalable than amyloid PET or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests, but have highly variable levels of performance. The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a BBM Workgroup to consider the minimum acceptable performance of BBM tests for clinical use. Amyloid PET status was identified as the reference standard. For use as a triaging test before subsequent confirmatory tests such as amyloid PET or CSF tests, the BBM Workgroup recommends that a BBM test has a sensitivity of ≥90% with a specificity of ≥85% in primary care and ≥75-85% in secondary care depending on the availability of follow-up testing. For use as a confirmatory test without follow-up tests, a BBM test should have performance equivalent to that of CSF tests - a sensitivity and specificity of ~90%. Importantly, the predictive values of all biomarker tests vary according to the pre-test probability of amyloid pathology and must be interpreted in the complete clinical context. Use of BBM tests that meet these performance standards could enable more people to receive an accurate and timely Alzheimer disease diagnosis and potentially benefit from new treatments., (© 2024. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Development of in vivo biomarkers has shifted the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) from the later dementia stages of disease towards the earlier stages and has introduced the potential for pre-symptomatic diagnosis. The International Working Group recommends that AD diagnosis is restricted in the clinical setting to people with specific AD phenotypes and supportive biomarker findings., Main Body: In this review, we discuss the phenotypic presentation and use of biomarkers for the early diagnosis of typical and atypical AD and describe how this can support clinical decision making, benefit patient communication, and improve the patient journey. Early diagnosis is essential to optimize the benefits of available and emerging treatments. As atypical presentations of AD often mimic other dementias, differential diagnosis can be challenging and can be facilitated using AD biomarkers. However, AD biomarkers alone are not sufficient to confidently diagnose AD or predict disease progression and should be supplementary to clinical assessment to help inform the diagnosis of AD., Conclusions: Use of AD biomarkers with incorporation of atypical AD phenotypes into diagnostic criteria will allow earlier diagnosis of patients with atypical clinical presentations that otherwise would have been misdiagnosed and treated inappropriately. Early diagnosis is essential to guide informed discussion, appropriate care and support, and individualized treatment. It is hoped that disease-modifying treatments will impact the underlying AD pathology; thus, determining the patient's AD phenotype will be a critical factor in guiding the therapeutic approach and the assessment of the effects of interventions., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Biomarker testing is recommended for the accurate and timely diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using illustrative case narratives we consider how cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker tests may be used in different presentations of cognitive impairment to facilitate timely and differential diagnosis, improving diagnostic accuracy, providing prognostic information, and guiding personalized management in diverse scenarios. Evidence shows that (1) CSF ratios are superior to amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42 alone; (2) concordance of CSF ratios to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) is better than Aβ1-42 alone; and (3) phosphorylated tau (p-tau)/Aβ1-42 ratio is superior to p-tau alone. CSF biomarkers are recommended for the exclusion of AD as the underlying cause of cognitive impairment, diagnosis of AD at an early stage, differential diagnosis of AD in individuals presenting with other neuropsychiatric symptoms, accurate diagnosis of AD in an atypical presentation, and for clinical trial enrichment., Highlights:  Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarker testing may be underused outside specialist centers.CSF biomarkers improve diagnostic accuracy, guiding personalized management of AD.CSF ratios (amyloid beta [Aβ]1-42/Aβ1-40 and phosphorylated tau/Aβ1-42) perform better than single markers.CSF ratios produce fewer false-negative and false-positive results than individual markers.CSF biomarkers should be included in diagnostic work-up of AD and mild cognitive impairment due to AD., Competing Interests: Femke Bouwman received a grant from Optina Dx (Canada), honoraria from Roche, and provided expert testimony for Biogen; all payments were made to the institution. Giovanni B. Frisoni has no competing interests to declare. Sterling C. Johnson received a research grant from Cerveau Technologies paid to the institution, participated in advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics and Prothena, and received an equipment grant from Roche Diagnostics paid to the institution. Xiaochun Chen has no competing interests to declare. Sebastiaan Engelborghs received grants from Janssen Pharmaceutica and ADx Neurosciences paid to the institution; consulting fees from icometrix (paid to institution), Biogen, Roche, and Novartis; and honoraria from Eisai/Pfizer. Takeshi Ikeuchi received grants AMED JP21dk0207049, AMED JP21dk0207045, and AMED JP21ek0109545 paid to the institution, and honoraria from Eisai, Daiichi‐Sankyo, Fuji Film RI Pharma, Ajinomoto, Novartis, and Chugai Pharmaceutical. Claire Paquet is on advisory boards for Roche, Lilly, and Biogen laboratories. Craig Ritchie received consulting fees from Roche, Biogen, Eisai, Sygnature, Actinogen, Eli Lilly, MSD, Signant Health, and Alchemab, and honoraria from Biogen, Roche, and Eisai. Charlotte Teunissen has collaboration contracts with ADx Neurosciences and Quanterix, and grants from Axon NeuroSciences, Biogen, Boehringer, Brainstorm Therapeutics, EIP farma, Esai, Janssen prevention center, Roche, Toyama, and Vivoryon. Sasha Bozeat and Frances‐Catherine Quevenco are paid employees of Roche Diagnostic Solutions. Article processing charges were paid by Roche Diagnostics International Ltd., (© 2022 The Authors. Alzheimer's & Dementia: Diagnosis, Assessment & Disease Monitoring published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of Alzheimer's Association.)

The aims of this study were (a) to explore the utility of, and make more widely available, an updated and extended version of the Cambridge Semantic Memory test battery, and (b) to use this battery in conjunction with other tests to characterise the profile of several different forms of progressive cognitive impairment: semantic dementia (SD, n = 15), mild cognitive impairment (MCI, n = 7), established Alzheimer's disease (AD) (n = 8), all in comparison to normal controls (n = 45). The semantic battery is useful in a variety of ways for exploring the nature of semantic deficits; on its own, however, it does not provide sensitive differentiation between patients with AD and SD. An assessment including measures of episodic memory and visuospatial abilities as well as the semantic battery is recommended for good characterisation of the cognitive profiles associated with SD and AD.

The aim of this study was to investigate memory in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD). Ten patients with MCI, 11 with AD and a group of age and education matched healthy control participants were assessed on a comprehensive battery of semantic memory tests, including traditional semantic memory measures and a non-verbal test of knowledge of object use. The MCI group was impaired on tests of category fluency and all three conditions of an object knowledge test (matching to recipient, function and action), plus a difficult object-naming test. The mild AD group showed additional impairments on traditional measures of semantic memory, including naming high frequency items, comprehension and semantic association. Together these findings suggest that semantic memory impairments occur early in the course of AD, more specifically in patients with "amnesic" MCI, and provide further evidence that impaired category fluency reflects semantic breakdown.

Wernicke (1900, as cited in G. H. Eggert, 1977) suggested that semantic knowledge arises from the interaction of perceptual representations of objects and words. The authors present a parallel distributed processing implementation of this theory, in which semantic representations emerge from mechanisms that acquire the mappings between visual representations of objects and their verbal descriptions. To test the theory, they trained the model to associate names, verbal descriptions, and visual representations of objects. When its inputs and outputs are constructed to capture aspects of structure apparent in attribute-norming experiments, the model provides an intuitive account of semantic task performance. The authors then used the model to understand the structure of impaired performance in patients with selective and progressive impairments of conceptual knowledge. Data from 4 well-known semantic tasks revealed consistent patterns that find a ready explanation in the model. The relationship between the model and related theories of semantic representation is discussed.

In Study 1, six patients with semantic dementia were asked to produce drawings of concrete concepts from dictation of their names. The drawings were characterised by a loss of distinctive features. In the artefact domain, this feature loss resulted in representations that were increasingly box-like. In the living domain, as well as distinctive features being lost, there was a tendency for patients to include incorrect features that resulted in more familiar and "prototypical" representations. A second study included two further conditions in the drawing assessment: immediate and delayed copying of line drawings of concrete concepts. Analysis of the drawings produced by three patients with semantic dementia confirmed that overall performance was significantly influenced by the task condition (immediate delayed) and severity of disease. The rate of intruding features, but not of omitted ones, was influenced by the domain of the item, with a greater proportion of intrusions in the living than in the nonliving domain. There was also a significant effect of feature distinctiveness on the proportions of these error types: Intruded features were most likely to come from the pool of properties that are shared across domain.

To investigate the nature of the apraxia in corticobasal degeneration (CBD) five patients with CBD and five matched controls were compared on tests of: i) meaningless and symbolic gesture production, ii) a battery of semantic tasks based on 20 everyday items (involving naming and picture-picture matching according to semantic attributes, matching gestures-to-objects, object usage from name and with the real object) and iii) a novel tool test of mechanical problem solving. All five patients showed severe impairment in the production of meaningless and symbolic gestures from command, and by imitation, and were also impaired when using real objects. Deficits were not, however, restricted to action production: four were unable to match gestures to objects and all five showed impairment in the selection and usage of novel tools in the mechanical problem solving task. Surprising was the finding of an additional semantic knowledge breakdown in three cases, two of whom were markedly anomic. The apraxia in CBD is, therefore, multifactorial. There is profound breakdown in the organisation and co-ordination of motor programming. In addition, patients show central deficits in action knowledge and mechanical problem solving, which has been linked to parietal lobe pathology. General semantic memory may also be affected in CBD in some cases and this may then contribute to impaired object usage. This combination of more than one deficit relevant for object use may explain why CBD patients are far more disabled by their dyspraxia in everyday life than any other patient group.

It has been reported that patients with semantic dementia function well in everyday life and sometimes show striking preservation of the ability to use objects, even those specific objects for which the patient has degraded conceptual information. To explore this phenomenon in nine cases of semantic dementia, we designed a set of semantic tests regarding 20 everyday objects and compared performance on these with the patients' ability to demonstrate the correct use of the same items. We also administered a test of mechanical problem solving utilizing novel tools, on which the patients had completely normal ability. All but the mildest affected patient showed significant deficits of naming and on the visually based semantic matching tasks. Object use was markedly impaired and, most importantly, correlated strongly with naming and semantic knowledge. In a small number of instances, there was appropriate use of an object for which the patient's knowledge on the semantic matching tasks was no better than chance; but this typically applied to objects with a rather obvious relationship between appearance and use, or was achieved by trial and error. The results suggest that object use is heavily dependent upon object-specific conceptual knowledge, supplemented to some degree by a combination of visual affordances and mechanical problem solving.