Recommendations of the International Working Group for the clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease
Bruno Dubois,Nicolas Villain,Giovanni Frisoni,Gil D. Rabinovici,Marwan Noel Sabbagh,Stefano Cappa,Alexandre Bejanin,Stéphanie Bombois,Stéphane Epelbaum,Marc Teichmann,Marie‐Odile Habert,Agneta K. Nordberg,Kaj Blennow,Doug R. Galasko,Yaakov Stern,Christopher C. Rowe,Stephen P. Salloway,Lon S. Schneider,Jeffrey L. Cummings,Howard Feldman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.057538
2021-12-01
Abstract:Abstract Background In 2018, the National Institute of Aging and the Alzheimer Association proposed a purely biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) relying on biomarkers. While the intended use of the framework was for research purposes, it has engendered debate and challenges regarding its application in everyday clinical practice. Method We performed a literature review and pointed out the limitations of the current purely biological definition of AD. Result Neuropathological studies have shown that amyloid β plaques and tau tangles are often accompanied by other pathologies, so ascribing the clinical phenotype to an amyloid or tau biomarker result might be difficult. In asymptomatic people, the detection of abnormal biomarkers is fraught with problems relating to uncertainty about the prognosis, and complex judgments and ethical issues about communicating results. Even defining biomarker categories is not simple, because methods for determining positivity are not always straightforward and nominally negative biomarker values can be associated with future cognitive decline. New clinical framework proposition: To address these concerns, the IWG advocates a return to Alzheimer’s disease as a clinical‐biological entity, characterised by amyloid β and tau biomarkers plus a typical clinical phenotype. We advise against measurement of amyloid β and tau biomarkers in asymptomatic people because of unreliable predictive power; nevertheless, we do provide a risk stratification scheme for such people, and abnormal amyloid β and tau biomarkers are thought to confer high risk. However, such individuals are categorised as being asymptomatic at risk of progression, not as having AD. In symptomatic people, we stress the importance of a careful clinical evaluation in view of the common occurrence of multiple pathologies, borderline biomarker measurements, and conflicting findings. Conclusion These new recommandations of the IWG are the opportunity to debate about the definition of AD and the use of biomarkers in clinical practice and pharmacological trials. This developing topic should open a significant discussion between AD specialists (both physicians and scientists) at the 2021 AAIC.