OBJECTIVE: A workgroup commissioned by the Alzheimer's Association (AA) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) recently published research criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD). We performed a preliminary assessment of these guidelines. METHODS: We employed Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as our biomarker of cerebral amyloidosis, and (18) fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging and hippocampal volume as biomarkers of neurodegeneration. A group of 42 clinically diagnosed AD subjects was used to create imaging biomarker cutpoints. A group of 450 cognitively normal (CN) subjects from a population-based sample was used to develop cognitive cutpoints and to assess population frequencies of the different preclinical AD stages using different cutpoint criteria. RESULTS: The new criteria subdivide the preclinical phase of AD into stages 1 to 3. To classify our CN subjects, 2 additional categories were needed. Stage 0 denotes subjects with normal AD biomarkers and no evidence of subtle cognitive impairment. Suspected non-AD pathophysiology (SNAP) denotes subjects with normal amyloid PET imaging, but abnormal neurodegeneration biomarker studies. At fixed cutpoints corresponding to 90% sensitivity for diagnosing AD and the 10th percentile of CN cognitive scores, 43% of our sample was classified as stage 0, 16% stage 1, 12 % stage 2, 3% stage 3, and 23% SNAP. INTERPRETATION: This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. Future longitudinal validation of the criteria will be important.
OBJECTIVE: A workgroup commissioned by the Alzheimer's Association (AA) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) recently published research criteria for preclinical Alzheimer disease (AD). We performed a preliminary assessment of these guidelines. METHODS: We employed Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as our biomarker of cerebral amyloidosis, and (18) fluorodeoxyglucose PET imaging and hippocampal volume as biomarkers of neurodegeneration. A group of 42 clinically diagnosed AD subjects was used to create imaging biomarker cutpoints. A group of 450 cognitively normal (CN) subjects from a population-based sample was used to develop cognitive cutpoints and to assess population frequencies of the different preclinical AD stages using different cutpoint criteria. RESULTS: The new criteria subdivide the preclinical phase of AD into stages 1 to 3. To classify our CN subjects, 2 additional categories were needed. Stage 0 denotes subjects with normal AD biomarkers and no evidence of subtle cognitive impairment. Suspected non-AD pathophysiology (SNAP) denotes subjects with normal amyloid PET imaging, but abnormal neurodegeneration biomarker studies. At fixed cutpoints corresponding to 90% sensitivity for diagnosing AD and the 10th percentile of CN cognitive scores, 43% of our sample was classified as stage 0, 16% stage 1, 12 % stage 2, 3% stage 3, and 23% SNAP. INTERPRETATION: This cross-sectional evaluation of the NIA-AA criteria for preclinical AD indicates that the 1-3 staging criteria coupled with stage 0 and SNAP categories classify 97% of CN subjects from a population-based sample, leaving only 3% unclassified. Future longitudinal validation of the criteria will be important.
Authors: Femke H Bouwman; Niki S M Schoonenboom; Nicolaas A Verwey; Evert J van Elk; Astrid Kok; Marinus A Blankenstein; Philip Scheltens; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2008-04-09 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: P Vemuri; H J Wiste; S D Weigand; L M Shaw; J Q Trojanowski; M W Weiner; D S Knopman; R C Petersen; C R Jack Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: S M Resnick; J Sojkova; Y Zhou; Y An; W Ye; D P Holt; R F Dannals; C A Mathis; W E Klunk; L Ferrucci; M A Kraut; D F Wong Journal: Neurology Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: John C Morris; Catherine M Roe; Elizabeth A Grant; Denise Head; Martha Storandt; Alison M Goate; Anne M Fagan; David M Holtzman; Mark A Mintun Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2009-12
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; William J Jagust; Leslie M Shaw; Paul S Aisen; Michael W Weiner; Ronald C Petersen; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Mark A Mintun; Aarti R Shah; Patricia Aldea; Catherine M Roe; Robert H Mach; Daniel Marcus; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Laura E M Wisse; Nirali Butala; Sandhitsu R Das; Christos Davatzikos; Bradford C Dickerson; Sanjeev N Vaishnavi; Paul A Yushkevich; David A Wolk Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Henrik Zetterberg; Argonde C van Harten; Lidia Glodzik; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Luisella Bocchio-Chiavetto; Lorena Rami; Oskar Hansson; Reisa Sperling; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Ricardo S Osorio; Hugo Vanderstichele; Manu Vandijck; Harald Hampel; Stefan Teipl; Abhay Moghekar; Marilyn Albert; William T Hu; Jose A Monge Argilés; Ana Gorostidi; Charlotte E Teunissen; Peter P De Deyn; Bradley T Hyman; Jose L Molinuevo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gurutz Linazasoro; Mony J de Leon; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Brain Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Clifford R Jack; David S Knopman; Gaël Chételat; Dennis Dickson; Anne M Fagan; Giovanni B Frisoni; William Jagust; Elizabeth C Mormino; Ronald C Petersen; Reisa A Sperling; Wiesje M van der Flier; Victor L Villemagne; Pieter J Visser; Stephanie J B Vos Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2016-01-18 Impact factor: 42.937
Authors: Elizabeth E Moore; Timothy J Hohman; Faizan S Badami; Kimberly R Pechman; Katie E Osborn; Lealani Mae Y Acosta; Susan P Bell; Michelle A Babicz; Katherine A Gifford; Adam W Anderson; Lee E Goldstein; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg; Angela L Jefferson Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Matthew R Brier; Jewell B Thomas; Anne M Fagan; Jason Hassenstab; David M Holtzman; Tammie L Benzinger; John C Morris; Beau M Ances Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Peng Yu; Jia Sun; Robin Wolz; Diane Stephenson; James Brewer; Nick C Fox; Patricia E Cole; Clifford R Jack; Derek L G Hill; Adam J Schwarz Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Clifford R Jack; Heather J Wiste; Stephen D Weigand; Terry M Therneau; Val J Lowe; David S Knopman; Jeffrey L Gunter; Matthew L Senjem; David T Jones; Kejal Kantarci; Mary M Machulda; Michelle M Mielke; Rosebud O Roberts; Prashanthi Vemuri; Denise A Reyes; Ronald C Petersen Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Noll L Campbell; Fred Unverzagt; Michael A LaMantia; Babar A Khan; Malaz A Boustani Journal: Clin Geriatr Med Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.076