| Literature DB >> 25693589 |
Stephanie J B Vos1, Frans Verhey2, Lutz Frölich3, Johannes Kornhuber4, Jens Wiltfang5, Wolfgang Maier6, Oliver Peters7, Eckart Rüther8, Flavio Nobili9, Silvia Morbelli10, Giovanni B Frisoni11, Alexander Drzezga12, Mira Didic13, Bart N M van Berckel14, Andrew Simmons15, Hilkka Soininen16, Iwona Kłoszewska17, Patrizia Mecocci18, Magda Tsolaki19, Bruno Vellas20, Simon Lovestone21, Cristina Muscio22, Sanna-Kaisa Herukka16, Eric Salmon23, Christine Bastin24, Anders Wallin25, Arto Nordlund25, Alexandre de Mendonça26, Dina Silva26, Isabel Santana27, Raquel Lemos28, Sebastiaan Engelborghs29, Stefan Van der Mussele30, Yvonne Freund-Levi31, Åsa K Wallin32, Harald Hampel33, Wiesje van der Flier34, Philip Scheltens34, Pieter Jelle Visser35.
Abstract
Three sets of research criteria are available for diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: the International Working Group-1, International Working Group-2, and National Institute of Aging-Alzheimer Association criteria. We compared the prevalence and prognosis of Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage according to these criteria. Subjects with mild cognitive impairment (n = 1607), 766 of whom had both amyloid and neuronal injury markers, were recruited from 13 cohorts. We used cognitive test performance and available biomarkers to classify subjects as prodromal Alzheimer's disease according to International Working Group-1 and International Working Group-2 criteria and in the high Alzheimer's disease likelihood group, conflicting biomarker groups (isolated amyloid pathology or suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology), and low Alzheimer's disease likelihood group according to the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria. Outcome measures were the proportion of subjects with Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage and progression to Alzheimer's disease-type dementia. We performed survival analyses using Cox proportional hazards models. According to the International Working Group-1 criteria, 850 (53%) subjects had prodromal Alzheimer's disease. Their 3-year progression rate to Alzheimer's disease-type dementia was 50% compared to 21% for subjects without prodromal Alzheimer's disease. According to the International Working Group-2 criteria, 308 (40%) subjects had prodromal Alzheimer's disease. Their 3-year progression rate to Alzheimer's disease-type dementia was 61% compared to 22% for subjects without prodromal Alzheimer's disease. According to the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria, 353 (46%) subjects were in the high Alzheimer's disease likelihood group, 49 (6%) in the isolated amyloid pathology group, 220 (29%) in the suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology group, and 144 (19%) in the low Alzheimer's disease likelihood group. The 3-year progression rate to Alzheimer's disease-type dementia was 59% in the high Alzheimer's disease likelihood group, 22% in the isolated amyloid pathology group, 24% in the suspected non-Alzheimer pathophysiology group, and 5% in the low Alzheimer's disease likelihood group. Our findings support the use of the proposed research criteria to identify Alzheimer's disease at the mild cognitive impairment stage. In clinical settings, the use of both amyloid and neuronal injury markers as proposed by the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association criteria offers the most accurate prognosis. For clinical trials, selection of subjects in the National Institute of Ageing-Alzheimer Association high Alzheimer's disease likelihood group or the International Working Group-2 prodromal Alzheimer's disease group could be considered.Entities:
Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease; MCI; biomarkers; diagnostic criteria; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25693589 PMCID: PMC5013930 DOI: 10.1093/brain/awv029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain ISSN: 0006-8950 Impact factor: 13.501