Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Will biomarker-based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease maximize scientific progress? Evaluating proposed diagnostic criteria

  • ESSAY
  • Published:
European Journal of Epidemiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A recently published framework for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) in research studies would allow diagnosis on the sole basis of two biomarkers (β-amyloid and pathologic tau), even in people with no objective or subjective memory or cognitive changes. This revision will have substantial implications for future Alzheimer’s research, and the changes should be rigorously evaluated before widespread adoption. We propose three principles for evaluating any revision to diagnostic frameworks for AD: (1) does the revision improve the validity of the diagnosis; (2) does the revision improve the reliability or reduce the expense of the diagnosis; and (3) will the revision foster innovative and rigorous research across populations. The new diagnostic framework is unlikely to achieve any of these goals. Instead, it has the potential to handicap future researchers, and slow progress towards identifying effective strategies to prevent or treat AD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jack CR Jr, Bennett DA, Blennow K, et al. NIA-AA Research Framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s Dement J Alzheimer’s Assoc. 2018;14(4):535–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2018.02.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ricciarelli R, Fedele E. The amyloid cascade hypothesis in Alzheimer’s disease: it’s time to change our mind. Curr Neuropharmacol. 2017;15(6):926–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Brookmeyer R, Abdalla N. Estimation of lifetime risks of Alzheimer’s disease dementia using biomarkers for preclinical disease. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2018.

  4. Alzheimer’s Association. 2017 Alzheimer’s disease facts and figures. Alzheimer’s Dementia. 2017;13(4):325–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gu Y, Razlighi QR, Zahodne LB, et al. Brain amyloid deposition and longitudinal cognitive decline in nondemented older subjects: results from a multi-ethnic population. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0123743.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Howell JC, Watts KD, Parker MW, et al. Race modifies the relationship between cognition and Alzheimer’s disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2017;9(1):88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-017-0315-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gottesman RF, Schneider AL, Zhou Y, et al. The ARIC-PET amyloid imaging study Brain amyloid differences by age, race, sex, and APOE. Neurology. 2016;87(5):473–80.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gottesman RF, Schneider AL, Zhou Y, et al. Association between midlife vascular risk factors and estimated brain amyloid deposition. JAMA. 2017;317(14):1443–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ridker PM. A test in context: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(6):712–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee S, Zimmerman ME, Viqar F, et al. Are white matter hyperintensities a core feature of Alzheimer’s disease or just a reflection of amyloid angiopathy? Evidence from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN). Alzheimer’s Dement J Alzheimer’s Assoc. 2016;12(7):P226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bennett DA. Mixed pathologies and neural reserve: implications of complexity for Alzheimer disease drug discovery. PLoS Med. 2017;14(3):e1002256.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schneider JA, Arvanitakis Z, Leurgans SE, Bennett DA. The neuropathology of probable Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment. Ann Neurol. 2009;66(2):200–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Stelzmann RA, Norman Schnitzlein H, Reed Murtagh F. An English translation of Alzheimer’s 1907 paper, “Über eine eigenartige Erkankung der Hirnrinde”. Clin Anat. 1995;8(6):429–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hernán MA, Hernandez-Diaz S, Robins JM. A structural approach to selection bias. Epidemiology. 2004;15(5):615–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fardo DW, Gibbons LE, Mukherjee S, et al. Impact of home visit capacity on genetic association studies of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2017.

  16. Weuve J, Proust-Lima C, Power MC, et al. Guidelines for reporting methodological challenges and evaluating potential bias in dementia research. Alzheimer’s Dementia. 2015;11(9):1098–109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gordon BA, Blazey TM, Su Y, et al. Spatial patterns of neuroimaging biomarker change in individuals from families with autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease: a longitudinal study. Lancet Neurol. 2018;17(3):241–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Müller S, Preische O, Sohrabi HR, et al. Decreased body mass index in the preclinical stage of autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1225.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Singh-Manoux A, Dugravot A, Shipley M, et al. Obesity trajectories and risk of dementia: 28 years of follow-up in the Whitehall II Study. Alzheimer’s and Dementia. 2017.

  20. Bateman RJ, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, et al. Clinical and biomarker changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(9):795–804. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1202753.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo: the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(12):781–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ilic D, Neuberger MM, Djulbegovic M, Dahm P. Screening for prostate cancer. London: The Cochrane Library; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Otis Webb Brawley M, Goldberg P. How we do harm: a doctor breaks ranks about being sick in America. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Blendon RJ, Benson JM, Wikler EM, et al. The impact of experience with a family member with Alzheimer’s disease on views about the disease across five countries. Int J Alzheimer’s Disease. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/903645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Health and Retirement Study. Core 2010 public use dataset, experimental module on Alzheimer’s disease attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Produced and distributed by the University of Michigan with funding from the National Institute on Aging (Grant Number NIA U01AG009740). 2010.

  26. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Early Alzheimer’s disease: developing drugs for treatment guidance for industry: draft guidance, revision 1. Rockville Maryland U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2018.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th Street, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA

    Medellena Maria Glymour & Elizabeth Rose Mayeda

  2. Taub Institute for Research on Alzheimer’s Disease and the Aging Brain, Department of Neurology, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Adam Mark Brickman & Jennifer Jaie Manly

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK

    Mika Kivimaki

  4. Department of Epidemiology, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA

    Elizabeth Rose Mayeda

  5. INSERM U1219-Bordeaux Population Health and CIC1401-EC, ISPED-Bordeaux School of Public Health, INSERM, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France

    Geneviève Chêne & Carole Dufouil

  6. CHU de Bordeaux, Pôle de Santé Publique, Bordeaux, France

    Geneviève Chêne & Carole Dufouil

Authors
  1. Medellena Maria Glymour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Mark Brickman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mika Kivimaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth Rose Mayeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Geneviève Chêne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carole Dufouil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jennifer Jaie Manly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Medellena Maria Glymour.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glymour, M.M., Brickman, A.M., Kivimaki, M. et al. Will biomarker-based diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease maximize scientific progress? Evaluating proposed diagnostic criteria. Eur J Epidemiol 33, 607–612 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0418-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-018-0418-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation