Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: recommendations of the International Working Group
In 2018, the US National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association proposed a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease that relies on biomarkers. Although the intended use of this framework was for research purposes, it has engendered debate and challenges regarding its...
Saved in:
Published in | Lancet neurology Vol. 20; no. 6; pp. 484 - 496 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Elsevier Ltd
01.06.2021
Elsevier Limited Elsevier |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | In 2018, the US National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association proposed a purely biological definition of Alzheimer's disease that relies on biomarkers. Although the intended use of this framework was for research purposes, it has engendered debate and challenges regarding its use in everyday clinical practice. For instance, cognitively unimpaired individuals can have biomarker evidence of both amyloid β and tau pathology but will often not develop clinical manifestations in their lifetime. Furthermore, a positive Alzheimer's disease pattern of biomarkers can be observed in other brain diseases in which Alzheimer's disease pathology is present as a comorbidity. In this Personal View, the International Working Group presents what we consider to be the current limitations of biomarkers in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and, on the basis of this evidence, we propose recommendations for how biomarkers should and should not be used for diagnosing Alzheimer's disease in a clinical setting. We recommend that Alzheimer's disease diagnosis be restricted to people who have positive biomarkers together with specific Alzheimer's disease phenotypes, whereas biomarker-positive cognitively unimpaired individuals should be considered only at-risk for progression to Alzheimer's disease. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 BD and NV contributed equally to the manuscript. All authors conceptualised this Personal View. BD and NV curated the data. BD, NV, and HHF wrote the original draft. All authors revised and edited the manuscript and approved the final version. BD had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Joint first authors Contributors |
ISSN: | 1474-4422 1474-4465 1474-4465 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00066-1 |