From the University College London (J.H., K.Y.L., H.C., R.H.); Neuroscience & Cell Biology Research Institute (J.D.I.), St George's, University of London, United Kingdom; and Clinical and Translational Neuroscience Section (M.T.), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD; Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience (M.T.), National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, MD.
Neurology. 2024 Nov 12;103(9):e209884. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000209884. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
It has been suggested that the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer disease (AD) is undergoing a profound transformation, marked by a shift toward a biomarker-based approach, as proposed by the Revised Criteria for Diagnosis and Staging of Alzheimer's Disease. These criteria advocate for diagnosing AD solely on biomarkers, without requiring clinical symptoms. This article explores the drivers behind this transition, primarily influenced by the Food and Drug Administration's approval of amyloid-lowering treatments. We evaluate the proposed criteria, which allow for an AD diagnosis based on amyloid "A" or phosphorylated tau "T1" positivity through surrogate amyloid PET imaging, CSF, or plasma biomarkers, and consider the arguments for and against their use. The merits of the new criteria include a clearer definition of AD, which is currently used interchangeably to refer to both the presence of neuropathology and the clinical syndrome. We argue that a purely biological definition risks a category error and emphasize the need for longitudinal data to establish the lifetime risk of dementia in amyloid-positive and tau-positive individuals. We also caution against limiting the scope of biomarker-based AD diagnosis to amyloid and tau alone. In conclusion, we recommend that the criteria remain within the research domain for the present while advocating for the considered adoption of plasma biomarkers in clinical practice.
有人认为,阿尔茨海默病(AD)的诊断格局正在发生深刻的变化,这一变化的标志是朝着基于生物标志物的方法转变,正如阿尔茨海默病修订诊断和分期标准所建议的那样。这些标准主张仅根据生物标志物诊断 AD,而不需要临床症状。本文探讨了这一转变的驱动因素,主要受食品和药物管理局批准淀粉样蛋白降低治疗的影响。我们评估了这些建议的标准,这些标准允许通过替代淀粉样蛋白 PET 成像、CSF 或血浆生物标志物,基于淀粉样蛋白“A”或磷酸化 tau“T1”阳性来诊断 AD,并考虑了其使用的利弊。新的标准的优点包括对 AD 的更明确的定义,目前 AD 被互换用于指代神经病理学和临床综合征。我们认为,纯粹的生物学定义存在范畴错误的风险,并强调需要纵向数据来确定淀粉样蛋白阳性和 tau 阳性个体的终身痴呆风险。我们还警告不要将基于生物标志物的 AD 诊断仅限于淀粉样蛋白和 tau。总之,我们建议目前这些标准仍处于研究领域,同时主张在临床实践中谨慎采用血浆生物标志物。