Acceptable performance of blood biomarker tests of amyloid pathology - recommendations from the Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease.

Anti-amyloid treatments for early symptomatic Alzheimer disease have recently become clinically available in some countries, which has greatly increased the need for biomarker confirmation of amyloid pathology. Blood biomarker (BBM) tests for amyloid pathology are more acceptable, accessible and scalable than amyloid PET or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests, but have highly variable levels of performance. The Global CEO Initiative on Alzheimer's Disease convened a BBM Workgroup to consider the minimum acceptable performance of BBM tests for clinical use. Amyloid PET status was identified as the reference standard. For use as a triaging test before subsequent confirmatory tests such as amyloid PET or CSF tests, the BBM Workgroup recommends that a BBM test has a sensitivity of ≥90% with a specificity of ≥85% in primary care and ≥75-85% in secondary care depending on the availability of follow-up testing. For use as a confirmatory test without follow-up tests, a BBM test should have performance equivalent to that of CSF tests - a sensitivity and specificity of ~90%. Importantly, the predictive values of all biomarker tests vary according to the pre-test probability of amyloid pathology and must be interpreted in the complete clinical context. Use of BBM tests that meet these performance standards could enable more people to receive an accurate and timely Alzheimer disease diagnosis and potentially benefit from new treatments.

The Brain Economy: Advancing Brain Science to Better Understand the Modern Economy.

The coming years are likely to be turbulent due to a myriad of factors or polycrisis, including an escalation in climate extremes, emerging public health threats, weak productivity, increases in global economic instability and further weakening in the integrity of global democracy. These formidable challenges are not exogenous to the economy but are in some cases generated by the system itself. They can be overcome, but only with far-reaching changes to global economics. Our current socio-economic paradigm is insufficient for addressing these complex challenges, let alone sustaining human development, well-being and happiness. To support the flourishing of the global population in the age of polycrisis, we need a novel, person-centred and collective paradigm. The brain economy leverages insights from neuroscience to provide a novel way of centralising the human contribution to the economy, how the economy in turn shapes our lives and positive feedbacks between the two. The brain economy is primarily based on Brain Capital, an economic asset integrating brain health and brain skills, the social, emotional, and the diversity of cognitive brain resources of individuals and communities. People with healthy brains are essential to navigate increasingly complex systems. Policies and investments that improve brain health and hence citizens' cognitive functions and boost brain performance can increase productivity, stimulate greater creativity and economic dynamism, utilise often underdeveloped intellectual resources, afford social cohesion, and create a more resilient, adaptable and sustainability-engaged population.

Technical Review of Clinical Outcomes Assessments Across the Continuum of Alzheimer's Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Insight into the relationship between concepts that matter to the people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the clinical outcome assessments (COAs) commonly used in AD clinical studies is limited. Phases 1 and 2 of the What Matters Most (WMM) study series identified and quantitatively confirmed 42 treatment-related outcomes that are important to people affected by AD. METHODS: We compared WMM concepts rated as "very important" or higher to items included in COAs used commonly in AD studies. RESULTS: Twenty COAs designed to assess signs, symptoms, and impacts across the spectrum of AD were selected for review. Among these 20 COAs, only 5 reflected 12 or more WMM concepts [Integrated Alzheimer's Disease Rating Scale (iADRS), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory (ADCS-ADL), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Inventory-Mild Cognitive Impairment (ADCS-ADL-MCI), Alzheimer's Disease Composite Scores (ADCOMS), and Clinical Dementia Rating; Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR/CDR-SB)]. Multiple symptoms and impacts of AD identified as important and meaningful in the WMM studies map only indirectly at best to 7 of the 20 most widely used COAs. CONCLUSION: While many frequently used COAs in AD capture some concepts identified as important to AD populations and their care partners, overlap between any single measure and the concepts that matter to people affected by AD is limited. The highest singly matched COA reflects fewer than half (45%) of WMM concepts. Use of multiple COAs expands coverage of meaningful concepts. Future research should explore the content validity of AD COAs planned for AD trials based on further confirmation of the ecological validity of the WMM items. This research should inform development and use of core outcome sets that capture WMM items and selection or development of new companion tools to fully demonstrate clinically meaningful outcomes spanning WMM.

Assessing What Matters to People Affected by Alzheimer's Disease: A Quantitative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In this phase of the ongoing What Matters Most study series, designed to evaluate concepts that are meaningful to people affected by Alzheimer's disease (AD), we quantified the importance of symptoms, impacts, and outcomes of AD to people at risk for or with AD and care partners of people with AD. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to individuals at risk for or with AD (Group 1: unimpaired cognition with evidence of AD pathology; Group 2: AD risk factors and subjective cognitive complaints/mild cognitive impairment; Group 3: mild AD) and to care partners of individuals with moderate AD (Group 4) or severe AD (Group 5). Respondents rated the importance of 42 symptoms, impacts, and outcomes on a scale ranging from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("extremely important"). RESULTS: Among the 274 respondents (70.4% female; 63.1% white), over half of patient respondents rated all 42 items as "very important" or "extremely important," while care partners rated fewer items as "very important" or "extremely important." Among the three patient groups, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating for any item was 3.4 (4.6), indicating that all items were at least moderately to very important. Among care partners of people with moderate or severe AD, the minimum (maximum) mean importance rating was 2.1 (4.4), indicating that most items were rated as at least moderately important. Overall, taking medications correctly, not feeling down or depressed, and staying safe had the highest importance ratings among both patients and care partners, regardless of AD phase. CONCLUSION: Concepts of importance to individuals affected by AD go beyond the common understanding of "cognition" or "function" alone, reflecting a desire to maintain independence, overall physical and mental health, emotional well-being, and safety. Preservation of these attributes may be key to understanding whether interventions deliver clinically meaningful outcomes.

Assessing what matters most to patients with or at risk for Alzheimer's and care partners: a qualitative study evaluating symptoms, impacts, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The What Matters Most (WMM) study was initiated to evaluate symptoms, AD-related impacts, treatment-related needs, preferences, and priorities among individuals with or at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and their care partners. The objective of this qualitative study phase was to identify a comprehensive set of concepts of interest that are meaningful to individuals across the AD continuum. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 clinically referred individuals and care partners across 5 AD stages (n = 12 each): group 1 (non-clinically impaired individuals with AD pathology), group 2 (individuals with mild cognitive impairment and AD pathology), group 3 (individuals with mild AD), group 4 (individuals with moderate AD and their care partners), and group 5 (care partners of individuals with severe AD). Interviews were conducted by experienced interviewers, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Dominant trends were identified in each interview and compared across subsequent interviews to generate themes or patterns in descriptions of AD symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes. RESULTS: All participants endorsed current issues related to memory; nearly all participants (n = 55; 92%) across the five groups endorsed symptoms related to communication and language. Groups 1-3 reported an impact on mood/emotions (n = 23; 64%) and a decrease in social activities or outgoingness (n = 17; 47%). Current and future concerns reported by the overall sample included memory (n = 48; 80%), dependence (n = 40; 67%), and "other" concerns (n = 33; 55.0%) (e.g., uncertainty about the future, burdening others). The most desired AD treatment outcomes were improvement or restoration of memory (n = 40; 67%) and stopping AD progression (n = 35; 58.3%). Group-level differences were observed in the symptoms, impacts, and desired treatment outcomes among patients and care partners across the AD continuum. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive functioning issues-particularly in memory and communication-are present even in preclinical and early-stage AD, including among those without a formal AD diagnosis. While the impacts of AD vary across the disease-severity spectrum, improved memory and disease modification were treatment outcomes considered most important to participants across all 5 AD stages. Neuropsychological assessments traditionally used in AD clinical trials may not evaluate the often-subtle concepts that are important to patients and care partners. Results from this study will inform the second phase of the WMM project-a quantitative study to elicit the relative importance of these concepts of interest to people at risk for and living with AD and their care partners.

A pivotal moment in Alzheimer's disease and dementia: how global unity of purpose and action can beat the disease by 2025.

The world is at a pivotal moment in the global fight against Alzheimer's disease, a disease that by 2013 affected 44.4 million people globally and is expected to affect 75.6 million by 2030. France, Australia, Japan, US and Great Britain are among the countries that have adopted national policies to address the growing numbers. Multilateral organizations have also prioritized the disease, and possibly most significantly, the G8, under British Prime Minister David Cameron's leadership, set its focus on dementia starting December 2013. Despite the growing attention, the response has not been commensurate with the urgency of the situation, and we need to promote comprehensive collaboration that catalyzes the development of new treatments, initiates the creation of innovative financial models for research and drives the utilization of technological innovation with the aim to reverse the trajectory of this devastating disease.

Coalition Against Major Diseases: Precompetitive Collaborations and Regulatory Paths to Accelerating Drug Development for Neurodegenerative Diseases.

Precompetitive collaborations have been successful in several disease areas and industries. Such collaborations are critical to address the gaps and challenges in therapeutic development for chronic neurodegenerative diseases. On November 5, 2012, members of the scientific community, advocates, regulators, industry, and government officials met at the US Food and Drug Administration to develop tools to expedite drug development and maximize the potential for success in future drug trials for Alzheimer disease and Parkinson disease. The meeting established that multiple collaborative approaches are essential for accelerating drug development. Such approaches include precompetitive data sharing, regulatory qualification of biomarkers and clinical outcome assessments, implementation of data standards, and development of quantitative drug disease trial models. While challenges to collaboration among industry partners are formidable, they are not insurmountable. The Coalition Against Major Diseases (CAMD) has several positive examples to highlight. This review represents proceedings from CAMD's annual conference and discusses the key themes that are being advanced by the Critical Path Institute.