Sex and gender differences in Alzheimer's disease: current challenges and implications for clinical practice: Position paper of the Dementia and Cognitive Disorders Panel of the European Academy of Neurology.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is characterized by high heterogeneity in disease manifestation, progression and risk factors. High phenotypic variability is currently regarded as one of the largest hurdles in early diagnosis and in the design of clinical trials; there is therefore great interest in identifying factors driving variability that can be used for patient stratification. In addition to genetic and lifestyle factors, the individual's sex and gender are emerging as crucial drivers of phenotypic variability. Evidence exists on sex and gender differences in the rate of cognitive deterioration and brain atrophy, and in the effect of risk factors as well as in the patterns of diagnostic biomarkers. Such evidence might be of high relevance and requires attention in clinical practice and clinical trials. However, sex and gender differences are currently seldom appreciated; importantly, consideration of sex and gender differences is not currently a focus in the design and analysis of clinical trials for AD. The objective of this position paper is (i) to provide an overview of known sex and gender differences that might have implications for clinical practice, (ii) to identify the most important knowledge gaps in the field (with a special regard to clinical trials) and (iii) to provide conclusions for future studies. This scientific statement is endorsed by the European Academy of Neurology.

Is it time to revise the diagnostic criteria for apathy in brain disorders? The 2018 international consensus group.

BACKGROUND: Apathy is a very common behavioural and psychological symptom across brain disorders. In the last decade, there have been considerable advances in research on apathy and motivation. It is thus important to revise the apathy diagnostic criteria published in 2009. The main objectives were to: a) revise the definition of apathy; b) update the list of apathy dimensions; c) operationalise the diagnostic criteria; and d) suggest appropriate assessment tools including new technologies. METHODS: The expert panel (N = 23) included researchers and health care professionals working on brain disorders and apathy, a representative of a regulatory body, and a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. The revised diagnostic criteria for apathy were developed in a two-step process. First, following the standard Delphi methodology, the experts were asked to answer questions via web-survey in two rounds. Second, all the collected information was discussed on the occasion of the 26th European Congress of Psychiatry held in Nice (France). RESULTS: Apathy was defined as a quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity in comparison to the patient's previous level of functioning (criterion A). Symptoms must persist for at least four weeks, and affect at least two of the three apathy dimensions (behaviour/cognition; emotion; social interaction; criterion B). Apathy should cause identifiable functional impairments (criterion C), and should not be fully explained by other factors, such as effects of a substance or major changes in the patient's environment (Criterion D). CONCLUSIONS: The new diagnostic criteria for apathy provide a clinical and scientific framework to increase the validity of apathy as a clinical construct. This should also help to pave the path for apathy in brain disorders to be an interventional target.

Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014.

The modern era of drug development for Alzheimer's disease began with the proposal of the cholinergic hypothesis of memory impairment and the 1984 research criteria for Alzheimer's disease. Since then, despite the evaluation of numerous potential treatments in clinical trials, only four cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine have shown sufficient safety and efficacy to allow marketing approval at an international level. Although this is probably because the other drugs tested were ineffective, inadequate clinical development methods have also been blamed for the failures. Here, we review the development of treatments for Alzheimer's disease during the past 30 years, considering the drugs, potential targets, late-stage clinical trials, development methods, emerging use of biomarkers and evolution of regulatory considerations in order to summarize advances and anticipate future developments. We have considered late-stage Alzheimer's disease drug development from 1984 to 2013, including individual clinical trials, systematic and qualitative reviews, meta-analyses, methods, commentaries, position papers and guidelines. We then review the evolution of drugs in late clinical development, methods, biomarkers and regulatory issues. Although a range of small molecules and biological products against many targets have been investigated in clinical trials, the predominant drug targets have been the cholinergic system and the amyloid cascade. Trial methods have evolved incrementally: inclusion criteria have largely remained focused on mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease criteria, recently extending to early or prodromal Alzheimer disease or 'mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease', for drugs considered to be disease modifying. The duration of trials has remained at 6-12 months for drugs intended to improve symptoms; 18- to 24-month trials have been established for drugs expected to attenuate clinical course. Cognitive performance, activities of daily living, global change and severity ratings have persisted as the primary clinically relevant outcomes. Regulatory guidance and oversight have evolved to allow for enrichment of early-stage Alzheimer's disease trial samples using biomarkers and phase-specific outcomes. In conclusion, validated drug targets for Alzheimer's disease remain to be developed. Only drugs that affect an aspect of cholinergic function have shown consistent, but modest, clinical effects in late-phase trials. There is opportunity for substantial improvements in drug discovery and clinical development methods.

Does psychomotor retardation define a clinically relevant phenotype of unipolar depression?

BACKGROUND: The recognition and assessment of psychomotor retardation may have implications for better definition of the clinical phenotypes of depression. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical correlates of psychomotor retardation endorsed at any time during the patients' lifetime (LPR). METHODS: The study sample included 291 patients with non-psychotic major depressive disorder (MDD) participating in the clinical trial, "Depression: The Search for Treatment-Relevant Phenotypes." Psychomotor retardation was measured using a factor derived from the Mood Spectrum Self-Report (MOODS-SR) assessment. Using a pre-defined cut-off score on the lifetime psychomotor retardation (LPR) factor of the MOODS-SR, participants were classified into high and low scorers. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between LPR and subthreshold bipolarity. RESULTS: Compared to low scorers, participants with high scores on the LPR factor had greater severity of depression and more bipolarity indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The MOODS-SR appears to be helpful to identify clinical phenotypes of unipolar depression and to highlight the usefulness of a lifetime approach to the assessment of psychopathology in the characterisation of patients with unipolar depression.