Author
Bill Thies
Bio: Bill Thies is an academic researcher from Alzheimer's Association. The author has contributed to research in topics: Dementia & Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 9 publications receiving 25720 citations.
Papers
More filters
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine1, Johns Hopkins University2, Mayo Clinic3, McGill University4, Harvard University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Pittsburgh7, Columbia University Medical Center8, Eli Lilly and Company9, Washington University in St. Louis10, UCL Institute of Neurology11, VU University Medical Center12, Alzheimer's Association13, Northwestern University14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.
13,710 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, University of California, San Diego2, University of California, Davis3, Rush University Medical Center4, University of Washington5, Washington University in St. Louis6, University of Tokyo7, Mayo Clinic8, Oregon Health & Science University9, University of Texas at Dallas10, University of Melbourne11, Eli Lilly and Company12, Columbia University13, University of California, San Francisco14, Alzheimer's Association15, National Institutes of Health16
TL;DR: A conceptual framework and operational research criteria are proposed, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies and it is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD.
Abstract: The pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is thought to begin many years before the diagnosis of AD dementia. This long "preclinical" phase of AD would provide a critical opportunity for therapeutic intervention; however, we need to further elucidate the link between the pathological cascade of AD and the emergence of clinical symptoms. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened an international workgroup to review the biomarker, epidemiological, and neuropsychological evidence, and to develop recommendations to determine the factors which best predict the risk of progression from "normal" cognition to mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia. We propose a conceptual framework and operational research criteria, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies. These recommendations are solely intended for research purposes and do not have any clinical implications at this time. It is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD, and ultimately, aid the field in moving toward earlier intervention at a stage of AD when some disease-modifying therapies may be most efficacious.
5,671 citations
Journal Article•
4,547 citations
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: Criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD, has four levels of certainty, depending on the presence and nature of the biomarker findings.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association charged a workgroup with the task of developing criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD. The workgroup developed the following two sets of criteria: (1) core clinical criteria that could be used by healthcare providers without access to advanced imaging techniques or cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and (2) research criteria that could be used in clinical research settings, including clinical trials. The second set of criteria incorporate the use of biomarkers based on imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measures. The final set of criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to AD has four levels of certainty, depending on the presence and nature of the biomarker findings. Considerable work is needed to validate the criteria that use biomarkers and to standardize biomarker analysis for use in community settings.(Reprinted with permission from Alzheim...
3,820 citations
Harvard University1, National Institutes of Health2, Northwestern University3, Washington University in St. Louis4, Alzheimer's Association5, Mayo Clinic6, University of California, San Diego7, SUNY Downstate Medical Center8, University of Kentucky9, Rush University Medical Center10, University of Ulm11, University of Pennsylvania12, University of California, Los Angeles13, University of Washington14
TL;DR: The new guidelines recognize the pre‐clinical stage of AD, enhance the assessment of AD to include amyloid accumulation as well as neurofibrillary change and neuritic plaques, and establish protocols for the neuropathologic assessment of Lewy body disease, vascular brain injury, hippocampal sclerosis, and TDP‐43 inclusions.
Abstract: A consensus panel from the United States and Europe was convened recently to update and revise the 1997 consensus guidelines for the neuropathologic evaluation of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other diseases of brain that are common in the elderly. The new guidelines recognize the pre-clinical stage of AD, enhance the assessment of AD to include amyloid accumulation as well as neurofibrillary change and neuritic plaques, establish protocols for the neuropathologic assessment of Lewy body disease, vascular brain injury, hippocampal sclerosis, and TDP-43 inclusions, and recommend standard approaches for the workup of cases and their clinico-pathologic correlation.
2,240 citations
Cited by
More filters
Johns Hopkins University1, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine2, Mayo Clinic3, McGill University4, Harvard University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Pittsburgh7, Columbia University Medical Center8, Eli Lilly and Company9, Washington University in St. Louis10, UCL Institute of Neurology11, VU University Medical Center12, Alzheimer's Association13, Northwestern University14, National Institutes of Health15
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.
13,710 citations
Brigham and Women's Hospital1, University of California, San Diego2, University of California, Davis3, Rush University Medical Center4, University of Washington5, Washington University in St. Louis6, University of Tokyo7, Mayo Clinic8, Oregon Health & Science University9, University of Texas at Dallas10, University of Melbourne11, Eli Lilly and Company12, Columbia University13, University of California, San Francisco14, Alzheimer's Association15, National Institutes of Health16
TL;DR: A conceptual framework and operational research criteria are proposed, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies and it is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD.
Abstract: The pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease (AD) is thought to begin many years before the diagnosis of AD dementia. This long "preclinical" phase of AD would provide a critical opportunity for therapeutic intervention; however, we need to further elucidate the link between the pathological cascade of AD and the emergence of clinical symptoms. The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association convened an international workgroup to review the biomarker, epidemiological, and neuropsychological evidence, and to develop recommendations to determine the factors which best predict the risk of progression from "normal" cognition to mild cognitive impairment and AD dementia. We propose a conceptual framework and operational research criteria, based on the prevailing scientific evidence to date, to test and refine these models with longitudinal clinical research studies. These recommendations are solely intended for research purposes and do not have any clinical implications at this time. It is hoped that these recommendations will provide a common rubric to advance the study of preclinical AD, and ultimately, aid the field in moving toward earlier intervention at a stage of AD when some disease-modifying therapies may be most efficacious.
5,671 citations
Mayo Clinic1, Rush University2, University of Gothenburg3, Alzheimer's Association4, Silver Spring Networks5, Biogen Idec6, Washington University in St. Louis7, University of California, Berkeley8, University of Cologne9, University of Pennsylvania10, Stanford University11, National Institutes of Health12, University of California, San Francisco13, University of Melbourne14, VU University Medical Center15, Eli Lilly and Company16, Brigham and Women's Hospital17
TL;DR: This research framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms and envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD.
Abstract: In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
5,126 citations
4,479 citations
Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust1, University College London2, King's College London3, University of Melbourne4, University of Exeter5, Brighton and Sussex Medical School6, University of Manchester7, Tel Aviv University8, Johns Hopkins University9, University of Michigan10, University of Washington11, Kaiser Permanente12, University of Montpellier13, University of Edinburgh14, Dalhousie University15, University of Southern California16, University of Oslo17, Innlandet Hospital Trust18
TL;DR: The Lancet Commission on Dementia Prevention, Intervention, and Care met to consolidate the huge strides that have been made and the emerging knowledge as to what the authors should do to prevent and manage dementia.
3,826 citations