Towards a sole β‐amyloid‐centered definition of Alzheimer’s disease? Risks and alternatives

Abstract Aims The Alzheimer Association (AA) has proposed new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) based on biomarkers coinciding with β‐amyloidosis onset. However, there are concerns regarding the implications of these criteria. Methods We reviewed several perspectives, including disease definition, public health, philosophy, therapeutic, and diagnostic. Results 1. Disease definition – the AA definition displays limited and heterogeneous predictive capabilities of lifetime clinical progression in asymptomatic individuals, and a different disease label may be used, as seen in other examples in medicine (eg MGUS and multiple myeloma). 2. Public health – the majority of the A+ population is asymptomatic, and the AA definition may reduce the association between the “label” AD and dementia or subsequent progression to dementia, which could impact public health decisions. 3. Philosophy – the clinical and biological definitions of AD are based on different medical‐philosophical theories of disease (Nordenfelt vs. Boorse), and if the AA criteria are widely adopted, there may be misconstrued perceptions among stakeholders. 4. Therapeutic – an amyloid definition of AD disconnects the biological endpoint from the clinically relevant outcome, which has led to the approval of aducanumab without demonstrating clinical impact. This raises concerns about future decisions regarding asymptomatic individuals. 5. Diagnostic – the AA framework lacks clear guidelines on linking clinical situations with AD biological changes, which may result in misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis in patients with abnormal biomarkers. Conclusions Defining AD based solely on β‐amyloidosis is risky and reduces association with clinically relevant outcomes. Diagnosing AD should instead involve symptoms or a high probability of developing them. The IWG framework takes a cautious approach, focusing on symptom onset. Future IWG developments could expand the “preclinical AD” label by integrating specific biomarkers that can predict severe cognitive decline in asymptomatic patients.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.089096
Primary Topic
Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Towards a sole β‐amyloid‐centered definition of Alzheimer’s disease? Risks and alternatives

Nicolas Villain, Bernard Hanseeuw, Vincent Planche
Alzheimer s & Dementia
Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
article

Towards a sole β‐amyloid‐centered definition of Alzheimer’s disease? Risks and alternatives

Nicolas Villain, Bernard Hanseeuw, Vincent Planche
article en

Abstract

Abstract Aims The Alzheimer Association (AA) has proposed new diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) based on biomarkers coinciding with β‐amyloidosis onset. However, there are concerns regarding the implications of these criteria. Methods We reviewed several perspectives, including disease definition, public health, philosophy, therapeutic, and diagnostic. Results 1. Disease definition – the AA definition displays limited and heterogeneous predictive capabilities of lifetime clinical progression in asymptomatic individuals, and a different disease label may be used, as seen in other examples in medicine (eg MGUS and multiple myeloma). 2. Public health – the majority of the A+ population is asymptomatic, and the AA definition may reduce the association between the “label” AD and dementia or subsequent progression to dementia, which could impact public health decisions. 3. Philosophy – the clinical and biological definitions of AD are based on different medical‐philosophical theories of disease (Nordenfelt vs. Boorse), and if the AA criteria are widely adopted, there may be misconstrued perceptions among stakeholders. 4. Therapeutic – an amyloid definition of AD disconnects the biological endpoint from the clinically relevant outcome, which has led to the approval of aducanumab without demonstrating clinical impact. This raises concerns about future decisions regarding asymptomatic individuals. 5. Diagnostic – the AA framework lacks clear guidelines on linking clinical situations with AD biological changes, which may result in misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis in patients with abnormal biomarkers. Conclusions Defining AD based solely on β‐amyloidosis is risky and reduces association with clinically relevant outcomes. Diagnosing AD should instead involve symptoms or a high probability of developing them. The IWG framework takes a cautious approach, focusing on symptom onset. Future IWG developments could expand the “preclinical AD” label by integrating specific biomarkers that can predict severe cognitive decline in asymptomatic patients.

Alzheimer s & DementiaVol. 20(S5)
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Harvard University (US), Inserm (FR), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR), Sorbonne Université (FR), Institut des Maladies Neurodégénératives (FR), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Alzheimer's disease research and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.