Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Evaluation of the Revised Criteria for Biological and Clinical Staging of Alzheimer Disease

  • Alexa Pichet Binette
  • , Ruben Smith
  • , Gemma Salvadó
  • , Pontus Tideman
  • , Isabelle Glans
  • , Danielle van Westen
  • , Colin Groot
  • , Rik Ossenkoppele
  • , Erik Stomrud
  • , Piero Parchi
  • , Henrik Zetterberg
  • , Kaj Blennow
  • , Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren
  • , Shorena Janelidze
  • , Sebastian Palmqvist
  • , Oskar Hansson*
  • , Olusegun Adegoke
  • , Kedir Adem Hussen
  • , Paul Aisen
  • , Adeyinka Ajayi
  • Hannatu Amaza, Liana G. Apostolova, Miriam Ashford, Omobolanle Ayo, Lisa Barnes, Laurel Beckett, Marie Bernard, Haley Bernhardt, Virginia Boatwright, Bret Borowski, Magdalena Brylska, Neil Buckholtz, Yuliana Cabrera, Nigel J. Cairns, Alzheimers Disease Neuroimaging Initiative
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Lund University
  • University of Montreal
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna
  • University of Bologna
  • University of Gothenburg
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital
  • University College London
  • Hong Kong Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison
  • Sorbonne Université
  • University of Science and Technology of China
  • University of Southern California
  • Mt. Sinai
  • University of Wisconsin
  • Indiana University Bloomington
  • Northern California Institute for Research and Education
  • Rush University
  • University of California at Davis
  • NIA
  • Washington University St. Louis
  • Mayo Clinic Rochester, MN
  • UPenn School of Medicine
  • National Institute on Aging
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Harvard University
  • University of California at San Francisco
  • University of California at San Diego
  • University of California at Irvine
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of California
  • Khachaturian Radebaugh & Associates (KRA) Inc
  • Duke University
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Fordham University
  • University of California at Berkeley
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Biogen
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of Washington
  • Eisai
  • University of Connecticut
  • University of California at Los Angeles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

30 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Importance: While clinical disease stages remained largely unchanged in the 2024 update of the Alzheimer disease (AD) criteria, tau-positron emission tomography (PET) was introduced as a core biomarker and its spatial extent was incorporated into the revised biological stages of the disease. It is important to consider both the clinical and the biological stages and understand their discrepancies. Objective: To compare individuals who have discrepant biological and clinical stages with those who have congruent stages in terms of copathologies, comorbidities, and demographics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants were from the Swedish BioFINDER-2 (inclusion from 2017 through 2023) and the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) (inclusion from 2015 through 2024). BioFINDER-2 included a prospective population-based (cognitively normal [CN] older adults) and memory clinic-based cohort (participants with subjective cognitive impairment [SCD], mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and dementia). ADNI included a volunteer-based sample. All participants who were amyloid-β positive and had undergone tau-PET were included. In BioFINDER-2, 838 participants of a total of 1979 were included, and of 927 with tau-PET in ADNI, 380 were included. Exposures: The clinical (CN to dementia) and biological (based on PET; initial [amyloid-β-positive only] to advanced [amyloid-β-positive, elevated, and widespread tau]) stages from the revised AD criteria. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cross-sectional measures of neurodegeneration (cortical thickness, TAR DNA-binding protein 43 [TDP-43] imaging signature, neurofilament light [NfL]), α-synuclein cerebrospinal fluid status, plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein, white matter lesions, infarcts, microbleeds, comorbidities, and demographics. Results: There were 838 BioFINDER-2 participants (mean age, 73.9 [SD, 7.3] years; 431 women [51%]; 407 men [49%]) and 380 ADNI participants (average age, 72.9 [SD, 7.0] years; 194 women [51%]; 186 mean [49%]) included. In BioFINDER-2, 37.7% of the sample had congruent biological and clinical stages (reference group), 51.3% had more advanced clinical impairment compared with their clinical stage (clinical > biological) and 11.0% had the opposite (biological > clinical). The main differences were between the reference group and the clinical > biological group: the latter participants were more often positive for α-synuclein pathology, had higher NfL levels, greater TDP-43-like atrophy, and higher burden of cerebral small vessel disease lesions (all false discovery rate P <.05). The only difference between the biological > clinical and the reference group was that the former had less neurodegeneration (thicker cortex; all false discovery rate P <.001). The main results were replicated in the independent ADNI cohort, where congruent 56.1% of participants had biological and clinical stages; 36.1% were in the category clinical > biological, and 7.9% in biological > clinical. Conclusions and Relevance: Copathologies play an important role in symptom severity in individuals who harbor less tau-tangle pathology than expected for their clinical impairment. These results highlight the importance of measuring non-AD biomarkers in patients with AD with worse cognitive impairment than expected based on their biological stage, which could impact the clinical diagnosis and prognosis.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJAMA Neurology
Early online date2025
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 2025

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of the Revised Criteria for Biological and Clinical Staging of Alzheimer Disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this