西瓜视频

Object moved to here.

A New Framework for Dementia Nomenclature | Neurology | JAMA Neurology | 西瓜视频

西瓜视频

[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
1.
Kennedy 听J锘, Kossmann 听CE锘. 听Nomenclatures in medicine.听锘 听Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1973;61(2):238-252.
2.
National Alzheimer鈥檚 Project Act, S 3036, 111th Cong (2010). Accessed July 23, 2023.
3.
Corriveau 听RA锘, Koroshetz 听WJ锘, Gladman 听JT锘, 听et al. 听Alzheimer鈥檚 Disease-Related Dementias Summit 2016: national research priorities.听锘 听狈别耻谤辞濒辞驳测. 2017;89(23):2381-2391. doi:锘
4.
US Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Dementia Nomenclature Initiative. Accessed August 28, 2023.
5.
Knopman 听DS锘, Petersen 听RC锘, Jack 听CR 听Jr锘. 听A brief history of 鈥淎lzheimer disease鈥: multiple meanings separated by a common name.听锘 听狈别耻谤辞濒辞驳测. 2019;92(22):1053-1059. doi:锘
6.
Petersen 听RC锘. 听How early can we diagnose Alzheimer disease (and is it sufficient)? The 2017 Wartenberg lecture.听锘 听狈别耻谤辞濒辞驳测. 2018;91(9):395-402. doi:锘
7.
Petersen 听RC锘. 听Mild cognitive impairment as a diagnostic entity.听锘 听J Intern Med. 2004;256(3):183-194. doi:锘
8.
Gilmore-Bykovskyi 听AL锘, Jin 听Y锘, Gleason 听C锘, 听et al. 听Recruitment and retention of underrepresented populations in Alzheimer鈥檚 disease research: a systematic review.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2019;5:751-770. doi:锘
9.
Gonz谩lez 听HM锘, Tarraf 听W锘, Gouskova 听N锘, 听et al. 听Neurocognitive function among middle-aged and older Hispanic/Latinos: results from the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos.听锘 听Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;30(1):68-77. doi:锘
10.
Indorewalla 听KK锘, O鈥機onnor 听MK锘, Budson 听AE锘, Guess DiTerlizzi 听C锘, Jackson 听J锘. 听Modifiable barriers for recruitment and retention of older adult participants from underrepresented minorities in Alzheimer鈥檚 disease research.听锘 听J Alzheimers Dis. 2021;80(3):927-940. doi:锘
11.
Suzuki 听R锘, Goebert 听D锘, Ahmed 听I锘, Lu 听B锘. 听Folk and biological perceptions of dementia among Asian ethnic minorities in Hawaii.听锘 听Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23(6):589-595. doi:锘
12.
Mindt 听MR锘, Okonkwo 听O锘, Weiner 听MW锘, 听et al. 听Improving generalizability and study design of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease cohort studies in the United States by including under-represented populations.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement. 2023;19(4):1549-1557. doi:锘
13.
Raman 听R锘, Aisen 听PS锘, Carillo 听MC锘, 听et al. 听Tackling a major deficiency of diversity in Alzheimer鈥檚 disease therapeutic trials: an CTAD Task Force report.听锘 听J Prev Alzheimers Dis. 2022;9(3):388-392. doi:锘
14.
McKhann 听G锘, Drachman 听D锘, Folstein 听M锘, Katzman 听R锘, Price 听D锘, Stadlan 听EM锘. 听Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease: report of the NINCDS-ADRDA Work Group under the auspices of Department of Health and Human Services Task Force on Alzheimer鈥檚 Disease.听锘 听狈别耻谤辞濒辞驳测. 1984;34(7):939-944. doi:锘
15.
Albert 听MS锘, DeKosky 听ST锘, Dickson 听D锘, 听et al. 听The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer鈥檚 disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer鈥檚 Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer鈥檚 disease.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):270-279. doi:锘
16.
McKhann 听GM锘, Knopman 听DS锘, Chertkow 听H锘, 听et al. 听The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer鈥檚 disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer鈥檚 Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer鈥檚 disease.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):263-269. doi:锘
17.
Sperling 听RA锘, Aisen 听PS锘, Beckett 听LA锘, 听et al. 听Toward defining the preclinical stages of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer鈥檚 Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer鈥檚 disease.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement. 2011;7(3):280-292. doi:锘
18.
Jack 听CR 听Jr锘, Bennett 听DA锘, Blennow 听K锘, 听et al. 听NIA-AA research framework: toward a biological definition of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease.听锘 听Alzheimers Dement. 2018;14(4):535-562. doi:锘
19.
Jack 听CR 听Jr锘, Therneau 听TM锘, Weigand 听SD锘, 听et al. 听Prevalence of biologically vs clinically defined Alzheimer spectrum entities using the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer鈥檚 Association Research Framework.听锘 听JAMA Neurol. 2019;76(10):1174-1183. doi:锘
20.
Schneider 听JA锘. 听Neuropathology of dementia disorders.听锘 听Continuum (Minneap Minn). 2022;28(3):834-851.
21.
Dubois 听B锘, Villain 听N锘, Frisoni 听GB锘, 听et al. 听Clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease: recommendations of the International Working Group.听锘 听Lancet Neurol. 2021;20(6):484-496. doi:锘
2 Comments for this article
EXPAND ALL
Reflections based on IWG Criteria
Bruno Dubois, Professor of Neurlogy; Giovanni Frisoni | Sorbonne University, Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris
This article reports the first thoughts of a project aimed to propose an acceptable and common nomenclature for neurogenerative diseases associated with a dementia. It is a work in progress led by highly competent personalities in the field.

Interestingly, the framework emphasizes the separation between clinical syndromes and the underlying pathology. This separation is essential, particularly in the case of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease. This point had already been raised by neuropathologists in the NIA-AA Guidelines of 2012: 鈥淭here is consensus to disentangle the clinical-pathological term 鈥楢lzheimer鈥檚 disease鈥 from neuropathological changes of Alzheimer鈥 (Hyman BT et al. Alzheimers Dement 2012;
8: 1鈥13). Neuropathologists observe lesions of Alzheimer鈥檚 disease but they cannot decide whether it is indeed Alzheimer鈥檚 disease. The disease is based on the coherence between a clinical phenotype and the presence of specific lesions, now informed by biomarkers.

In their communication, the authors also rightly point out the confusion that may exist around the concept of MCI responsible for a misuse that we had already highlighted in 2007 (Dubois et al., Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 734鈥46). As the authors indicate, MCI is a clinical syndrome with several etiologies, which should not be considered synonymous to early Alzheimer鈥檚 disease. This is why we proposed in 2010 to call the early phase of AD 鈥減rodromal AD鈥, implying that it is a stage of the disease (Dubois et al., Lancet Neurol. 2010; 9(11):1118-27).

Finally, some inaccuracies should be noted:
- contrary to what is stated, the first revision of the 1984 criteria introducing biomarkers into the diagnostic workshop was published in 2007 by the International Working Group (Dubois et al., Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 734鈥46) and not by the NIA-AA;
- the International Working Group is not a "European" group as there were 12 US co-authors to the IWG publications of 2007, 2010, and 2021;
- the International working Group labels cognitively normal individuals with positive biomarkers as 鈥渁symptomatic-at risk for AD鈥 and not 鈥淎D-at risk鈥 as mentioned in the article. The difference is substantial as our framework does NOT consider these persons as being in a disease state.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
NAPA
Markku Kurkinen, PhD | NeuroActiva, Inc.
The article mentions the National Alzheimer鈥檚 Project Act (NAPA), which President Obama signed into a Public Law 111-375 (S.3036) January 4, 2011, to 鈥減revent or effectively treat Alzheimer鈥檚 disease by 2025.鈥 [1-3]. NAPA also says 鈥淭he Project shall expire December 31, 2025鈥, at the "sunset", as it is called in the law [2].

1. National Alzheimer鈥檚 Project Act, S 3036, 111th Cong (2010). Accessed July 23, 2023. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/3036
2. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s3036/text. Accessed October 26, 2023. 鈥
3. Snyder HM, Hendrix J, Bain LJ, Carrillo MC. Alzheimer鈥檚 disease research in the context of the national plan to address Alzheimer鈥檚
disease. Mol Aspects Med, 2015;43-44:16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.mam.2015.06.005.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Special Communication
October 16, 2023

A New Framework for Dementia Nomenclature

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Neurology, Alzheimer鈥檚 Disease Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
  • 2Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
  • 3Alzheimer鈥檚 and Memory Disorders Program, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona
  • 4Penn Memory Center, Departments of Medicine, Medical Ethics, and Health Policy, and Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  • 5Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix
  • 6Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • 7New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York
  • 8Advisory Council on Alzheimer鈥檚 Research, Care, and Services, Washington, DC
  • 9Strategic Partnerships, Lewy Body Dementia Association, Lilburn, Georgia
JAMA Neurol. 2023;80(12):1364-1370. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2023.3664
Abstract

ImportanceNomenclature in the field of neurodegenerative diseases presents a challenging problem. Inconsistent use of terms such as Alzheimer disease and dementia has compromised progress in clinical care, research, and development of therapeutics. Dementia-associated stigma further contributes to inconsistent and imprecise language. The result is a lack of clarity that produces confusion with patients and the general public and presents communication challenges among researchers. Therefore, the Advisory Council on Research, Care, and Services of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer鈥檚 Disease authorized a committee to make recommendations for improvement.

ObjectiveTo establish a systematic neurodegenerative disease framework for information collection and communication to standardize language usage for research, clinical, and public health purposes.

Evidence ReviewThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative organized into 3 major stakeholder working groups: clinicians, researchers, and the public (including individuals living with dementia and family caregivers). To inform the work, the initiative completed a narrative literature review of dementia nomenclature evolution over the last century across the PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Scopus databases (January 1, 2000, through July 31, 2020). Initiative working groups used the results as a foundation for understanding current challenges with dementia nomenclature and implications for research, clinical practice, and public understanding. The initiative obtained additional input via focus groups with individuals living with dementia and caregivers, with separate groups for race and ethnicity (American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, and White) as an initial assessment of the meaning of dementia-related terms to these groups.

FindingsFrom working group deliberations, the literature review, and focus group input, the initiative developed a framework clearly separating the clinical syndromic presentation experienced by affected individuals from possible underlying pathophysiologies. In the framework, domains of clinical impairment, such as cognitive, behavioral, motor, and other neurologic features, are graded by level of impairment between none and severe. Next, biomarker information describes underlying disease processes, explains the syndrome, and identifies possible disease labels: Alzheimer disease, frontotemporal degeneration, dementia with Lewy bodies, or vascular cognitive impairment dementia.

Conclusions and RelevanceThe Dementia Nomenclature Initiative established a framework to guide communication about cognitive impairment among older adults. Wider testing and refinement of the framework will subsequently improve the information used in communicating about cognitive impairment and the way in which the information is used in clinical, research, and public settings.

×