Universidad del Desarrollo

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Alzheimer Disease as a Clinical-Biological Construct—An International Working Group Recommendation
(2024)
Bruno Dubois
;
Nicolas Villain
;
Lon Schneider
;
Nick Fox
;
Noll Campbell
<jats:sec id="ab-nsc240001-1"><jats:title>Importance</jats:title><jats:p>Since 2018, a movement has emerged to define Alzheimer disease (AD) as a purely biological entity based on biomarker findings. The recent revision of the Alzheimer’s Association (AA) criteria for AD furthers this direction. However, concerns about a purely biological definition of AD being applied clinically, the understanding of AD by society at large, and the translation of blood-based biomarkers into clinical practice prompt these International Working Group (IWG) updated recommendations.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec id="ab-nsc240001-2"><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>To consider the revised AA criteria and to offer an alternative definitional view of AD as a clinical-biological construct for clinical use. The recommendations of the 2021 IWG diagnostic criteria are updated for further elaborating at-risk and presymptomatic states.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec id="ab-nsc240001-3"><jats:title>Evidence Review</jats:title><jats:p>PubMed was searched for articles published between July 1, 2020, and March 1, 2024, using the terms “biomarker” OR “amyloid” OR “tau” OR “neurodegeneration” OR “preclinical” OR “CSF” OR “PET” OR “plasma” AND “Alzheimer’s disease.” The references of relevant articles were also searched.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec id="ab-nsc240001-4"><jats:title>Findings</jats:title><jats:p>In the new AA diagnostic criteria, AD can be defined clinically as encompassing cognitively normal people having a core 1 AD biomarker. However, recent literature shows that the majority of biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals will not become symptomatic along a proximate timeline. In the clinical setting, disclosing a diagnosis of AD to cognitively normal people with only core 1 AD biomarkers represents the most problematic implication of a purely biological definition of the disease.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec id="ab-nsc240001-5"><jats:title>Conclusions and Relevance</jats:title><jats:p>The ultimate aim of the field was to foster effective AD treatments, including preventing symptoms and dementia. The approach of diagnosing AD without a clinical and biological construct would be unwarranted and potentially concerning without a clear knowledge of when or whether symptoms will ever develop. It is recommended that those who are amyloid-positive only and, more generally, most biomarker-positive cognitively normal individuals, should not be labeled as having AD. Rather, they should be considered as being at risk for AD. The expansion of presymptomatic AD is viewed as a better diagnostic construct for those with a specific pattern of biomarkers, indicating that they are proximate to the expression of symptoms in the near future.</jats:p></jats:sec>
Scopus© Citations 73 2
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Frontotemporal Dementias in Latin America: History, Epidemiology, Genetics, and Clinical Research
(2021)
Jorge J. Llibre-Guerra
;
BEHRENS PELLEGRINO, MARIA ISABEL
;
Mirna Lie Hosogi
;
Lucia Montero
;
Teresa Torralva
<jats:p><jats:bold>Introduction:</jats:bold> The historical development, frequency, and impact of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) are less clear in Latin America than in high-income countries. Although there is a growing number of dementia studies in Latin America, little is known collectively about FTD prevalence studies by country, clinical heterogeneity, risk factors, and genetics in Latin American countries.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Methods:</jats:bold> A systematic review was completed, aimed at identifying the frequency, clinical heterogeneity, and genetics studies of FTD in Latin American populations. The search strategies used a combination of standardized terms for FTD and related disorders. In addition, at least one author per Latin American country summarized the available literature. Collaborative or regional studies were reviewed during consensus meetings.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results:</jats:bold> The first FTD reports published in Latin America were mostly case reports. The last two decades marked a substantial increase in the number of FTD research in Latin American countries. Brazil (165), Argentina (84), Colombia (26), and Chile (23) are the countries with the larger numbers of FTD published studies. Most of the research has focused on clinical and neuropsychological features (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 247), including the local adaptation of neuropsychological and behavioral assessment batteries. However, there are little to no large studies on prevalence (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 4), biomarkers (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 9), or neuropathology (<jats:italic>n</jats:italic> = 3) of FTD.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusions:</jats:bold> Future FTD studies will be required in Latin America, albeit with a greater emphasis on clinical diagnosis, genetics, biomarkers, and neuropathological studies. Regional and country-level efforts should seek better estimations of the prevalence, incidence, and economic impact of FTD syndromes.</jats:p>
Scopus© Citations 10 1
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Biomarkers for dementia in Latin American countries: Gaps and opportunities
(2022)
Mario A. Parra
;
ORELLANA VILLENA, VIVIANA PAULINA
;
Tomas Leon
;
Cabello G. Victoria
;
Rodrigo Gomez
1Scopus© Citations 32 2
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Dementia in Latin America: Paving the way toward a regional action plan
(2020)
Mario Alfredo Parra
;
Sandra Baez
;
Lucas Sedeño
;
Cecilia Gonzalez Campo
;
Hernando Santamaría‐García
2Scopus© Citations 115

CRIS

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results