Application of the IWG-2 Diagnostic Criteria for Alzheimer’s Disease to the ADNI

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Wang, Hui-Fu^a | Tan, Lan^{a; b; *} | Cao, Lei^a | Zhu, Xi-Chen^a | Jiang, Teng^c | Tan, Meng-Shan^b | Liu, Ying^b | Wang, Chong^b | Tsai, Richard M.^d | Jia, Jian-Ping^e | Yu, Jin-Tai^{a; b; d; *} | and Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative¹

Affiliations: [a] Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China | [b] Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, School of Medicine, Qingdao University, China | [c] Department of Neurology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China | [d] Memory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA | [e] Department of Neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Correspondence: [*] Correspondence to: Jin-Tai Yu, Memory and Aging Center, Department of Neurology, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. Tel.: +1 415 988 0162; Fax: +1 415 476 0679; E-mails: jintai.yu@ucsf.edu or yu-jintai@163.com.

Correspondence: [*] Correspondence to: Lan Tan, Department of Neurology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, China. E-mail: dr.tanlan@163.com.

Note: [#] Data used in preparation of this article were obtained fromthe Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) database (http://adni.loni.usc.edu). As such, the investigators within theADNI contributed to the design and implementation of ADNI and/or provided data but did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. A complete listing of ADNI investigators can be found at: http://adni.loni.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/how_to_apply/ADNI_Acknowledgement_List.pdf

Abstract: Background:The International Working Group (IWG) recently proposed the revised diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) to define and refine several types of AD, and to reclassify AD-related biomarkers into diagnostic and progression markers, but its performance is not known. Objective:This study was designed to describe the application of the revised IWG criteria in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) dataset, and to ascertain whether diagnostic and progression markers show significant differences in their relationships to AD severity and progression. Methods:Based on the requirements of the refined criteria, 857 ADNI subjects with memory evaluation and at least one pathophysiological marker (CSF or amyloid imaging biomarkers) were eligible and reclassified in this study, and we calculated the associations of diagnostic (CSF and amyloid PET) and progression markers (MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose-PET) with AD severity and progression respectively. Results:The majority (84.2% ) of ADNI AD group (n = 117) and 173 MCI (37.4% ) subjects in ADNI met the definition of typical AD; and 105 cognitively normal (41.0% ) individuals were diagnosed as asymptomatic AD. Furthermore, diagnostic and progression markers showed significant differences when correlated to AD severity and progression. Conclusion:A large proportion of AD dementia subjects were categorized as typical AD, and the revised criteria could identify typical AD from MCI status as well as asymptomatic AD at the asymptomatic stage. Moreover, the significant differences between diagnostic and progression markers further supported the new biomarkers categorization in the refined criteria.

Keywords: Alzheimer’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging Initiative, diagnostic markers, international working group-2 criteria, progression markers

DOI: 10.3233/JAD-150824

Journal: Journal of Alzheimer's Disease, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 227-236, 2016