No abstract

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease with a complex and heterogeneous pathophysiology. The number of people living with AD is predicted to increase; however, there are no disease-modifying therapies currently available and none have been successful in late-stage clinical trials. Fluid biomarkers measured in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) or blood hold promise for enabling more effective drug development and establishing a more personalized medicine approach for AD diagnosis and treatment. Biomarkers used in drug development programmes should be qualified for a specific context of use (COU). These COUs include, but are not limited to, subject/patient selection, assessment of disease state and/or prognosis, assessment of mechanism of action, dose optimization, drug response monitoring, efficacy maximization, and toxicity/adverse reactions identification and minimization. The core AD CSF biomarkers Aβ42, t-tau, and p-tau are recognized by research guidelines for their diagnostic utility and are being considered for qualification for subject selection in clinical trials. However, there is a need to better understand their potential for other COUs, as well as identify additional fluid biomarkers reflecting other aspects of AD pathophysiology. Several novel fluid biomarkers have been proposed, but their role in AD pathology and their use as AD biomarkers have yet to be validated. In this review, we summarize some of the pathological mechanisms implicated in the sporadic AD and highlight the data for several established and novel fluid biomarkers (including BACE1, TREM2, YKL-40, IP-10, neurogranin, SNAP-25, synaptotagmin, α-synuclein, TDP-43, ferritin, VILIP-1, and NF-L) associated with each mechanism. We discuss the potential COUs for each biomarker.

No abstract

Background and Purpose The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke. Methods Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium. Results Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent “silo” mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (eg, social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a “Brain Health” concept that enables promotion of preventive measures. Conclusions To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress.