Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Delirium Biomarkers and Their Alignment with the NIA-AA Research Framework.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify whether delirium biomarkers aligned with the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) research framework, a conceptual model that describes the use of diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD).

Design

Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Setting

Acute care and outpatient settings.

Participants

Adults diagnosed with delirium.

Methods and measurements

MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English-language studies published from January 2010 to February 2020. Studies included adults older than 18 years, identified delirium with a standardized assessment tool, and measured an ADRD biomarker. Independent reviewers determined whether an association between delirium and ADRD biomarker was found, the quality of biomarker data based on the REMARK (REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies) checklist, and the study bias based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

Results

A total of 61,256 citations were identified; 113 studies were included. Most studies did not examine amyloid, tau, or neurodegeneration biomarkers. Delirium may be associated with neurodegeneration biomarkers, but few to no studies found an association with amyloid and tau biomarkers. Delirium was not consistently associated with inflammatory biomarkers. The quality of biomarker data was moderate, and the risk of bias was moderate to high. Studies often did not collect prehospital and posthospital cognitive data.

Conclusion

Most delirium diagnostic biomarker studies did not measure amyloid, tau, and/or neurodegenerative biomarkers, making characterization of the relationship between delirium and ADRD difficult. Future delirium biomarker diagnostic studies could improve the understanding of pathophysiologic links between delirium with other conditions affecting cognition.

SUBMITTER: Wang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7923964 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer's disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a "research framework" because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association Research Framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of ? amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that ?-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.

Project description:BACKGROUND:According to the 2018 NIA-AA research framework, Alzheimer's disease (AD) is not defined by the clinical consequences of the disease, but by its underlying pathology, measured by biomarkers. Evidence of both amyloid-? (A?) and phosphorylated tau protein (p-tau) deposition-assessed interchangeably with amyloid-positron emission tomography (PET) and/or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis-is needed to diagnose AD in a living person. Our aim was to test the new NIA-AA research framework in a large cohort of cognitively impaired patients to evaluate correspondence between the clinical syndromes and the underlying pathologic process testified by biomarkers. METHODS:We retrospectively analysed 628 subjects referred to our centre in suspicion of dementia, who underwent CSF analysis, together with neuropsychological assessment and neuroimaging, and were diagnosed with different neurodegenerative dementias according to current criteria, or as cognitively unimpaired. Subjects were classified considering CSF biomarkers, and the prevalence of normal, AD-continuum and non-AD profiles in each clinical syndrome was calculated. The positivity threshold of each CSF biomarker was first assessed by receiver operating characteristic analysis, using A?-positive/negative status as determined by amyloid-PET visual reads. The agreement between CSF and amyloid-PET data was also evaluated. RESULTS:Among patients with a clinical diagnosis of AD, 94.1% were in the AD-continuum, whereas 5.5% were classified as non-AD and 0.4% were normal. The AD-continuum profile was found also in 26.2% of frontotemporal dementia, 48.6% of Lewy body dementia, 25% of atypical parkinsonism and 44.7% of vascular dementia. Biomarkers' profile did not differ in amnestic and not amnestic mild cognitive impairment. CSF A? levels and amyloid-PET tracer binding negatively correlated, and the concordance between the two A? biomarkers was 89%. CONCLUSIONS:The examination of the 2018 NIA-AA research framework in our clinical setting revealed a good, but incomplete, correspondence between the clinical syndromes and the underlying pathologic process measured by CSF biomarkers. The AD-continuum profile resulted to be a sensitive, but non-specific biomarker with regard to the clinical AD diagnosis. CSF and PET A? biomarkers were found to be not perfectly interchangeable to quantify the A? burden, possibly because they measure different aspects of AD pathology.