Home › Research › Treatments
Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review
Garcia MJ, Leadley R, Ross J, Bozeat S, Redhead G, Hansson O, Iwatsubo T, Villain N et al.. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports, 2024-02-16
Topic: Plasma and spinal-fluid biomarkers
Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) causes progressive decline of cognition and function. There is a lack of systematic literature reviews on prognostic and predictive factors in its early clinical stages (eAD), i.e., mild cognitive impairment due to AD and mild AD dementia. Objective To identify prognostic factors affecting eAD progression and predictive factors for treatment efficacy and safety of approved and/or under late-stage development disease-modifying treatments. Methods Databases were searched (August 2022) for studies reporting prognostic factors associated with eAD progression and predictive factors for treatment response. The Quality in Prognostic Factor Studies tool or the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess risk of bias. Two reviewers independently screened the records. A single reviewer performed data extraction and quality assessment. A second performed a 20% check. Content experts reviewed and interpreted the data collected. Results Sixty-one studies were included. Self-reporting, diagnosis definition, and missing data led to high risk of bias. Population size ranged from 110 to 11,451. Analyses found data indicating that older age was and depression may be associated with progression. Greater baseline cognitive impairment was associated with progression. APOE4 may be a prognostic factor, a predictive factor for treatment efficacy and predicts an adverse response (ARIA). Elevated biomarkers (CSF/plasma p-tau, CSF t-tau, and plasma neurofilament light) were associated with disease progression. Conclusions Age was the strongest risk factor for progression. Biomarkers were associated with progression, supporting their use in trial selection and aiding diagnosis. Baseline cognitive impairment was a prognostic factor. APOE4 predicted ARIA, aligning with emerging evidence and relevant to treatment initiation/monitoring.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Garcia, M. J., Leadley, R., Ross, J., Bozeat, S., Redhead, G., Hansson, O., et al. (2024). Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-230045
Vancouver
Garcia MJ, Leadley R, Ross J, Bozeat S, Redhead G, Hansson O, et al. Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review. Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports. 2024. doi:10.3233/adr-230045. PMID: 38405341.
BibTeX
@article{garcia2024-38405341,
author = {Garcia, M. J. and Leadley, R. and Ross, J. and Bozeat, S. and Redhead, G. and Hansson, O. and Iwatsubo, T. and Villain, N. and others},
title = {{Prognostic and Predictive Factors in Early Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.3233/adr-230045},
pmid = {38405341},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/adr-230045}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Methods Databases were searched (August 2022) for studies reporting prognostic factors associated with eAD progression and predictive factors for treatment response.
- Analyses found data indicating that older age was and depression may be associated with progression.
- Greater baseline cognitive impairment was associated with progression.
- Elevated biomarkers (CSF/plasma p-tau, CSF t-tau, and plasma neurofilament light) were associated with disease progression.
- Biomarkers were associated with progression, supporting their use in trial selection and aiding diagnosis.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 66/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported and studied in people because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 66 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease reports) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question (from PubMed type “Systematic Review”) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38405341) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 38 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 38 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 66 out of 100. |
| Total | 66 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “p-tau217”
692 studies in the library carry the topic tag “p-tau217”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 692 tagged studies.