CCCDTD5: research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s Disease

The CCCDTD5 reviewed the research diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease proposed in the NIA‐AA Research Framework and supports their use in research but not in clinical practice

The first Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia took place in 1989 and put emphasis on history taking, physical examination, a basic set of laboratory tests, indications for a head computerized scan, and for a referral to a specialist.

The second CCCDTD in 1998 reaffirmed these recommendations, using the definition of Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) proposed by the NINCDS‐ADRDA Work Group.

The third CCCDTD in 2006 reaffirmed the clinical diagnosis by primary care practitioners as the main strategy for timely diagnosis, adding that brief cognitive tests such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment may be more accurate than the Mini Mental State Examination in discriminating between dementia and the normal state, whereas neuropsychological testing may be useful in the differential diagnosis of dementia and other syndromes of cognitive impairment, that B12 serum levels should be determined in all older adults suspected of cognitive decline or dementia.

The fourth CCCDTD in 2012 had to deal with the shift to an earlier diagnosis of AD in its prodromal stage and the definition of AD proposed by the National Institute on Aging – Alzheimer Association (NIA‐AA) Work Groups in the preclinical stage, the mild cognitive impairment stage and the dementia stage, all these criteria using biomarkers. The consensus reached in 2012 was that the NIA‐AA criteria for AD should be adopted for use in research settings. Additional recommendations were made regarding the diagnosis of early onset dementia, and about rapidly progressive dementia, which should lead to referral to specialty clinics.

The fifth CCCDTD in 2019 studied the research definition of AD proposed by the NIA‐AA Research Framework, in addition to seven other topics summarized in a core article. The current article goes more in details on the reasons we supported this framework, but for research only.

Go back to top