There is wide acknowledgement that apathy is an important behavioural syndrome in Alzheimer’s disease and in various neuropsychiatric disorders. In light of recent research and the renewed interest in the correlates and impacts of apathy, and in its treatments, it is important to develop criteria for apathy that will be widely accepted, have clear operational steps, and that will be easily applied in practice and research settings. Meeting these needs is the focus of the task force work reported here.The task force includes members of the Association Française de Psychiatrie Biologique, the European Psychiatric Association, the European Alzheimer’s Disease Consortium and experts from Europe, Australia and North America. An advanced draft was discussed at the consensus meeting (during the EPA conference in April 7th 2008) and a final agreement reached concerning operational definitions and hierarchy of the criteria.Apathy is defined as a disorder of motivation that persists over time and should meet the following requirements. Firstly, the core feature of apathy, diminished motivation, must be present for at least four weeks; secondly two of the three dimensions of apathy (reduced goal-directed behaviour, goal-directed cognitive activity, and emotions) must also be present; thirdly there should be identifiable functional impairments attributable to the apathy. Finally, exclusion criteria are specified to exclude symptoms and states that mimic apathy.

Background: Apathy is a very common behavioural and psychological symptom across brain disorders. In the last decade, there have been considerable advances in research on apathy and motivation. It is thus important to revise the apathy diagnostic criteria published in 2009. The main objectives were to: a) revise the definition of apathy; b) update the list of apathy dimensions; c) operationalise the diagnostic criteria; and d) suggest appropriate assessment tools including new technologies.Methods: The expert panel (N = 23) included researchers and health care professionals working on brain disorders and apathy, a representative of a regulatory body, and a representative of the pharmaceutical industry. The revised diagnostic criteria for apathy were developed in a two-step process. First, following the standard Delphi methodology, the experts were asked to answer questions via web-survey in two rounds. Second, all the collected information was discussed on the occasion of the 26th European Congress of Psychiatry held in Nice (France).Results: Apathy was defined as a quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning (criterion A). Symptoms must persist for at least four weeks, and affect at least two of the three apathy dimensions (behaviour/cognition; emotion; social interaction; criterion B). Apathy should cause identifiable functional impairments (criterion C), and should not be fully explained by other factors, such as effects of a substance or major changes in the patient’s environment (Criterion D). Table 1 Apathy diagnostic criteria 2018.: CRITERION A:A quantitative reduction of goal-directed activity either in behavioral, cognitive, emotional or social dimensions in comparison to the patient’s previous level of functioning in these areas. These changes may be reported by the patient himself/herself or by observation of others. CRITERION B:The presence of at least 2 of the 3 following dimensions for a period of at least four weeks and present most of the timeB1. BEHAVIOUR & COGNITIONLoss of, or diminished, goal-directed behaviour or cognitive activity as evidenced by at least one of the following:General level of activity:the patient has a reduced level of activity either at home or work, makes less effort to initiate or accomplish tasks spontaneously, or needs to be prompted to perform them.Persistence of activity:He/she is less persistent in maintaining an activity or conversation, finding solutions to problems or thinking of alternative ways to accomplish them if they become difficult.Making choices:He/she has less interest or takes longer to make choices when different alternatives exist (e.g., selecting TV programs, preparing meals, choosing from a menu, etc.)Interest in external issue:He/she has less interest in or reacts less to news, either good or bad, or has less interest in doing new thingsPersonal wellbeing:He/she is less interested in his/her own health and wellbeing or personal image (general appearance, grooming, clothes, etc.).B2. EMOTIONLoss of, or diminished, emotion as evidenced by at least one of the following:Spontaneous emotions:the patient shows less spontaneous (self-generated) emotions regarding their own affairs, or appears less interested in events that should matter to him/her or to people that he/she knows well.Emotional reactions to environment:He/she expresses less emotional reaction in response to positive or negative events in his/her environment that affect him/her or people he/she knows well (e.g., when things go well or bad, responding to jokes, or events on a TV program or a movie, or when disturbed or prompted to do things he/she would prefer not to do).Impact on others:He/she is less concerned about the impact of his/her actions or feelings on the people around him/her.Empathy:He/she shows less empathy to the emotions or feelings of others (e.g., becoming happy or sad when someone is happy or sad, or being moved when others need help).Verbal or physical expressions:He/she shows less verbal or physical reactions that reveal his/her emotional states.B3. SOCIAL INTERACTIONLoss of, or diminished engagement in social interaction as evidenced by at least one of the following:Spontaneous social initiative:the patient takes less initiative in spontaneously proposing social or leisure activities to family or others.Environmentally stimulated social interaction:He/she participates less, or is less comfortable or more indifferent to social or leisure activities suggested by people around him/her.Relationship with family members:He/she shows less interest in family members (e.g., to know what is happening to them, to meet them or make arrangements to contact them).Verbal interaction:He/she is less likely to initiate a conversation, or he/she withdraws soon from itHomebound: He /She prefer to stays at home more frequently or longer than usual and shows less interest in getting out to meet people. CRITERION CThese symptoms (A - B) cause clinically significant impairment in personal, social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. CRITERION DThe symptoms (A - B) are not exclusively explained or due to physical disabilities (e.g. blindness and loss of hearing), to motor disabilities, to a diminished level of consciousness, to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g. drug of abuse, medication), or to major changes in the patient’s environment. Conclusions: The new diagnostic criteria for apathy provide a clinical and scientific framework to increase the validity of apathy as a clinical construct. This should also help to pave the path for apathy in brain disorders to be an interventional target.

Introduction: The present review of Alzheimer's disease (AD) rating scales aims to outline the need for a new rating scale to be used in routine clinical practice for long-term medical care of AD patients. An ideal scale would be: 1) practical, easy and quick to administer for an experienced clinician; 2) validated for AD; 3) multi-domain: covering the AD-relevant areas of cognition, activities of daily living, behavior, communication/social interaction, and quality of life; 4) applicable to all AD severity stages; 5) able to monitor disease progression; and 6) sensitive to measure therapy effects. Methods: The National Library of Medicines' MEDLINE database was searched for the years 1981 to September 2008, using a set of keywords aiming to select instruments which cover at least some of the requirements for an ideal practical AD scale for therapy evaluation. Measures for AD staging and screening tests were not considered for review. Results: Of 1,902 articles resulting from the literature search, 68 relevant AD scales were identified. Most of them were scales that predominantly measure the severity of major dysfunctions in particular AD domains. Only five scales met some of the requirements for a practical multi-domain AD scale, but did not possess all required characteristics. Conclusions: Despite the multitude of AD scales for various purposes, there remains a need for a new multi-domain and easy to administer AD scale for assessment of disease progression and response to therapy in daily medical practice.

Background: Disease-modifying drug use necessitates better Alzheimer disease (AD) detection. Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) leverages cognitive decline to identify the risk group; similarly, mild behavioral impairment (MBI) leverages behavioral change. Adding MBI to MCI improves dementia prognostication over conventional approaches of incorporating neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS). Here, to determine if adding MBI would better identify AD, we interrogated associations between MBI in MCI, and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers [β-amyloid (Aβ), phosphorylated-tau (p-tau), and total-tau (tau)-ATN], cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Methods: Data were from two independent referral-based cohorts, ADNI (mean[SD] follow-up 3.14[1.07] years) and MEMENTO (4.25[1.40] years), collected 2003–2021. Exposure was based on three-group stratification: 1) NPS meeting MBI criteria; 2) conventionally measured NPS (NPSnotMBI); and 3) noNPS. Cohorts were analyzed separately for: 1) cross-sectional associations between NPS status and ATN biomarkers (linear regressions); 2) 4-year longitudinal repeated-measures associations of MBI and NPSnotMBI with ATN biomarkers (hierarchical linear mixed-effects models-LMEs); and 3) rates of incident dementia (Cox proportional hazards regressions). Results: Of 510 MCI participants, 352 were from ADNI (43.5% females; mean [SD] age, 71.68 [7.40] years), and 158 from MEMENTO (46.2% females; 68.98 [8.18] years). In ADNI, MBI was associated with lower Aβ42 (standardized β [95%CI], -5.52% [-10.48-(-0.29)%]; p = 0.039), and Aβ42/40 (p = 0.01); higher p-tau (9.67% [3.96–15.70%]; p = 0.001), t-tau (7.71% [2.70–12.97%]; p = 0.002), p-tau/Aβ42 (p < 0.001), and t-tau/Aβ42 (p = 0.001). NPSnotMBI was associated only with lower Aβ42/40 (p = 0.045). LMEs revealed a similar 4-year AD-specific biomarker profile for MBI, with NPSnotMBI associated only with higher t-tau. MBI had a greater rate of incident dementia (HR [95%CI], 3.50 [1.99–6.17; p < 0.001). NPSnotMBI did not differ from noNPS (HR 0.96 [0.49–1.89]; p = 0.916). In MEMENTO, MBI demonstrated a similar magnitude and direction of effect for all biomarkers, but with a greater reduction in Aβ40. HR for incident dementia was 3.93 (p = 0.004) in MBI, and 1.83 (p = 0.266) in NPSnotMBI. Of MBI progressors to dementia, 81% developed AD dementia. Conclusions: These findings support a biological basis for NPS that meet MBI criteria, the continued inclusion of MBI in NIA-AA ATN clinical staging, and the utility of MBI criteria to improve identification of patients for enrollment in disease-modifying drug trials or for clinical care.