BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) are currently being considered for inclusion in revised diagnostic criteria for research and/or clinical purposes to increase the certainty of antemortem diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To test whether CSF biomarker assays differ in their ability to identify true markers of underlying AD pathology (eg, amyloid plaques and/or neurofibrillary tangles) in living individuals. DESIGN: We compared the performances of the 2 most commonly used platforms, INNOTEST enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and INNO-BIA AlzBio3, for measurement of CSF β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau proteins to identify the presence of amyloid plaques in a research cohort (n=103). Values obtained for CSF Aβ1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau(181)) using the 2 assay platforms were compared with brain amyloid load as assessed by positron emission tomography using the amyloid imaging agent Pittsburgh compound B. SETTING: The Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. SUBJECTS: Research volunteers who were cognitively normal or had mild to moderate AD dementia. RESULTS: The 2 assay platforms yielded different (approximately 2- to 6-fold) absolute values for the various analytes, but relative values were highly correlated. The CSF Aβ1-42 correlated inversely and tau and p-tau(181) correlated positively with the amount of cortical Pittsburgh compound B binding, albeit to differing degrees. Both assays yielded similar patterns of CSF biomarker correlations with amyloid load. The ratios of total tau to Aβ1-42 and p-tau(181) to Aβ1-42 outperformed any single analyte, including Aβ1-42, in discriminating individuals with vs without cortical amyloid. CONCLUSIONS: The INNOTEST and INNO-BIA CSF platforms perform equally well in identifying individuals with underlying amyloid plaque pathology. Differences in absolute values, however, point to the need for assay-specific diagnostic cutoff values.
BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers of Alzheimer disease (AD) are currently being considered for inclusion in revised diagnostic criteria for research and/or clinical purposes to increase the certainty of antemortem diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To test whether CSF biomarker assays differ in their ability to identify true markers of underlying AD pathology (eg, amyloid plaques and/or neurofibrillary tangles) in living individuals. DESIGN: We compared the performances of the 2 most commonly used platforms, INNOTEST enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and INNO-BIA AlzBio3, for measurement of CSF β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau proteins to identify the presence of amyloid plaques in a research cohort (n=103). Values obtained for CSF Aβ1-42, total tau, and phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau(181)) using the 2 assay platforms were compared with brain amyloid load as assessed by positron emission tomography using the amyloid imaging agent Pittsburgh compound B. SETTING: The Knight Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. SUBJECTS: Research volunteers who were cognitively normal or had mild to moderate AD dementia. RESULTS: The 2 assay platforms yielded different (approximately 2- to 6-fold) absolute values for the various analytes, but relative values were highly correlated. The CSF Aβ1-42 correlated inversely and tau and p-tau(181) correlated positively with the amount of cortical Pittsburgh compound B binding, albeit to differing degrees. Both assays yielded similar patterns of CSF biomarker correlations with amyloid load. The ratios of total tau to Aβ1-42 and p-tau(181) to Aβ1-42 outperformed any single analyte, including Aβ1-42, in discriminating individuals with vs without cortical amyloid. CONCLUSIONS: The INNOTEST and INNO-BIA CSF platforms perform equally well in identifying individuals with underlying amyloid plaque pathology. Differences in absolute values, however, point to the need for assay-specific diagnostic cutoff values.
Authors: Barbara J Snider; Anne M Fagan; Catherine Roe; Aarti R Shah; Elizabeth A Grant; Chengjie Xiong; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2009-05
Authors: Joseph L Price; Daniel W McKeel; Virginia D Buckles; Catherine M Roe; Chengjie Xiong; Michael Grundman; Lawrence A Hansen; Ronald C Petersen; Joseph E Parisi; Dennis W Dickson; Charles D Smith; Daron G Davis; Frederick A Schmitt; William R Markesbery; Jeffrey Kaye; Roger Kurlan; Christine Hulette; Brenda F Kurland; Roger Higdon; Walter Kukull; John C Morris Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2009-04-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: John C Morris; Catherine M Roe; Chengjie Xiong; Anne M Fagan; Alison M Goate; David M Holtzman; Mark A Mintun Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Leslie M Shaw; Hugo Vanderstichele; Malgorzata Knapik-Czajka; Christopher M Clark; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Kaj Blennow; Holly Soares; Adam Simon; Piotr Lewczuk; Robert Dean; Eric Siemers; William Potter; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Niklas Mattsson; Henrik Zetterberg; Oskar Hansson; Niels Andreasen; Lucilla Parnetti; Michael Jonsson; Sanna-Kaisa Herukka; Wiesje M van der Flier; Marinus A Blankenstein; Michael Ewers; Kenneth Rich; Elmar Kaiser; Marcel Verbeek; Magda Tsolaki; Ezra Mulugeta; Erik Rosén; Dag Aarsland; Pieter Jelle Visser; Johannes Schröder; Jan Marcusson; Mony de Leon; Harald Hampel; Philip Scheltens; Tuula Pirttilä; Anders Wallin; Maria Eriksdotter Jönhagen; Lennart Minthon; Bengt Winblad; Kaj Blennow Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-07-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nelleke Tolboom; Wiesje M van der Flier; Maqsood Yaqub; Ronald Boellaard; Nicolaas A Verwey; Marinus A Blankenstein; Albert D Windhorst; Philip Scheltens; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Bart N M van Berckel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: W J Jagust; S M Landau; L M Shaw; J Q Trojanowski; R A Koeppe; E M Reiman; N L Foster; R C Petersen; M W Weiner; J C Price; C A Mathis Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Mark A Mintun; Aarti R Shah; Patricia Aldea; Catherine M Roe; Robert H Mach; Daniel Marcus; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Henrik Zetterberg; Argonde C van Harten; Lidia Glodzik; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Luisella Bocchio-Chiavetto; Lorena Rami; Oskar Hansson; Reisa Sperling; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Ricardo S Osorio; Hugo Vanderstichele; Manu Vandijck; Harald Hampel; Stefan Teipl; Abhay Moghekar; Marilyn Albert; William T Hu; Jose A Monge Argilés; Ana Gorostidi; Charlotte E Teunissen; Peter P De Deyn; Bradley T Hyman; Jose L Molinuevo; Giovanni B Frisoni; Gurutz Linazasoro; Mony J de Leon; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski Journal: Brain Date: 2015-07-27 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: David J Irwin; Alberto Lleó; Sharon X Xie; Corey T McMillan; David A Wolk; Edward B Lee; Viviana M Van Deerlin; Leslie M Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Murray Grossman Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2017-08-19 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Jon B Toledo; Hugo Vanderstichele; Michal Figurski; Paul S Aisen; Ronald C Petersen; Michael W Weiner; Clifford R Jack; William Jagust; Charles Decarli; Arthur W Toga; Estefanía Toledo; Sharon X Xie; Virginia M-Y Lee; John Q Trojanowski; Leslie M Shaw Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Li Yang; Tessandra Stewart; Min Shi; Gwenael Pottiez; Romel Dator; Rui Wu; Patrick Aro; Robert J Schuster; Carmen Ginghina; Catherine Pan; Yuqian Gao; Weijun Qian; Cyrus P Zabetian; Shu-Ching Hu; Joseph F Quinn; Jing Zhang Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 3.494