BACKGROUND: To enhance the accuracy of clinical diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease (AD), pre-mortem biomarkers have become increasingly important for diagnosis and for participant recruitment in disease-specific treatment trials. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers provide a low-cost alternative to positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for in vivo quantification of different AD pathological hallmarks in the brains of affected subjects; however, consensus around the best platform, most informative biomarker and correlations across different methodologies are controversial. OBJECTIVE: Assessing levels of Aβ-amyloid and tau species determined using three different versions of immunoassays, the current study explored the ability of CSF biomarkers to predict PET Aβ-amyloid (32 Aβ-amyloid-and 45 Aβ-amyloid+), as well as concordance between CSF biomarker levels and PET Aβ-amyloid imaging. METHODS: Prediction and concordance analyses were performed using a sub-cohort of 77 individuals (48 healthy controls, 15 with mild cognitive impairment, and 14 with AD) from the Australian Imaging Biomarker and Lifestyle study of aging. RESULTS: Across all three platforms, the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio biomarker had modestly higher correlation with SUVR/BeCKeT (ρ= 0.69-0.8) as compared with Aβ42 alone (ρ= 0.66-0.75). Differences in CSF biomarker levels between the PET Aβ-amyloid-and Aβ-amyloid+ groups were strongest for the Aβ42/Aβ40 and T-tau/Aβ42 ratios (p < 0.0001); however, comparison of predictive models for PET Aβ-amyloid showed no difference between Aβ42 alone and the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio. CONCLUSION: This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: To enhance the accuracy of clinical diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease (AD), pre-mortem biomarkers have become increasingly important for diagnosis and for participant recruitment in disease-specific treatment trials. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers provide a low-cost alternative to positron emission tomography (PET) imaging for in vivo quantification of different AD pathological hallmarks in the brains of affected subjects; however, consensus around the best platform, most informative biomarker and correlations across different methodologies are controversial. OBJECTIVE: Assessing levels of Aβ-amyloid and tau species determined using three different versions of immunoassays, the current study explored the ability of CSF biomarkers to predict PET Aβ-amyloid (32 Aβ-amyloid-and 45 Aβ-amyloid+), as well as concordance between CSF biomarker levels and PET Aβ-amyloid imaging. METHODS: Prediction and concordance analyses were performed using a sub-cohort of 77 individuals (48 healthy controls, 15 with mild cognitive impairment, and 14 with AD) from the Australian Imaging Biomarker and Lifestyle study of aging. RESULTS: Across all three platforms, the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio biomarker had modestly higher correlation with SUVR/BeCKeT (ρ= 0.69-0.8) as compared with Aβ42 alone (ρ= 0.66-0.75). Differences in CSF biomarker levels between the PET Aβ-amyloid-and Aβ-amyloid+ groups were strongest for the Aβ42/Aβ40 and T-tau/Aβ42 ratios (p < 0.0001); however, comparison of predictive models for PET Aβ-amyloid showed no difference between Aβ42 alone and the T-tau/Aβ42 ratio. CONCLUSION: This study confirms strong concordance between CSF biomarkers and PET Aβ-amyloid status is independent of immunoassay platform, supporting their utility as biomarkers in clinical practice for the diagnosis of AD and for participant enrichment in clinical trials.
Authors: June Kaplow; Manu Vandijck; Julia Gray; Michio Kanekiyo; Els Huyck; C J Traynham; Rianne Esquivel; Anne M Fagan; Johan Luthman Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Sebastian Palmqvist; Philip S Insel; Erik Stomrud; Shorena Janelidze; Henrik Zetterberg; Britta Brix; Udo Eichenlaub; Jeffrey L Dage; Xiyun Chai; Kaj Blennow; Niklas Mattsson; Oskar Hansson Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Eline A J Willemse; Betty M Tijms; Bart N M van Berckel; Nathalie Le Bastard; Wiesje M van der Flier; Philip Scheltens; Charlotte E Teunissen Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2021-05-01
Authors: Daniel Ferreira; Scott A Przybelski; Timothy G Lesnick; Afina W Lemstra; Elisabet Londos; Frederic Blanc; Zuzana Nedelska; Christopher G Schwarz; Jonathan Graff-Radford; Matthew L Senjem; Julie A Fields; David S Knopman; Rodolfo Savica; Tanis J Ferman; Neill R Graff-Radford; Val J Lowe; Clifford R Jack; Ronald C Petersen; Brit Mollenhauer; Sara Garcia-Ptacek; Carla Abdelnour; Jakub Hort; Laura Bonanni; Ketil Oppedal; Milica G Kramberger; Bradley F Boeve; Dag Aarsland; Eric Westman; Kejal Kantarci Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Christopher Fowler; Stephanie R Rainey-Smith; Sabine Bird; Julia Bomke; Pierrick Bourgeat; Belinda M Brown; Samantha C Burnham; Ashley I Bush; Carolyn Chadunow; Steven Collins; James Doecke; Vincent Doré; Kathryn A Ellis; Lis Evered; Amir Fazlollahi; Jurgen Fripp; Samantha L Gardener; Simon Gibson; Robert Grenfell; Elise Harrison; Richard Head; Liang Jin; Adrian Kamer; Fiona Lamb; Nicola T Lautenschlager; Simon M Laws; Qiao-Xin Li; Lucy Lim; Yen Ying Lim; Andrea Louey; S Lance Macaulay; Lucy Mackintosh; Ralph N Martins; Paul Maruff; Colin L Masters; Simon McBride; Lidija Milicic; Madeline Peretti; Kelly Pertile; Tenielle Porter; Morgan Radler; Alan Rembach; Joanne Robertson; Mark Rodrigues; Christopher C Rowe; Rebecca Rumble; Olivier Salvado; Greg Savage; Brendan Silbert; Magdalene Soh; Hamid R Sohrabi; Kevin Taddei; Tania Taddei; Christine Thai; Brett Trounson; Regan Tyrrell; Michael Vacher; Shiji Varghese; Victor L Villemagne; Michael Weinborn; Michael Woodward; Ying Xia; David Ames Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Rep Date: 2021-06-03