Melissa M Budelier1, Randall J Bateman2. 1. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 2. Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer disease (AD) was once a clinical diagnosis confirmed by postmortem autopsy. Today, with the development of AD biomarkers, laboratory assays to detect AD pathology are able to complement clinical diagnosis in symptomatic individuals with uncertain diagnosis. A variety of commercially available assays are performed as laboratory-developed tests, and many more are in development for both clinical and research purposes. CONTENT: The role of laboratory medicine in diagnosing and managing AD is expanding; thus, it is important for laboratory professionals and ordering physicians to understand the strengths and limitations of both existing and emerging AD biomarker assays. In this review, we will provide an overview of the diagnosis of AD, discuss existing laboratory assays for AD and their recommended use, and examine the clinical performance of emerging AD biomarkers. SUMMARY: The field of AD biomarker discovery and assay development is rapidly evolving, with recent studies promising to improve both the diagnosis of symptomatic individuals and enrollment and monitoring of asymptomatic individuals in research studies. However, care must be taken to ensure proper use and interpretation of these assays. For clinical purposes, these assays are meant to aid in diagnosis but are not themselves diagnostic. For individuals without symptoms, AD biomarker tests are still only appropriate for research purposes. Additionally, there are analytical challenges that require careful attention, especially for longitudinal use of AD tests.
BACKGROUND:Alzheimer disease (AD) was once a clinical diagnosis confirmed by postmortem autopsy. Today, with the development of AD biomarkers, laboratory assays to detect AD pathology are able to complement clinical diagnosis in symptomatic individuals with uncertain diagnosis. A variety of commercially available assays are performed as laboratory-developed tests, and many more are in development for both clinical and research purposes. CONTENT: The role of laboratory medicine in diagnosing and managing AD is expanding; thus, it is important for laboratory professionals and ordering physicians to understand the strengths and limitations of both existing and emerging AD biomarker assays. In this review, we will provide an overview of the diagnosis of AD, discuss existing laboratory assays for AD and their recommended use, and examine the clinical performance of emerging AD biomarkers. SUMMARY: The field of AD biomarker discovery and assay development is rapidly evolving, with recent studies promising to improve both the diagnosis of symptomatic individuals and enrollment and monitoring of asymptomatic individuals in research studies. However, care must be taken to ensure proper use and interpretation of these assays. For clinical purposes, these assays are meant to aid in diagnosis but are not themselves diagnostic. For individuals without symptoms, AD biomarker tests are still only appropriate for research purposes. Additionally, there are analytical challenges that require careful attention, especially for longitudinal use of AD tests.
Authors: Thomas McAvoy; Michael E Lassman; Daniel S Spellman; Zhenlian Ke; Bonnie J Howell; Oitak Wong; Lan Zhu; Michael Tanen; Arie Struyk; Omar F Laterza Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2014-02-24 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Bruno Dubois; Howard H Feldman; Claudia Jacova; Harald Hampel; José Luis Molinuevo; Kaj Blennow; Steven T DeKosky; Serge Gauthier; Dennis Selkoe; Randall Bateman; Stefano Cappa; Sebastian Crutch; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Giovanni B Frisoni; Nick C Fox; Douglas Galasko; Marie-Odile Habert; Gregory A Jicha; Agneta Nordberg; Florence Pasquier; Gil Rabinovici; Philippe Robert; Christopher Rowe; Stephen Salloway; Marie Sarazin; Stéphane Epelbaum; Leonardo C de Souza; Bruno Vellas; Pieter J Visser; Lon Schneider; Yaakov Stern; Philip Scheltens; Jeffrey L Cummings Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Anne M Fagan; Leslie M Shaw; Chengjie Xiong; Hugo Vanderstichele; Mark A Mintun; John Q Trojanowski; Els Coart; John C Morris; David M Holtzman Journal: Arch Neurol Date: 2011-05-09
Authors: Chihiro Sato; Nicolas R Barthélemy; Kwasi G Mawuenyega; Bruce W Patterson; Brian A Gordon; Jennifer Jockel-Balsarotti; Melissa Sullivan; Matthew J Crisp; Tom Kasten; Kristopher M Kirmess; Nicholas M Kanaan; Kevin E Yarasheski; Alaina Baker-Nigh; Tammie L S Benzinger; Timothy M Miller; Celeste M Karch; Randall J Bateman Journal: Neuron Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Willemijn J Jansen; Rik Ossenkoppele; Dirk L Knol; Betty M Tijms; Philip Scheltens; Frans R J Verhey; Pieter Jelle Visser; Pauline Aalten; Dag Aarsland; Daniel Alcolea; Myriam Alexander; Ina S Almdahl; Steven E Arnold; Inês Baldeiras; Henryk Barthel; Bart N M van Berckel; Kristen Bibeau; Kaj Blennow; David J Brooks; Mark A van Buchem; Vincent Camus; Enrica Cavedo; Kewei Chen; Gael Chetelat; Ann D Cohen; Alexander Drzezga; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Anne M Fagan; Tormod Fladby; Adam S Fleisher; Wiesje M van der Flier; Lisa Ford; Stefan Förster; Juan Fortea; Nadia Foskett; Kristian S Frederiksen; Yvonne Freund-Levi; Giovanni B Frisoni; Lutz Froelich; Tomasz Gabryelewicz; Kiran Dip Gill; Olymbia Gkatzima; Estrella Gómez-Tortosa; Mark Forrest Gordon; Timo Grimmer; Harald Hampel; Lucrezia Hausner; Sabine Hellwig; Sanna-Kaisa Herukka; Helmut Hildebrandt; Lianna Ishihara; Adrian Ivanoiu; William J Jagust; Peter Johannsen; Ramesh Kandimalla; Elisabeth Kapaki; Aleksandra Klimkowicz-Mrowiec; William E Klunk; Sebastian Köhler; Norman Koglin; Johannes Kornhuber; Milica G Kramberger; Koen Van Laere; Susan M Landau; Dong Young Lee; Mony de Leon; Viviana Lisetti; Alberto Lleó; Karine Madsen; Wolfgang Maier; Jan Marcusson; Niklas Mattsson; Alexandre de Mendonça; Olga Meulenbroek; Philipp T Meyer; Mark A Mintun; Vincent Mok; José Luis Molinuevo; Hanne M Møllergård; John C Morris; Barbara Mroczko; Stefan Van der Mussele; Duk L Na; Andrew Newberg; Agneta Nordberg; Arto Nordlund; Gerald P Novak; George P Paraskevas; Lucilla Parnetti; Gayan Perera; Oliver Peters; Julius Popp; Sudesh Prabhakar; Gil D Rabinovici; Inez H G B Ramakers; Lorena Rami; Catarina Resende de Oliveira; Juha O Rinne; Karen M Rodrigue; Eloy Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Catherine M Roe; Uros Rot; Christopher C Rowe; Eckart Rüther; Osama Sabri; Páscual Sanchez-Juan; Isabel Santana; Marie Sarazin; Johannes Schröder; Christin Schütte; Sang W Seo; Femke Soetewey; Hilkka Soininen; Luiza Spiru; Hanne Struyfs; Charlotte E Teunissen; Magda Tsolaki; Rik Vandenberghe; Marcel M Verbeek; Victor L Villemagne; Stephanie J B Vos; Linda J C van Waalwijk van Doorn; Gunhild Waldemar; Anders Wallin; Åsa K Wallin; Jens Wiltfang; David A Wolk; Marzena Zboch; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-05-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Maria Bjerke; Erik Portelius; Lennart Minthon; Anders Wallin; Henrik Anckarsäter; Rolf Anckarsäter; Niels Andreasen; Henrik Zetterberg; Ulf Andreasson; Kaj Blennow Journal: Int J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2010-07-15
Authors: Piotr Lewczuk; Natalia Ermann; Ulf Andreasson; Christian Schultheis; Jana Podhorna; Philipp Spitzer; Juan Manuel Maler; Johannes Kornhuber; Kaj Blennow; Henrik Zetterberg Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 6.982
Authors: Suzanne E Schindler; James G Bollinger; Vitaliy Ovod; Kwasi G Mawuenyega; Yan Li; Brian A Gordon; David M Holtzman; John C Morris; Tammie L S Benzinger; Chengjie Xiong; Anne M Fagan; Randall J Bateman Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Samantha Prins; Marieke L de Kam; Charlotte E Teunissen; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 8.823