Sebastian Palmqvist1,2, Shorena Janelidze1, Yakeel T Quiroz3,4, Henrik Zetterberg5,6,7,8, Francisco Lopera4, Erik Stomrud1,2, Yi Su9, Yinghua Chen9, Geidy E Serrano10, Antoine Leuzy1, Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren1,11,12, Olof Strandberg1, Ruben Smith1,12, Andres Villegas4, Diego Sepulveda-Falla4,13, Xiyun Chai14, Nicholas K Proctor14, Thomas G Beach10, Kaj Blennow5,6, Jeffrey L Dage14, Eric M Reiman9,15,16,17, Oskar Hansson1,2. 1. Clinical Memory Research Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Malmö, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Memory Clinic, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 3. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston. 4. Grupo de Neurociencias de Antioquia of Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden. 6. Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden. 7. Department of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, United Kingdom. 8. UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL, London, United Kingdom. 9. Banner Alzheimer's Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 10. Banner Sun Health Research Institute, Sun City, Arizona. 11. Wallenberg Center for Molecular Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 12. Department of Neurology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 13. Molecular Neuropathology of Alzheimer's Disease (MoNeA), Institute of Neuropathology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 14. Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana. 15. University of Arizona, Phoenix. 16. Arizona State University, Phoenix. 17. Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
Importance: There are limitations in current diagnostic testing approaches for Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective: To examine plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (P-tau217) as a diagnostic biomarker for AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three cross-sectional cohorts: an Arizona-based neuropathology cohort (cohort 1), including 34 participants with AD and 47 without AD (dates of enrollment, May 2007-January 2019); the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort (cohort 2), including cognitively unimpaired participants (n = 301) and clinically diagnosed patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 178), AD dementia (n = 121), and other neurodegenerative diseases (n = 99) (April 2017-September 2019); and a Colombian autosomal-dominant AD kindred (cohort 3), including 365 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 257 mutation noncarriers (December 2013-February 2017). Exposures: Plasma P-tau217. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the discriminative accuracy of plasma P-tau217 for AD (clinical or neuropathological diagnosis). Secondary outcome was the association with tau pathology (determined using neuropathology or positron emission tomography [PET]). Results: Mean age was 83.5 (SD, 8.5) years in cohort 1, 69.1 (SD, 10.3) years in cohort 2, and 35.8 (SD, 10.7) years in cohort 3; 38% were women in cohort 1, 51% in cohort 2, and 57% in cohort 3. In cohort 1, antemortem plasma P-tau217 differentiated neuropathologically defined AD from non-AD (area under the curve [AUC], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.97]) with significantly higher accuracy than plasma P-tau181 and neurofilament light chain (NfL) (AUC range, 0.50-0.72; P < .05). The discriminative accuracy of plasma P-tau217 in cohort 2 for clinical AD dementia vs other neurodegenerative diseases (AUC, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.98]) was significantly higher than plasma P-tau181, plasma NfL, and MRI measures (AUC range, 0.50-0.81; P < .001) but not significantly different compared with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) P-tau217, CSF P-tau181, and tau-PET (AUC range, 0.90-0.99; P > .15). In cohort 3, plasma P-tau217 levels were significantly greater among PSEN1 mutation carriers, compared with noncarriers, from approximately 25 years and older, which is 20 years prior to estimated onset of MCI among mutation carriers. Plasma P-tau217 levels correlated with tau tangles in participants with (Spearman ρ = 0.64; P < .001), but not without (Spearman ρ = 0.15; P = .33), β-amyloid plaques in cohort 1. In cohort 2, plasma P-tau217 discriminated abnormal vs normal tau-PET scans (AUC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.96]) with significantly higher accuracy than plasma P-tau181, plasma NfL, CSF P-tau181, CSF Aβ42:Aβ40 ratio, and MRI measures (AUC range, 0.67-0.90; P < .05), but its performance was not significantly different compared with CSF P-tau217 (AUC, 0.96; P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance: Among 1402 participants from 3 selected cohorts, plasma P-tau217 discriminated AD from other neurodegenerative diseases, with significantly higher accuracy than established plasma- and MRI-based biomarkers, and its performance was not significantly different from key CSF- or PET-based measures. Further research is needed to optimize the assay, validate the findings in unselected and diverse populations, and determine its potential role in clinical care.
Importance: There are limitations in current diagnostic testing approaches for Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective: To examine plasma tau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (P-tau217) as a diagnostic biomarker for AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: Three cross-sectional cohorts: an Arizona-based neuropathology cohort (cohort 1), including 34 participants with AD and 47 without AD (dates of enrollment, May 2007-January 2019); the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort (cohort 2), including cognitively unimpaired participants (n = 301) and clinically diagnosed patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) (n = 178), AD dementia (n = 121), and other neurodegenerative diseases (n = 99) (April 2017-September 2019); and a Colombian autosomal-dominant AD kindred (cohort 3), including 365 PSEN1 E280A mutation carriers and 257 mutation noncarriers (December 2013-February 2017). Exposures: Plasma P-tau217. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the discriminative accuracy of plasma P-tau217 for AD (clinical or neuropathological diagnosis). Secondary outcome was the association with tau pathology (determined using neuropathology or positron emission tomography [PET]). Results: Mean age was 83.5 (SD, 8.5) years in cohort 1, 69.1 (SD, 10.3) years in cohort 2, and 35.8 (SD, 10.7) years in cohort 3; 38% were women in cohort 1, 51% in cohort 2, and 57% in cohort 3. In cohort 1, antemortem plasma P-tau217 differentiated neuropathologically defined AD from non-AD (area under the curve [AUC], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.81-0.97]) with significantly higher accuracy than plasma P-tau181 and neurofilament light chain (NfL) (AUC range, 0.50-0.72; P < .05). The discriminative accuracy of plasma P-tau217 in cohort 2 for clinical AD dementia vs other neurodegenerative diseases (AUC, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.98]) was significantly higher than plasma P-tau181, plasma NfL, and MRI measures (AUC range, 0.50-0.81; P < .001) but not significantly different compared with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) P-tau217, CSF P-tau181, and tau-PET (AUC range, 0.90-0.99; P > .15). In cohort 3, plasma P-tau217 levels were significantly greater among PSEN1 mutation carriers, compared with noncarriers, from approximately 25 years and older, which is 20 years prior to estimated onset of MCI among mutation carriers. Plasma P-tau217 levels correlated with tau tangles in participants with (Spearman ρ = 0.64; P < .001), but not without (Spearman ρ = 0.15; P = .33), β-amyloid plaques in cohort 1. In cohort 2, plasma P-tau217 discriminated abnormal vs normal tau-PET scans (AUC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.91-0.96]) with significantly higher accuracy than plasma P-tau181, plasma NfL, CSF P-tau181, CSF Aβ42:Aβ40 ratio, and MRI measures (AUC range, 0.67-0.90; P < .05), but its performance was not significantly different compared with CSF P-tau217 (AUC, 0.96; P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance: Among 1402 participants from 3 selected cohorts, plasma P-tau217 discriminated AD from other neurodegenerative diseases, with significantly higher accuracy than established plasma- and MRI-based biomarkers, and its performance was not significantly different from key CSF- or PET-based measures. Further research is needed to optimize the assay, validate the findings in unselected and diverse populations, and determine its potential role in clinical care.
Authors: Gil D Rabinovici; Constantine Gatsonis; Charles Apgar; Kiran Chaudhary; Ilana Gareen; Lucy Hanna; James Hendrix; Bruce E Hillner; Cynthia Olson; Orit H Lesman-Segev; Justin Romanoff; Barry A Siegel; Rachel A Whitmer; Maria C Carrillo Journal: JAMA Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Yakeel T Quiroz; Henrik Zetterberg; Eric M Reiman; Yinghua Chen; Yi Su; Joshua T Fox-Fuller; Gloria Garcia; Andres Villegas; Diego Sepulveda-Falla; Marina Villada; Joseph F Arboleda-Velasquez; Edmarie Guzmán-Vélez; Clara Vila-Castelar; Brian A Gordon; Stephanie A Schultz; Hillary D Protas; Valentina Ghisays; Margarita Giraldo; Victoria Tirado; Ana Baena; Claudia Munoz; Silvia Rios-Romenets; Pierre N Tariot; Kaj Blennow; Francisco Lopera Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 44.182
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: Flora H Duits; Pablo Martinez-Lage; Claire Paquet; Sebastiaan Engelborghs; Alberto Lleó; Lucrezia Hausner; José L Molinuevo; Erik Stomrud; Lucia Farotti; Inez H G B Ramakers; Magda Tsolaki; Constance Skarsgård; Ragnar Åstrand; Anders Wallin; Martin Vyhnalek; Marie Holmber-Clausen; Orestes V Forlenza; Laura Ghezzi; Martin Ingelsson; Erik I Hoff; Gerwin Roks; Alexandre de Mendonça; Janne M Papma; Andrea Izagirre; Mariko Taga; Hanne Struyfs; Daniel A Alcolea; Lutz Frölich; Mircea Balasa; Lennart Minthon; Jos W R Twisk; Staffan Persson; Henrik Zetterberg; Wiesje M van der Flier; Charlotte E Teunissen; Philip Scheltens; Kaj Blennow Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: J C Morris; A Heyman; R C Mohs; J P Hughes; G van Belle; G Fillenbaum; E D Mellits; C Clark Journal: Neurology Date: 1989-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Niklas Mattsson-Carlgren; Emelie Andersson; Shorena Janelidze; Rik Ossenkoppele; Philip Insel; Olof Strandberg; Henrik Zetterberg; Howard J Rosen; Gil Rabinovici; Xiyun Chai; Kaj Blennow; Jeffrey L Dage; Erik Stomrud; Ruben Smith; Sebastian Palmqvist; Oskar Hansson Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Pierre N Tariot; Francisco Lopera; Jessica B Langbaum; Ronald G Thomas; Suzanne Hendrix; Lon S Schneider; Silvia Rios-Romenets; Margarita Giraldo; Natalia Acosta; Carlos Tobon; Claudia Ramos; Alejandro Espinosa; William Cho; Michael Ward; David Clayton; Michael Friesenhahn; Howard Mackey; Lee Honigberg; Sandra Sanabria Bohorquez; Kewei Chen; Trisha Walsh; Carolyn Langlois; Eric M Reiman Journal: Alzheimers Dement (N Y) Date: 2018-03-08
Authors: Shorena Janelidze; Erik Stomrud; Ruben Smith; Sebastian Palmqvist; Niklas Mattsson; David C Airey; Nicholas K Proctor; Xiyun Chai; Sergey Shcherbinin; John R Sims; Gallen Triana-Baltzer; Clara Theunis; Randy Slemmon; Marc Mercken; Hartmuth Kolb; Jeffrey L Dage; Oskar Hansson Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Brett M Frye; Suzanne Craft; Caitlin S Latimer; C Dirk Keene; Thomas J Montine; Thomas C Register; Miranda E Orr; Kylie Kavanagh; Shannon L Macauley; Carol A Shively Journal: Am J Primatol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 2.371
Authors: Philip Scheltens; Bart De Strooper; Miia Kivipelto; Henne Holstege; Gael Chételat; Charlotte E Teunissen; Jeffrey Cummings; Wiesje M van der Flier Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 79.321