Schraen, Susanna

Abstract INTRODUCTION Neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification aids in diagnosing and predicting neurological disorders, but clinical and laboratory practices vary across centers. Differences in result interpretation and reporting further challenge test commutability. This study aimed to review the global analytical and post‐analytical methods used for NfL measurement in routine clinical practice across different contexts. METHODS We established an international working group (WG) and distributed a survey to its members to gather information on context of use (COU), (pre) analytical methods, cutoff usage, as well as the interpretation and reporting of NfL measurements. RESULTS Among the centers, 63% measured NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 87% in blood, and 53% in both. COU was widespread, with 50% defining pathological cutoffs based on publications and 42% considering age. Reporting was primarily done through numeric results (95%). DISCUSSION Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice. Highlights Unique international overview of current analytical and post‐analytical methods for neurofilament light chain (NfL) measurement in routine clinical practice. Tailored sheets for each neurological application. Strategies to harmonize cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation of NfL's measurement.

AbstractBackgroundThe quantification of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proved useful in many contexts, for the diagnosis and prognosis of various neurological disorders. There is, however, a diversity of practices between centers, essentially linked to the context of use (COU), analytical methods, consideration of comorbidities, determination of cut‐points or use of interpretation scales. Finally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may differ from one center to another, raising the question of test commutability. To date, no consensus has been reached between the different laboratories involved to define the most appropriate conclusions/comments based on COU and cut‐points. This work is an essential step towards consensual harmonization of the clinical use of NfL after CSF and/or blood analysis in various neurological contexts, as advocated by the Alzheimer's Association "Biofluid Based Biomarkers PIA" working group.MethodThis international project involves 58 clinical laboratories in 16 countries, specializing in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. By means of a questionnaire, we obtained a description of the COU, pre‐analytical and analytical (biological fluid and method used to quantify NfL) protocols of all the centers involved.ResultsOf the centers, 42% quantified NfL in CSF, 29% in serum and 28% in plasma, and 1% in dried blood spot. The COUs were as follows: Frontotemporal dementia (FTD, 17%), Alzheimer's disease (AD, 16%), multiple sclerosis (MS, 16%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, 11%), psychiatric syndrome (PS, 10%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (CJD, 8%), Parkinson's disease (PD, 8%), peripheral neuropathy (PN, 7%) and traumatic brain injury (TBI, 7%). Most centers define pathological cut‐points based on published literature and take age into account (50%).ConclusionOur initial results highlight the state of the art in terms of the clinical use of NfL analysis in CSF and blood in the context of different neurological diseases. We have now defined a coordinator for each COU subgroup and are organizing consensus meetings to harmonize the use and reporting of NfL measurements for the identified clinical applications. The results of these next steps will be presented.

Abstract Introduction There is increasing interest in plasma amyloid beta (Aβ) as an endophenotype of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Identifying the genetic determinants of plasma Aβ levels may elucidate important biological processes that determine plasma Aβ measures. Methods We included 12,369 non‐demented participants from eight population‐based studies. Imputed genetic data and measured plasma Aβ1‐40, Aβ1‐42 levels and Aβ1‐42/Aβ1‐40 ratio were used to perform genome‐wide association studies, and gene‐based and pathway analyses. Significant variants and genes were followed up for their association with brain positron emission tomography Aβ deposition and AD risk. Results Single‐variant analysis identified associations with apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) for Aβ1‐42 and Aβ1‐42/Aβ1‐40 ratio, and BACE1 for Aβ1‐40. Gene‐based analysis of Aβ1‐40 additionally identified associations for APP , PSEN2 , CCK , and ZNF397 . There was suggestive evidence for interaction between a BACE1 variant and APOE ε4 on brain Aβ deposition. Discussion Identification of variants near/in known major Aβ‐processing genes strengthens the relevance of plasma‐Aβ levels as an endophenotype of AD.