Kuchenbecker, Lindsey A.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Clinicians’ views on the clinical readiness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs) are not well understood. METHODS The Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment Biofluid‐Based Biomarkers Professional Interest Area conducted a survey to elicit clinician opinions on AD BBM implementation, including contexts of use, assay selection, reporting, and result interpretation. RESULTS Clinician respondents ( n = 212) practiced in Europe (56%), North America (24%), the Caribbean and Central/South America (11%), and other continents (9%). Most respondents were medical doctors (80%) practicing in secondary or tertiary care (88%). For 56%, cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers or amyloid positron emission tomography were accessible, but 48% agreed and 52% disagreed with the implementation of AD BBMs in any clinical context. Respondents emphasized the need for data from diverse populations and educational resources to support test interpretation. DISCUSSION Surveyed clinicians generally agreed with published appropriate use recommendations but were divided on AD BBM readiness for clinical use. Highlights A survey of clinicians was conducted regarding clinical readiness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs). Views were split on AD BBM clinical readiness: 48% agreed, 52% disagreed. Most responders supported AD BBM use for treatment decisions. Most responders opposed AD BBM testing in asymptomatic individuals. Test performance data and educational materials to aid interpretation were of high importance.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with rapid progressive Alzheimer disease and related dementias (rpAD/ADRD) develop dementia within 1 year or incapacitation within 2 years of symptom onset. We previously showed that selected CSF biomarkers of neuronal injury (NfL, VILIP‐1), AD neuropathology (p‐tau181), and neuroinflammation (GFAP, MCP‐1, sTREM2) measured at presentation associated with etiologic diagnoses and reliably differentiated patients with treatment‐responsive causes of rapid progressive dementia. However, no differences were identified between CSF biomarkers in patients with rapid and typical progressive forms of AD/ADRD, leaving key questions unanswered concerning the mechanisms that drive rpAD/ADRD. Blood‐based biomarkers may inform the systemic factors that contribute to rpAD/ADRD, including the systemic inflammation, metabolic function, and vascular injury.MethodsBiomarkers of systemic inflammation (Eotaxin‐3, IFN‐γ, IL‐1b, IL‐2, IL‐4, IL‐6, IL‐8, IL‐10, IL‐12p70, IL‐13, TARC, TNF‐α), metabolic function (A2M, B2M, FABP‐3, FVII, I‐309, IL‐18, PPY, TNC, TPO), and vascular injury (CRP, SAA, sICAM‐1, sVCAM‐1) were measured in plasma obtained at presentation from patients with rpAD/ADRD (n=29) and age‐ and sex‐ similar participants with typical progressive AD/ADRD (n=39) enrolled in prospective studies of memory and aging at Mayo Clinic in Florida. Biomarker measures were completed at the University of North Texas Institute for Translational Research using Meso Scale Discovery multiplexed assays. Biomarker concentrations were compared between groups using univariate analyses; potential predictors (p<0.05) were further evaluated via step‐wise multivariate logistic regression.ResultsMarkers of vascular injury (SAA, CRP, sICAM‐1), metabolic function (I‐309, TPO), and systemic inflammation (Eotaxin‐3, TARC, TNF‐α) were increased in patients with rapid versus typical progressive AD/ADRD (p<0.05). Eotaxin‐3, I‐309, and SAA were independently associated with rpAD/ADRD in multivariable model after controlling for age and sex. The overall model correctly characterized 86.8% of patients, with an area under the curve of 0.864 (95%CI: 0.777‐0.950; p<0.001).ConclusionBlood‐based biomarkers of systemic inflammation, metabolic function, and vascular injury were elevated at presentation in patients with rapid vs typical AD/ADRD. These findings may provide additional insights into the mechanisms that drive rpAD/ADRD. Longitudinal measures from larger cohorts are needed to decipher the relationship between candidate biomarkers and rpAD/ADRD.

AbstractBackgroundPlasma biomarker development is of increasing interest due to improved accessibility compared to established diagnostic modalities for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, current plasma biomarker candidates have not been tested comprehensively in diverse populations, and these markers represent only a fraction of pathways perturbed in AD. Therefore, there is a need to identify novel plasma biomarkers that account for both disease heterogeneity and patient diversity. This study seeks to address these knowledge gaps through untargeted plasma biomarker discovery in African Americans (AA), an underrepresented group in AD research despite having a higher risk of developing AD compared to non‐Hispanic Whites.MethodsUntargeted proteomics were performed using the SomaScan 7k assay on plasma samples from AA study participants clinically diagnosed as AD (n=142) or cognitively unimpaired (CU, n=144). Linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, and batch were implemented to identify differentially expressed proteins (DEPs). APOE was additionally adjusted for in a sensitivity analysis. DEPs with the lowest q‐values were selected as predictors in a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to assess their accuracy to discriminate AD versus CU individuals.ResultsA total of 153 DEPs were identified (q<0.05) when adjusting for age, sex, and batch, and 100 DEPs were identified when additionally adjusting for APOE. Of the 66 proteins overlapping between these models, SERPINA3, C7, IGFBP‐2, DKK3, SMOC1, and ACES had the lowest q‐values and were included in a ROC model adjusted for age, sex, and APOE. That model classified AD versus CU with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.83‐0.91), a 10.4% improvement over the base model including age, sex, and APOE (AUC=0.78; 95%CI: 0.72‐0.83). Despite the unbiased selection of proteins included in the ROC model, all selected proteins have been associated with AD and implicated in related functional pathways such as neuroinflammation, synaptic function, and insulin signaling.ConclusionThis preliminary plasma biomarker panel demonstrates the potential diagnostic capabilities of biomarker discovery through untargeted proteomics. Future directions include validation of findings in external datasets, concomitant assessment of p‐tau217, and evaluation of machine learning models to define the optimal diagnostic and predictive set of plasma protein biomarkers for AD in AA.

AbstractBackgroundHomozygosity for the rare APOE3‐Christchurch (APOE3Ch) variant, encoding for apoE3‐R136S (apoE3‐Ch), was linked to resistance against an aggressive form of familial Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Carrying two copies of APOE3Ch was sufficient to delay autosomal AD onset by 30 years. This remarkable protective effect makes it a strong candidate for uncovering new therapies against AD. Thus, we aim to explore the protective mechanisms of APOE3Ch against AD onset, to inform therapy.MethodsWe used both amyloid mouse models and human induced‐pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) models to address this aim. We examined whether astrocytic expression of apoE3‐Ch through an AAV‐mediated approach can mitigate AD‐related pathology and toxicity in early (3.5 months old) and late (8 months old) amyloid pathology in 5xFAD mice. We also used isogenic iPSC lines carrying the APOE3Ch variant that were generated from APOE3 parental lines using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Biochemical and biophysical properties of both recombinant and native apoE3‐Ch lipoprotein particles secreted by iPSC‐derived astrocytes have been investigated using different techniques including heparin affinity chromatography and size‐exclusion chromatography.ResultsWe investigated the impact of astrocytic apoE3‐Ch on amyloid pathology and toxicity in 3.5‐month‐old and 8‐month‐old 5xFAD mice. We confirmed successful AAV‐mediated overexpression of apoE3 and apoE3‐Ch in astrocytes. We found apoE3‐Ch specific changes in protein levels and solubility. Astrocytic expression of apoE3‐Ch reduced soluble Aβ oligomer levels and ameliorated ER stress response compared to apoE3 in the 8‐month‐old 5xFAD mice. Furthermore, our findings showed altered biochemical properties of HEK cell‐derived apoE3‐Ch protein, including decreased heparin binding, altered receptor binding, and enhanced lipid accepting capacity. We also characterized APOE3Ch iPSC‐derived cell models, including iPSC‐derived astrocytes, neurons, and cerebral organoids, and found differences between APOE3 and APOE3Ch at the functional level in these iPSC models.ConclusionsThe proposed work and the developed methods to study apoE3‐Ch promises to provide new insights into the possible roles of this rare, mutated protein in protecting against AD, offering new therapeutic avenues for AD treatment.

AbstractBackgroundAfrican Americans (AA) and Latin Americans (LA) are at a higher risk of developing AD compared to non‐Hispanic whites (NHW) but are traditionally underrepresented in AD research. The disproportionate risk is likely multifactorial including differences in co‐morbidities and structural and social determinants of health (SSDoH). AD risk is thought to result from multiple genetic and environmental factors, and their interactions (GxE). However, the molecular mechanisms underlying these interactions are largely unknown. The best‐established genetic risk factor for AD is APOE‐ε4, while APOE‐ε2 is protective. Environmental factors, such as living in neighborhoods with greater socioeconomic disadvantage, have been associated with greater AD neuropathology and worse cognitive function. Studying the potential modifying role of neighborhood disadvantage regarding associations of APOE‐ε4 and APOE‐ε2 with AD risk using a socioeconomic metric like the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) in a multiethnic post‐mortem cohort could offer valuable insights for precision medicine.MethodWe analyzed a post‐mortem cohort of 421 multi‐ethnic donors (NHW: N = 234, AD = 70, non‐AD = 164; LA: N = 145, AD = 102, non‐AD = 43; AA: N = 42, AD = 24, non‐AD = 18), from Mayo Clinic Florida, Banner Sun Health Research Institute, and the University of Florida Brain Banks as part of the AMP AD Diversity initiative. This study used the same neuropathological criteria to categorize AD vs. non‐AD as in the MayoRNAseq study (syn5550404). ADI from the Neighborhood Atlas® was obtained from de‐identified addresses. Associations of APOE‐ε4, APOE‐ε2, and ADI with AD risk were examined using logistic regression models adjusted for age‐at‐death, sex, and ethnic group; interactions of APOE genotype with ADI were also assessed.ResultAPOE‐ε4 and APOE‐ε2 showed a significant association with AD diagnosis (APOE‐ε4combined cohort OR = 3.23, P = 3.14E‐08; APOE‐ε2combined cohort OR = 0.30, P = 0.003). However, contrary to prior findings, our study found no association between ADI and AD diagnosis [OR = 1.023 (per each 10 unit increase in ADI), P = 0.629]. No significant interactions of ADI with APOE‐ε4 or APOE‐ε2 regarding association with AD diagnosis were identified (P = 0.083, P = 0.781).ConclusionThis is the first study evaluating the potential interaction of neighborhood disadvantage with APOE on AD risk in a multi‐ethnic autopsy cohort. However, these findings require further investigation in larger, more well‐powered cohorts for validation.

AbstractBackgroundThe causes of rapidly progressive dementia are heterogeneous, including neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. Overlap in presenting symptoms and signs, results of cognitive testing, and findings on brain imaging and other common diagnostic tests confounds the etiologic diagnosis, contributing to diagnostic delays, missed opportunities for treatment, and poorer outcomes in patients with RPD. New tools and approaches are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy, with particular emphasis on improving early recognition of patients with potentially treatable causes of RPD.MethodsEstablished and emerging biomarkers of Alzheimer disease neuropathology (Aβ42/40, p‐tau181, p‐tau231), neuroaxonal and neuronal injury (neurofilament light [NfL], VILIP‐1, total tau), neuroinflammation (YKL‐40, sTREM2, GFAP, MCP‐1), and synaptic dysfunction (SNAP‐25, neurogranin) were measured in cerebrospinal fluid obtained at presentation from 78 prospectively accrued patients with RPD due to neurodegenerative (n = 35), vascular (n = 9), and autoimmune/inflammatory (n = 34) diseases, and 72 age‐ and sex‐similar cognitively normal individuals (controls). Causes of RPD were further classified as potentially treatment‐responsive or nonresponsive, referencing the extant literature. Biomarker levels were compared across etiologic diagnoses and by treatment responsiveness, referencing control values. Analyses were adjusted for the effects of age (ANCOVA).ResultsAlzheimer disease biomarkers (low Aβ42/40 and elevated p‐tau181 and p‐tau231) were associated with neurodegenerative causes of RPD (ANCOVA, p = 0.02 p = 0.30, p = 0.15), while high NfL (p = 0.61), low VILIP‐1 (p = 0.009), and elevated markers of inflammation (sTREM2, p = 0.009; YKL‐40, p<0.001) identified patients with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases (Figure). MCP‐1 levels were highest in patients with vascular causes of RPD (p = 0.08). 44 patients (56.4%) had potentially treatment‐responsive causes of RPD. Treatment responsiveness was associated with higher levels of CSF Aβ42/40 (p = 0.003), NfL (p<0.001), sTREM2 (p<0.001) and YKL‐40 (p<0.001); and lower levels of p‐tau‐181 and p‐tau231 (p<0.001, p<0.001) and VILIP‐1 (p<0.001).ConclusionSelected biomarkers measured in CSF at presentation associate with etiologic diagnosis and treatment responsiveness in patients with neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory causes of RPD. Biomarker panels may be adapted to improve recognition of patients with treatment‐responsive causes of RPD early in the symptomatic course when treatments may be most effective.

ObjectiveThis study was undertaken to apply established and emerging cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers to improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with rapidly progressive dementia (RPD). Overlap in clinical presentation and results of diagnostic tests confounds etiologic diagnosis in patients with RPD. Objective measures are needed to improve diagnostic accuracy and to recognize patients with potentially treatment‐responsive causes of RPD.MethodsBiomarkers of Alzheimer disease neuropathology (amyloid‐β 42/40 ratio, phosphorylated tau [p‐tau181, p‐tau231]), neuroaxonal/neuronal injury (neurofilament light chain [NfL], visinin‐like protein‐1 [VILIP‐1], total tau), neuroinflammation (chitinase‐3‐like protein [YKL‐40], soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 [sTREM2], glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], monocyte chemoattractant protein‐1 [MCP‐1]), and synaptic dysfunction (synaptosomal‐associated protein 25kDa, neurogranin) were measured in CSF obtained at presentation from 78 prospectively accrued patients with RPD due to neurodegenerative, vascular, and autoimmune/inflammatory diseases; 35 age‐ and sex‐matched patients with typically progressive neurodegenerative disease; and 72 cognitively normal controls. Biomarker levels were compared across etiologic diagnoses, by potential treatment responsiveness, and between patients with typical and rapidly progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease.ResultsAlzheimer disease biomarkers were associated with neurodegenerative causes of RPD. High NfL, sTREM2, and YKL‐40 and low VILIP‐1 identified patients with autoimmune/inflammatory diseases. MCP‐1 levels were highest in patients with vascular causes of RPD. A multivariate model including GFAP, MCP‐1, p‐tau181, and sTREM2 identified the 44 patients with treatment‐responsive causes of RPD with 89% accuracy. Minimal differences were observed between typical and rapidly progressive presentations of neurodegenerative disease.InterpretationSelected CSF biomarkers at presentation were associated with etiologic diagnoses and treatment responsiveness in patients with heterogeneous causes of RPD. The ability of cross‐sectional biomarkers to inform upon mechanisms that drive rapidly progressive neurodegenerative disease is less clear. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:299–313

Importance Numerous studies have established the association of the common APOE ε2 and APOE ε4 alleles with Alzheimer disease (AD) risk across ancestries. Studies of the interaction of these alleles with other amino acid changes on APOE in non-European ancestries are lacking and may improve ancestry-specific risk prediction. Objective To determine whether APOE amino acid changes specific to individuals of African ancestry modulate AD risk. Design, Setting, and Participants Case-control study including 31 929 participants and using a sequenced discovery sample (Alzheimer Disease Sequencing Project; stage 1) followed by 2 microarray imputed data sets derived from the Alzheimer Disease Genetic Consortium (stage 2, internal replication) and the Million Veteran Program (stage 3, external validation). This study combined case-control, family-based, population-based, and longitudinal AD cohorts, which recruited participants (1991-2022) in primarily US-based studies with 1 US/Nigerian study. Across all stages, individuals included in this study were of African ancestry. Exposures Two APOE missense variants (R145C and R150H) were assessed, stratified by APOE genotype. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was AD case-control status, and secondary outcomes included age at AD onset. Results Stage 1 included 2888 cases (median age, 77 [IQR, 71-83] years; 31.3% male) and 4957 controls (median age, 77 [IQR, 71-83] years; 28.0% male). In stage 2, across multiple cohorts, 1201 cases (median age, 75 [IQR, 69-81] years; 30.8% male) and 2744 controls (median age, 80 [IQR, 75-84] years; 31.4% male) were included. In stage 3, 733 cases (median age, 79.4 [IQR, 73.8-86.5] years; 97.0% male) and 19 406 controls (median age, 71.9 [IQR, 68.4-75.8] years; 94.5% male) were included. In ε3/ε4-stratified analyses of stage 1, R145C was present in 52 individuals with AD (4.8%) and 19 controls (1.5%); R145C was associated with an increased risk of AD (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% CI, 1.87-4.85; P = 6.0 × 10 −6 ) and was associated with a reported younger age at AD onset (β, −5.87 years; 95% CI, −8.35 to −3.4 years; P = 3.4 × 10 −6 ). Association with increased AD risk was replicated in stage 2 (R145C was present in 23 individuals with AD [4.7%] and 21 controls [2.7%]; OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.04-4.65; P = .04) and was concordant in stage 3 (R145C was present in 11 individuals with AD [3.8%] and 149 controls [2.7%]; OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.99-3.64; P = .051). Association with earlier AD onset was replicated in stage 2 (β, −5.23 years; 95% CI, −9.58 to −0.87 years; P = .02) and stage 3 (β, −10.15 years; 95% CI, −15.66 to −4.64 years; P = 4.0 × 10 −4 ). No significant associations were observed in other APOE strata for R145C or in any APOE strata for R150H. Conclusions and Relevance In this exploratory analysis, the APOE ε3[R145C] missense variant was associated with an increased risk of AD among individuals of African ancestry with the ε3/ε4 genotype. With additional external validation, these findings may inform AD genetic risk assessment in individuals of African ancestry.