Okhravi, Hamid

Abstract Advances in biomarker technology, digital cognitive assessments, and amyloid‐targeting therapies have redefined the opportunities for accurate and early diagnosis and care of Alzheimer's disease (AD). These advances also create new possibilities for intervention before the onset of cognitive impairment. This paradigm shift has increased the focus on Stages 1 and 2 of AD, in which individuals are cognitively unimpaired but exhibit biological evidence of disease. While early identification of AD offers an opportunity to intervene early to delay progression and preserve quality of life, it also presents complex challenges related to communicating diagnostic results to patients and their families, contextualizing the cost effectiveness of early diagnosis and treatment, and implementation of and equitable access to treatments. Recent, successfully enrolled, preclinical AD trials highlight the complex strategies required to identify asymptomatic, biomarker‐positive individuals on a large scale, and demonstrate critical knowledge gaps in inclusion, follow‐up, and long‐term outcome measurement. The Spring 2025 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meeting brought together academics, clinicians, industry, and regulatory leaders to exchange perspectives on current challenges, key learnings, and potential strategies for identifying and treating individuals in very early stages of AD, effectively and safely. This paper presents key takeaways from the Spring 2025 AARR meeting. Highlights New criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) enable early identification of AD pathology. Blood tests and digital cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early and personalized care. Plasma biomarkers may be scalable in clinical settings but need confirmation or follow‐up assessments in those individuals with equivocal results. Early therapy shows best results in people with lower initial amyloid and tau burden.

Abstract Background In recent years, blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with some now approaching readiness for clinical implementation. This progress aligns with the growing importance of accurate early diagnostics and availability of anti‐Aβ therapies for the treatment of early symptomatic AD, reinforcing the need for more rapid and early diagnostic capabilities. To address this need, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, subject‐matter specialists, and guideline methodologists to conduct a systematic review and develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic evaluation of AD. The scope of this guideline is focused on individuals with cognitive impairment ‐ either MCI or dementia ‐ who are undergoing diagnostic assessment in secondary or tertiary care settings. Method The panel conducted a systematic review to assess BBMs' diagnostic test accuracy in detecting amyloid pathology for triaging (≥90% sensitivity, ≥75% specificity) and confirmatory (≥90% sensitivity and specificity) diagnostic workup. The BBMs of interest included plasma p ‐tau and Aβ tests measuring the following analytes: p ‐tau217, % p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The reference standard tests included CSF, amyloid PET, or neuropathology examination. The panel applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision Framework to develop its recommendations. Result Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were evaluated. Using predefined decision thresholds, the panel determined whether each test has 1) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be used as a triaging test where a positive test is to be confirmed by PET or CSF, 2) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy as a confirmatory test to replace PET or CSF, or 3) insufficient diagnostic test accuracy to recommend current use in clinical practice. Recommendations will be provided in case any BBMs met a priori DTA thresholds. Conclusion BBMs can improve early AD diagnosis and expand access to disease‐modifying therapies. Evidence‐based guidelines are key to standardizing their use and will be updated as new evidence and applications emerge.

AbstractBackgroundThe rapid development of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) has improved Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnostics with some tests now potentially suitable for clinical use. This aligns with the clinical availability of anti‐Aβ immunotherapies for early symptomatic AD, where BBMs can help address the increasing need for more rapid and early diagnosis. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) can help guide healthcare professionals in incorporating BBMs into their clinical practice. The Alzheimer’s Association is collaborating with methodologists and a panel of 11 clinical and subject‐matter experts to develop a CPG for specialists, informed by a systematic review, on the use of BBMs for AD.MethodThe panel drafted several clinical questions prioritizing two questions on the use of BBMs in cognitively impaired or cognitively unimpaired individuals as the populations of immediate interest. Plasma p‐tau and Aβ biomarkers tests are index tests, and amyloid PET imaging, neuropathology, and CSF are reference standards. Experts in the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach are conducting a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs index tests by searching three databases (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and will include assessments of the quality of collected evidence to inform the panel’s decision‐making process. Patients/caregivers and key external organizations will be engaged throughout.ResultThis session will cover preliminary evidence for answering the two clinical questions. At the time of abstract submission, the search strategy resulted in 880 titles/abstracts for the study selection process. Data abstraction, analysis, and evidence development are pending. Recommendations for answering clinical questions will be developed after July 2024, and all recommendations will be finalized and published by early 2025.ConclusionThe integration of BBMs into clinical care offers the potential to improve earlier and more accurate AD diagnosis for a broader patient population and expand access to new AD therapies. The development of evidence‐based CPGs is a critical step forward in optimizing and standardizing the clinical use of BBMs. As the field of AD diagnostics and treatment continues to evolve, this CPG on the use of BBMs for AD will expand and be regularly updated to include new target audiences/settings, patient populations, and associated evidence.

AbstractThe emergence of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐approved amyloid‐targeting therapies for Alzheimer's disease challenges clinicians and healthcare providers with a transformative landscape. Effectively communicating the risks, benefits, burdens, costs, and available support associated with these novel disease‐modifying treatments to patients, families, and other healthcare providers is essential but complex. In response, the Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup has proposed language surrounding treatment eligibility, benefits, amyloid‐related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), apolipoprotein E (APOE) genotyping, and treatment costs, serving as a resource to healthcare professionals in navigating discussions with patients and their families. As the landscape evolves with the approval of new Alzheimer's therapies, this resource stands poised for updates, ensuring its continued relevance in facilitating informed and meaningful patient‐provider dialogues.Highlights Effective communication of risks, benefits, burdens, and costs of FDA‐approved amyloid‐targeting antibodies is essential to patients, families, and healthcare providers. The Alzheimer's Association's Clinical Meaningfulness Workgroup provides language for physicians and healthcare providers around treatment eligibility, benefits, ARIA, APOE genotyping, and treatment costs. This supplementary resource may be updated as new AD therapies become approved.

Importance Effects of antiamyloid agents, targeting either fibrillar or soluble monomeric amyloid peptides, on downstream biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma are largely unknown in dominantly inherited Alzheimer disease (DIAD). Objective To investigate longitudinal biomarker changes of synaptic dysfunction, neuroinflammation, and neurodegeneration in individuals with DIAD who are receiving antiamyloid treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants From 2012 to 2019, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trial Unit (DIAN-TU-001) study, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial, investigated gantenerumab and solanezumab in DIAD. Carriers of gene variants were assigned 3:1 to either drug or placebo. The present analysis was conducted from April to June 2023. DIAN-TU-001 spans 25 study sites in 7 countries. Biofluids and neuroimaging from carriers of DIAD gene variants in the gantenerumab, solanezumab, and placebo groups were analyzed. Interventions In 2016, initial dosing of gantenerumab, 225 mg (subcutaneously every 4 weeks) was increased every 8 weeks up to 1200 mg. In 2017, initial dosing of solanezumab, 400 mg (intravenously every 4 weeks) was increased up to 1600 mg every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Longitudinal changes in CSF levels of neurogranin, soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2), chitinase 3–like 1 protein (YKL-40), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light protein (NfL), and plasma levels of GFAP and NfL. Results Of 236 eligible participants screened, 43 were excluded. A total of 142 participants (mean [SD] age, 44 [10] years; 72 female [51%]) were included in the study (gantenerumab, 52 [37%]; solanezumab, 50 [35%]; placebo, 40 [28%]). Relative to placebo, gantenerumab significantly reduced CSF neurogranin level at year 4 (mean [SD] β = −242.43 [48.04] pg/mL; P < .001); reduced plasma GFAP level at year 1 (mean [SD] β = −0.02 [0.01] ng/mL; P = .02), year 2 (mean [SD] β = −0.03 [0.01] ng/mL; P = .002), and year 4 (mean [SD] β = −0.06 [0.02] ng/mL; P < .001); and increased CSF sTREM2 level at year 2 (mean [SD] β = 1.12 [0.43] ng/mL; P = .01) and year 4 (mean [SD] β = 1.06 [0.52] ng/mL; P = .04). Solanezumab significantly increased CSF NfL (log) at year 4 (mean [SD] β = 0.14 [0.06]; P = .02). Correlation analysis for rates of change found stronger correlations between CSF markers and fluid markers with Pittsburgh compound B positron emission tomography for solanezumab and placebo. Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial supports the importance of fibrillar amyloid reduction in multiple AD-related processes of neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration in CSF and plasma in DIAD. Additional studies of antiaggregated amyloid therapies in sporadic AD and DIAD are needed to determine the utility of nonamyloid biomarkers in determining disease modification. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04623242