Raghavan, Sheelakumari

AbstractBackgroundVascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are often comorbid with Alzheimer’s disease and increase the risk of dementia. Blood‐based biomarkers may be promising for identifying individuals at high risk for VCID due to small vessel disease (SVD).MethodWe included 1709 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who had concurrent MRI, plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) measured on the HD‐X Simoa Quanterix platform, and clinical dementia rating scale (CDR). We categorized participants into SVD vs. not using WMH/TIV≥1.3% which corresponds to Fazekas>=2 cutoff and cognitively impaired (CI) vs. not using CDR≥0.5. We obtained four groups using SVD and cognitively normal and impaired classifications: cognitively unimpaired without SVD (CU), CU with SVD (Vas‐CU), CI with SVD (VCI), and CI without SVD (Non‐vas‐CI). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to obtain odds ratios, confidence intervals and ROC curves to evaluate the association between plasma markers and each disease group compared to CU. We also evaluated these analyses in amyloid positive and negative participants.ResultThere was a high proportion of CU (Vas‐CU/(CU+Vas‐CU)=18%) and CI (VCI/(VCI+ Non‐vas‐CI)=47%) participants with SVD in the population‐based sample. Higher plasma levels were associated with greater vascular burden and differed by amyloid status (Figure 1). ROC analyses showed that both NfL and GFAP provided discrimination between Vas‐CU and CU groups (AUC=0.83) as well as VCI and CU groups (AUC=0.88) (Figure 2, Table 1). Though GFAP and NfL are non‐specific and may also reflect non‐vascular damage, we found that these plasma markers did not clearly separate NonVas‐CI from the CU group in the overall cohort (AUC=0.69). When amyloid status was available, the discriminative power of NfL and GFAP in separating the 4 groups was very low in amyloid positive participants. On the other hand, NfL and GFAP separated Vas‐CU and VCI groups from CI reasonably well in the amyloid negative group.ConclusionPlasma biomarkers associated with SVD‐burden provided reliable discriminative power in predicting VCID, particularly in the absence of amyloid, suggesting their utility in the prognosis and stratification for clinical trials.

Abstract There is increasing interest in Alzheimer’s disease related plasma biomarkers due to their accessibility and scalability. We hypothesized that integrating plasma biomarkers with other commonly used and available participant data (MRI, cardiovascular factors, lifestyle, genetics) using machine learning (ML) models can improve individual prediction of cognitive outcomes. Further, our goal was to evaluate the heterogeneity of these predictors across different age strata. This longitudinal study included 1185 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who had complete plasma analyte work-up at baseline. We used the Quanterix Simoa immunoassay to measure neurofilament light, Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 (used as Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio), glial fibrillary acidic protein, and phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181). Participants’ brain health was evaluated through gray and white matter structural MRIs. The study also considered cardiovascular factors (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, chronic kidney disease), lifestyle factors (area deprivation index, body mass index, cognitive and physical activities), and genetic factors (APOE, single nucleotide polymorphisms, and polygenic risk scores). An ML model was developed to predict cognitive outcomes at baseline and decline (slope). Three models were created: a base model with groups of risk factors as predictors, an enhanced model included socio-demographics, and a final enhanced model by incorporating plasma and socio-demographics into the base models. Models were explained for three age strata: younger than 65 years, 65–80 years, and older than 80 years, and further divided based on amyloid positivity status. Regardless of amyloid status the plasma biomarkers showed comparable performance (R² = 0.15) to MRI (R² = 0.18) and cardiovascular measures (R² = 0.10) when predicting cognitive decline. Inclusion of cardiovascular or MRI measures with plasma in the presence of socio-demographic improved cognitive decline prediction (R² = 0.26 and 0.27). For amyloid positive individuals Aβ42/Aβ40, glial fibrillary acidic protein and p-tau181 were the top predictors of cognitive decline while Aβ42/Aβ40 was prominent for amyloid negative participants across all age groups. Socio-demographics explained a large portion of the variance in the amyloid negative individuals while the plasma biomarkers predominantly explained the variance in amyloid positive individuals (21% to 37% from the younger to the older age group). Plasma biomarkers performed similarly to MRI and cardiovascular measures when predicting cognitive outcomes and combining them with either measure resulted in better performance. Top predictors were heterogeneous between cross-sectional and longitudinal cognition models, across age groups, and amyloid status. Multimodal approaches will enhance the usefulness of plasma biomarkers through careful considerations of a study population’s socio-demographics, brain and cardiovascular health.