Zetterberg, Henrik

Abstract INTRODUCTION Biomarkers play a crucial role in understanding Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis and treatment effects. However, comparing biomarker measures without standardization and appreciating their magnitude relative to the disease can be challenging. METHODS To address this issue, we propose the CentiMarker approach, similar to Centiloid, which provides a standardized scale between normal (0) and nearly maximum abnormal AD (100) ranges. We applied this scale to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in dominantly inherited AD and sporadic AD cohorts. RESULTS CentiMarkers facilitated the interpretation of disease abnormality, demonstrating comparable changes and distributions of AD biomarkers across disease stages. CentiMarkers make the treatment effect more comparable than their original scales across various biomarkers. DISCUSSION The versatility of CentiMarkers makes it a valuable tool for standardized biomarker comparison in AD research, enabling informed cross‐study comparisons and contributing to accelerated therapeutic development. Adoption of the CentiMarker scale could enhance biomarker reporting and advance our understanding of AD. Highlights Comparing fluid biomarkers without appreciating their magnitude relative to the disease can be challenging. We propose a CentiMarker metric to standardize biomarker measures from normal (0) and nearly maximum abnormal AD (100) ranges. CentiMarkers make the treatment effect more comparable across various biomarkers than when using the original scales.

Importance Depressive symptoms are associated with cognitive decline in older individuals. Uncertainty about underlying mechanisms hampers diagnostic and therapeutic efforts. This large-scale study aimed to elucidate the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology. Objective To examine the association between depressive symptoms and amyloid pathology and its dependency on age, sex, education, and APOE genotype in older individuals without dementia. Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional analyses were performed using data from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. Data from 49 research, population-based, and memory clinic studies were pooled and harmonized. The Amyloid Biomarker Study has been collecting data since 2012 and data collection is ongoing. At the time of analysis, 95 centers were included in the Amyloid Biomarker Study. The study included 9746 individuals with normal cognition (NC) and 3023 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) aged between 34 and 100 years for whom data on amyloid biomarkers, presence of depressive symptoms, and age were available. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Amyloid-β1-42 levels in cerebrospinal fluid or amyloid positron emission tomography scans were used to determine presence or absence of amyloid pathology. Presence of depressive symptoms was determined on the basis of validated depression rating scale scores, evidence of a current clinical diagnosis of depression, or self-reported depressive symptoms. Results In individuals with NC (mean [SD] age, 68.6 [8.9] years; 5664 [58.2%] female; 3002 [34.0%] APOE ε4 carriers; 937 [9.6%] had depressive symptoms; 2648 [27.2%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was not associated with amyloid pathology (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.90-1.40; P = .29). In individuals with MCI (mean [SD] age, 70.2 [8.7] years; 1481 [49.0%] female; 1046 [44.8%] APOE ε4 carriers; 824 [27.3%] had depressive symptoms; 1668 [55.8%] had amyloid pathology), the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology (OR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.89; P = .001). When considering subgroup effects, in individuals with NC, the presence of depressive symptoms was associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in APOE ε4 noncarriers (mean difference, 5.0%; 95% CI 1.0-9.0; P = .02) but not in APOE ε4 carriers. This was not the case in individuals with MCI. Conclusions and Relevance Depressive symptoms were not consistently associated with a higher frequency of amyloid pathology in participants with NC and were associated with a lower likelihood of amyloid pathology in participants with MCI. These findings were not influenced by age, sex, or education level. Mechanisms other than amyloid accumulation may commonly underlie depressive symptoms in late life.

Abstract Limbic predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is highly prevalent in late life and a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC). LATE‐NC is a slowly progressive, amnestic clinical syndrome. Alternatively, when present with ADNC, LATE‐NC is associated with a more rapid course. With the emergence of anti‐amyloid therapeutics, discrimination of LATE‐NC from ADNC is critical and will lead to greater clinical recognition of amnestic patients without ADNC. Furthermore, co‐pathology with LATE‐NC may influence outcomes of these therapeutics. Thus there is a need to identify patients during life with likely LATE‐NC. We propose criteria for clinical diagnosis of LATE as an initial framework for further validation. In the context of progressive memory loss and substantial hippocampal atrophy, criteria are laid out for probable (amyloid negative) or possible LATE (amyloid biomarkers are unavailable or when amyloid is present, but hippocampal neurodegeneration is out of proportion to expected pure ADNC). Highlights Limbic‐predominant age‐related TDP‐43 encephalopathy (LATE) is a highly prevalent driver of neuropathologic memory loss in late life. LATE neuropathologic change (LATE‐NC) is a common co‐pathology with Alzheimer's disease neuropathologic change (ADNC) and may influence outcomes with emerging disease‐modifying medicines. We provide initial clinical criteria for diagnosing LATE during life either when LATE‐NC is the likely primary driver of symptoms or when observed in conjunction with AD. Definitions of possible and probable LATE are provided.

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.

AbstractBackgroundTraumatic encephalopathy syndrome (TES) is the proposed clinical syndrome of the neurodegenerative disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). As part of the 2021 TES NINDS consensus diagnostic criteria, certainty levels of underlying CTE neuropathology can be determined (i.e., suggestive, possible, probable) partially based on the presence/absence of supportive psychiatric features including but not limited to depression, anxiety, and apathy. These are ‘supportive’ because of their non‐specificity and unclear biological correlates in this setting. We examined the association between CSF biomarkers of amyloid, tau, neurodegeneration, microglial activation and neuroinflammation and supportive psychiatric features of TES in former American football players.MethodThe sample included 180 male former football players (120 professional, 60 college) from the DIAGNOSE CTE Research Project. Participants completed a lumbar puncture, and CSF assays were conducted for biomarkers of amyloid (Aβ40, Aβ42), p‐tau (p‐tau181, p‐tau231, p‐tau217), neurodegeneration (total tau), axonal degeneration (NfL), microglial activation (strem2) and neuroinflammation (GFAP, IL‐6). Biomarkers were log‐transformed. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES), Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI‐II) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) self‐report questionnaires were completed by participants. Multivariable regression models tested the association between each CSF biomarker and each scale, controlling for age, race, body mass index, revised Framingham stroke risk profile and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. P‐values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using false discovery rate methods.Result140 participants had successful LPs and available CSF for assays. 33(22%) reported moderate/severe anxiety, 34(22%) reported moderate/severe depression, and 51(33%) had an elevated AES score. Higher CSF concentrations of IL‐6 were associated with higher scores on the BAI (unstandardized‐β=0.016, 95%CI [0.017, 0.026], padj=0.004), BDI‐II (unstandardized‐β=0.013, 95%CI [0.004, 0.021], padj=0.008) and AES (unstandardized‐β=0.014, 95%CI [0.006,0.022], padj=0.002). There were no significant relationships between other biomarkers with the BDI‐II, BAI or AES.ConclusionIn this sample of former American football players, there were significant associations between IL‐6 (a proinflammatory cytokine) and reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and apathy. CSF biomarkers of amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration had no associations, highlighting the role of neuroinflammatory processes in the manifestation of psychiatric symptoms of TES. Continued research on the biological correlates of TES features will inform future iterations of the criteria.

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.

AbstractBackgroundGlial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a marker of cerebral astrogliosis and occasionally elevated in patients with dementia. GFAP in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), is routinely requested in referrals to neurochemistry laboratories; however, its ability to differentiate dementias and diagnostic capability is unclear. Our aim was to elucidate this, using two large datasets.MethodFirst, GFAP data measured since 2015 was retrieved from the database of the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Sahlgrenska University hospital. We then cross‐referenced with the Swedish dementia registry (SveDem). Here, information on ten different diagnoses such as early onset AD (EAD [<65 years]), late onset AD (LAD [≥65 years]), Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD), vascular dementia (VaD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), each with specific diagnostic criteria, were retrieved.The GFAP data was log10‐transformed, followed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and a subsequent post‐hoc Tukey’s test, with GFAP as dependent variable, diagnosis as independent variable and sex and age as covariates.ResultIn total, 1912 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [8.2] years; 52% male), were included. Lower log10‐transformed GFAP concentrations were seen in PDD (mean [SD], 2.68, [0.28] pg/mL), than in EAD, LAD, VaD and FTD; here, mean concentrations of 2.76 (0.24), 2.89 (0.23), 2.89 (0.32) and 2.76 (0.25) pg/mL were observed, respectively.In the post hoc analysis, GFAP differentiated VaD from EAD (p<0.001). PDD concentrations were significantly different from VaD (p<0.001) and LAD (p<0.001). Further, it also differentiated FTD from VaD (p=0.006) and LAD (p=0.001).ConclusionCSF GFAP could on a group level help differentiate VaD from EAD, FTD and PDD. Also, it could differentiate PDD from LAD. These results bear potential clinical relevance, where clinicians in some uncertain cases could use this marker as a differential tool.