Schuder, Bethany J.

Abstract Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs) are increasingly used in clinical trials and clinical practice. However, widespread adoption of BBMs requires further understanding of factors that might influence the interpretation of these biomarkers which would allow for the development of standardized sample collection protocols. For example, studies of the effect of fasting on AD BBM concentrations have yielded inconsistent findings. In this study, we evaluated plasma concentrations of amyloid‐beta(Aβ) 42, Aβ40, phosphorylated Tau ( p ‐tau) 181, p ‐tau217, and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in cognitively normal individuals under fasting and non‐fasting conditions. Method EDTA‐plasma was collected from healthy donors ( n = 14; age >55yrs old) two weeks apart, at the same time of day. The first sample collection was under fasting conditions in which donors did not eat or drink (except water) for at least 12 hours prior to collection. The second sample collection was under non‐fasting conditions in which donors were instructed to eat a meal in the morning, approximately half an hour prior to collection. Plasma Aβ42, Aβ40, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau217, and NfL concentrations were measured on the Fujirebio Lumipulse G1200 analyzer. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to compare values between the fasting and non‐fasting results. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess biomarker correlation between fasting status. Result Moderate to strong correlation was observed between the fasting and non‐fasting measurements: p ‐tau217 (r s : 0.86), p ‐tau181 (r s : 0.89), NfL (r s : 0.94), p ‐tau217/Aβ42 (r s : 0.80), Aβ42/40 (r s : 0.66), Aβ42 (r s : 0.77), and Aβ40 (r s : 0.92). Average percent difference between the 2 conditions was: p ‐tau217 27%, p ‐tau181 6%, NfL 9%, p ‐tau217/ Aβ42 25%, Aβ42/40 4%, Aβ42 2%, and Aβ40 ‐6%. Statistically significant differences ( p ≤ 0.05) between fasting and non‐fasting measurements were observed for p ‐tau217, NfL, p ‐tau217/Aβ42, Aβ42/Aβ40, and Aβ42; but not for Aβ40 or p ‐tau181. Conclusion This data suggests that for some AD BBMs, there may be statistically significant differences in concentrations of samples collected in fasting versus non‐fasting conditions. However, further studies are needed to determine if the observed differences may affect the clinical interpretation of these BBMs in individuals with amyloid related pathology.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONWe compare the stability of phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217, amyloid beta (Aβ)42, Aβ40, Aβ42/40, and p‐tau217/Aβ42 at different storage temperatures.METHODSTen ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid–plasma sample aliquots stored at frozen, refrigerated, and ambient temperatures were tested at various timepoints up to 30 days. The mean percent change from baseline was calculated.RESULTSAβ42 and Aβ40 concentrations decreased by >15% after 6 hours at ambient temperature and after 24 hours refrigerated, while p‐tau217 remained stable over 72 hours with < 10% deviation from baseline at either storage temperature. The Aβ42/40 ratio remained relatively constant as each analyte concentration decreased concurrently, while the p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratio deviated from baseline over time. All biomarkers were stable up to 30 days frozen.DISCUSSIONDifferences in the stability of Aβ42 and p‐tau217 may lead to altered p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratio results if samples are not handled properly during the pre‐analytical testing phase. Ideally, samples should be frozen promptly and sent to the laboratory frozen.Highlights Plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217, amyloid beta (Aβ)42, Aβ40, Aβ42/40, and p‐tau217/Aβ42 stability was assessed. P‐tau217 was stable, but Aβ42 and Aβ40 started decreasing by 6 hours at ambient temperature. The analyte stability differences led to falsely increased p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratios. Increases > 15% were seen in p‐tau217/Aβ42 after 6 hours at ambient temperature or 24 hours at 4°C.