Teunissen, C.

Abstract Background The quantification of Neurofilament Light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proven valuable for diagnosing and prognosing various neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, and ischemic damage. However, there is considerable variability in clinical and laboratory practices between centers, primarily due to different contexts of use (COU), analytical methods, and the application of cutoffs or scales. Additionally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may vary from one center to another, raising concerns about the commutability of the tests. To date, no consensus has been reached among laboratories to define the most appropriate use of cutoffs or conclusions/comments based on NfL profiles. Method This international project involves 38 laboratories across 18 countries, all specialized in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. Using a questionnaire, we obtained descriptions from each center regarding their COU, pre‐analytical and analytical protocols (including the biological fluid and methods used to quantify NfL). Through a consensus approach, we developed a harmonized strategy for the use and reporting of NfL results across different centres according to their respective COU. Results Among the centers, 63% quantified NfL in the CSF, 87% in blood and 53% in both fluids. COU were as follow: frontotemporal dementia (71%), Alzheimer disease (71%), multiple sclerosis (61%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (61%), psychiatric syndrome (45%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (32%), Parkinson disease (39%), peripheral neuropathy (29%), traumatic brain injury (21%), Huntington's disease (13%), amyloid transthyretin related (11%) and cardiac arrest (8%). Most of the centers define pathological cutoffs based on publications (50%) and take age into account for this purpose (42%). Reporting is mostly transmitted through numeric results (95%). Conclusion Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice.

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.