Ramanan, Vijay K.

Abstract Blood-based biomarkers offer strong potential to revolutionize diagnosis, trial enrolment and treatment monitoring in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, further advances are needed before these biomarkers can achieve wider deployment beyond selective research studies and specialty memory clinics, including the development of frameworks for optimal interpretation of biomarker profiles. We hypothesized that integrating Alzheimer’s disease genetic risk score (AD-GRS) data would enhance the diagnostic value of plasma AD biomarkers by better capturing extant disease heterogeneity. Analysing 962 individuals from a population-based sample, we observed that an AD-GRS was independently associated with amyloid PET levels (an early marker of AD pathophysiology) over and above APOE ε4 or plasma p-tau181, amyloid-β42/40, glial fibrillary acidic protein or neurofilament light chain. Among individuals with a high or moderately high plasma p-tau181, integrating AD-GRS data significantly improved classification accuracy of amyloid PET positivity, including the finding that the combination of a high AD-GRS and high plasma p-tau181 outperformed p-tau181 alone in classifying amyloid PET positivity (88% versus 68%; P = 0.001). A machine learning approach incorporating plasma biomarkers, demographics and the AD-GRS was highly accurate in predicting amyloid PET levels (90% training set; 89% test set) and Shapley value analyses (an explainer method based in cooperative game theory) indicated that the AD-GRS and plasma biomarkers had differential importance in explaining amyloid deposition across individuals. Polygenic risk for AD dementia appears to account for a unique portion of disease heterogeneity, which could non-invasively enhance the interpretation of blood-based AD biomarker profiles in the population.

Abstract Background In the United States, rare disease (RD) is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. Collectively, RD affects an estimated 30 million Americans. A significant portion of RD has an underlying genetic cause; however, this may go undiagnosed. To better serve these patients, the Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) was created under the auspices of the Center for Individualized Medicine (CIM) aiming to integrate genomics into subspecialty practice including targeted genetic testing, research, and education. Methods Patients were identified by subspecialty healthcare providers from 11 clinical divisions/departments. Targeted multi-gene panels or custom exome/genome-based panels were utilized. To support the goals of PRaUD, a new clinical service model, the Genetic Testing and Counseling (GTAC) unit, was established to improve access and increase efficiency for genetic test facilitation. The GTAC unit includes genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, genetic nurses, and a medical geneticist. Patients receive abbreviated point-of-care genetic counseling and testing through a partnership with subspecialty providers. Results Implementation of PRaUD began in 2018 and GTAC unit launched in 2020 to support program expansion. Currently, 29 RD clinical indications are included in 11 specialty divisions/departments with over 142 referring providers. To date, 1,152 patients have been evaluated with an overall solve rate of 14.1% and as high as 66.7% depending on the phenotype. Noteworthy, 42.7% of the solved or likely solved patients underwent changes in medical management and outcome based on genetic test results. Conclusion Implementation of PRaUD and GTAC have enabled subspecialty practices advance expertise in RD where genetic counselors have not historically been embedded in practice. Democratizing access to genetic testing and counseling can broaden the reach of patients with RD and increase the diagnostic yield of such indications leading to better medical management as well as expanding research opportunities.

Abstract Staging the severity of Alzheimer’s disease pathology using biomarkers is useful for therapeutic trials and clinical prognosis. Disease staging with amyloid and tau PET has face validity; however, this would be more practical with plasma biomarkers. Our objectives were, first, to examine approaches for staging amyloid and tau PET and, second, to examine prediction of amyloid and tau PET stages using plasma biomarkers. Participants (n = 1136) were enrolled in either the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging or the Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center; had a concurrent amyloid PET, tau PET and blood draw; and met clinical criteria for cognitively unimpaired (n = 864), mild cognitive impairment (n = 148) or Alzheimer’s clinical syndrome with dementia (n = 124). The latter two groups were combined into a cognitively impaired group (n = 272). We used multinomial regression models to estimate discrimination [concordance (C) statistics] among three amyloid PET stages (low, intermediate, high), four tau PET stages (Braak 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5–6) and a combined amyloid and tau PET stage (none/low versus intermediate/high severity) using plasma biomarkers as predictors separately within unimpaired and impaired individuals. Plasma analytes, p-tau181, Aβ1–42 and Aβ1–40 (analysed as the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio), glial fibrillary acidic protein and neurofilament light chain were measured on the HD-X Simoa Quanterix platform. Plasma p-tau217 was also measured in a subset (n = 355) of cognitively unimpaired participants using the Lilly Meso Scale Discovery assay. Models with all Quanterix plasma analytes along with risk factors (age, sex and APOE) most often provided the best discrimination among amyloid PET stages (C = 0.78–0.82). Models with p-tau181 provided similar discrimination of tau PET stages to models with all four plasma analytes (C = 0.72–0.85 versus C = 0.73–0.86). Discriminating a PET proxy of intermediate/high from none/low Alzheimer’s disease neuropathological change with all four Quanterix plasma analytes was excellent but not better than p-tau181 only (C = 0.88 versus 0.87 for unimpaired and C = 0.91 versus 0.90 for impaired). Lilly p-tau217 outperformed the Quanterix p-tau181 assay for discriminating high versus intermediate amyloid (C = 0.85 versus 0.74) but did not improve over a model with all Quanterix plasma analytes and risk factors (C = 0.85 versus 0.83). Plasma analytes along with risk factors can discriminate between amyloid and tau PET stages and between a PET surrogate for intermediate/high versus none/low neuropathological change with accuracy in the acceptable to excellent range. Combinations of plasma analytes are better than single analytes for many staging predictions with the exception that Quanterix p-tau181 alone usually performed equivalently to combinations of Quanterix analytes for tau PET discrimination.