Kahale, Lara A

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Abstract OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE A panel of clinicians, subject‐matter experts, and guideline methodologists convened by the Alzheimer's Association conducted a systematic review and formulated evidence‐based recommendations for using blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease (AD) within specialized care settings. The scope focuses on individuals with objective cognitive impairment, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, who are undergoing evaluation by providers trained and experienced in memory disorders, where AD is the suspected underlying etiology. METHODS The panel conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs in detecting AD pathology. The BBMs of interest included plasma phosphorylated‐tau (p‐tau) and amyloid‐beta (Aβ) tests measuring the following analytes: p‐tau217, ratio of p‐tau217 to non‐p‐tau217 ×100 (%p‐tau17), p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and ratio of Aβ42 to Aβ40. The reference standard tests included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), or neuropathology. The panel applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE evidence‐to‐decision (EtD) Framework to develop its recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The key recommendations in this Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) are: (1) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and ≥75% specificity can be used as a triaging test and (2) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and specificity can serve as a substitute for amyloid PET imaging or CSF AD biomarker testing in patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care for memory disorders. The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. Additionally, these tests do not serve as a substitute for comprehensive clinical evaluation by a healthcare professional and should be used only as part of a full diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care settings, and with careful consideration of pretest probability of AD pathology. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS This CPG provides performance‐based, brand‐agnostic recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected AD within specialized care settings. By linking recommendations to a systematic review and associated living updates, and using a robust and transparent methodology, the guideline ensures scientific rigor, adaptability, and sustained relevance as evidence evolves. Clinicians are encouraged to stay informed about emerging paradigms—such as biomarker combinations or ratios and multi‐threshold testing—that may further refine the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs as the field evolves.

Abstract Background: Guidelines suggest the use of the Khorana score to select patients with solid cancer receiving chemotherapy for thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but its performance in different types of cancers remains uncertain. Methods: The present analysis includes individual patient data from seven randomized controlled trials that had compared prophylactic (ultra)-low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) with placebo or observation in patients with solid cancer. The analysis addresses the performance of the continuous and dichotomized Khorana score in predicting the 6-month risk of VTE in the trial control groups, overall and in types of cancer studies, as well as the efficacy and safety of LMWH among patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Random effects meta-analysis provided the basis for summary estimates. Findings: In the 3,403 patients from the control groups included in the analyses, the mean age was 61 years, 59% were male, and 58% had lung cancer. During 6-months of follow-up, 188 patients (5.5%) developed VTE. Overall, the 6-month VTE incidence was 9.8% among high-risk Khorana score patients and 6.4% among low-to-intermediate risk patients (OR 1.6; 95%-CI 1.1-2.2). The dichotomous Khorana score performed differently in lung cancer patients (OR 1.1; 95%-CI, 0.72-1.7) than in those with other types of cancer (OR 4.4; 95%-CI, 2.7-7.3; P interaction=0.002). Among high-risk patients, LMWH decreased the risk of VTE by 64% compared to placebo or observation (OR 0.36; 95%-CI, 0.22-0.58). In the group of patients with types of cancer other than lung cancer and a high-risk Khorana score (N=619), the 6-month VTE incidence was 3.3% (95% CI, 1.4 to 7.7) among LMWH recipients and 13% (95% CI, 6.8 to 24) among those not receiving LMWH (OR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.46; P <0.001). There was no difference in major bleeding (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 0.56 to 2.5). Interpretation: The Khorana score performs poorly in differentiating between those at high and low risk of VTE in patients with lung cancer, but is associated with a 4-fold increased risk of VTE in those with other types of cancer. Thromboprophylaxis is effective and safe in patients with a high-risk Khorana score. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Cancer Research UK: Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and through a direct anti-tumour effect. Study-level meta-analysis indicates a reduction in VTE and provide moderate certainty that a small survival benefit exists; it is unclear if patients with specific cancers benefit more or less. Utilizing data from randomized controlled trials (RCT), this individual participant data meta-analysis examines the impact of heparin on survival, VTE and major bleeding in oncological patients randomized to low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or no LMWH. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic search for all RCTS (last search date March 2017) and contacted authors and sponsors to obtain individual participant data of patients with solid cancers and no other indication for prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. We utilized the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and produce an evidence profile. All analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. We calculated the impact on mortality through multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We adjusted the analysis for age, cancer type and metastasis status. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups, including type of cancer, we tested interaction terms in the statistical model. Results: A total of 18 RCTs (n=10,041 participants) were eligible for inclusion and we obtained data from 82.4% of the participants (13 RCTs, n=8,278; n=4,139 for LMWH and n=4,139 for no LMWH). The meta-analysis revealed an adjusted relative risk of mortality within one year of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.03) and a hazard ratio of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.14) after one year. The relative risk for VTE was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.48, 0.71), 0.57 (95% CI: 0.44, 0.74) for symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.44, 0.77) for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, separately. For every 1,000 patients treated, approximately 16 fewer would experience symptomatic DVT and 16 fewer would experience any PE. The adjusted relative risk for major bleeding throughout trial duration was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.69; P=0.17). Subgroup analysis, by cancer type, of VTE occurrence throughout trial duration identified lung cancer OR=0.52 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.68; P<0.001) and pancreatic cancer OR=0.55 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.88; P=0.01) patients as experiencing the greatest benefit from LMWH treatment. The certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was moderate to high. Conclusion: LMWH reduces risk of VTE without increasing risk of bleeding but does not improve survival across all patients. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research knowledge synthesis grant, KRS 126594 Registration: International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42013003526. Disclosures Schünemann: Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Research Funding. Crowther: Alexion: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Portola: Consultancy; Shinogi: Consultancy. Macbeth: Pfizer: Other: Provision of Dalteparin for FRAGMATIC trial; Cancer Research UK: Research Funding. Griffiths: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Comment: I run an academic clinical trials unit, have received educational/investigator intiated research grants from companies that make these heparin agents. As consultant > 3 years ago, advised Pfizer on clinical trial designs unrelated to this study., Research Funding. Van Es: Pfizer: Employment, Other: Comment: Dr. van Es reports personal fees from Pfizer as a member of their advisory board. These fees are unrelated to this project.. Streiff: Roche: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ageno: BMS-Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bayer AG: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bozas: PharmaMar: Honoraria. McBane: Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Research grant for cancer associated VTE. Maraveyas: Bayer: Other: Personal fees and conference attendance; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Grants and personal fees; Leo Pharma: Other: Grants, personal fees and conference attendance; Pfizer: Other: Personal fees. Loprinzi: Bristol Myers: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project; Janssen: Other: Grant - unrelated to this project.