Allen, Laura A.

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.

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.

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.

AbstractBackgroundIsolated REM Sleep Behavior Disorder (iRBD) patients are known to be at high risk for developing an overt synucleinopathy – particularly Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) and Parkinson’s Disease (PD). Reduced nigrostriatal uptake on 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT reflects dopamine deficiency, which is common in the overt synucleinopathies. We sought to assess how 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT imaging in iRBD changes longitudinally and whether an abnormal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scan precedes and predicts future transition to an overt synucleinopathy.MethodParticipants with polysomnography‐confirmed iRBD from the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center database +/‐ North American Prodromal Synucleinopathy (NAPS) Consortium who had two or more longitudinal 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans and been followed prospectively for at least 24 months were included in this analysis. Striatonigral dopamine transporter uptake was evaluated semi‐quantitatively with 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT using DaTQUANT software (GE Healthcare) to calculate z‐scores of putamen uptake.ResultThirty‐five iRBD participants (86% male) were evaluated prospectively (mean 62.5 ± 19.4 months) and underwent two or more 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans at a minimum of 12 months intervals. Thirteen participants (37%) developed an overt synucleinopathy (11 DLB and 2 PD; phenoconverters) and 22 participants (63%) remained as iRBD (stable iRBD). Phenoconverters were older (mean 70.8 ± 7.0 vs 63.4 ± 6.0 years old) and had more negative DaTQUANT putamen z‐scores (mean ‐1.68 ± 1.42 vs ‐0.33 ± 1.52) than stable iRBD participants at baseline. Among phenoconverters, nine participants (69%) had one or more 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT scans with DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 prior to phenoconversion, and mean time from initial DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 to phenoconversion was 36.8 ± 28.7 months. In stable RBD participants, eight participants (36%) showed a decline in DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of >1 between the most recent and the baseline scan, and four participants (18%) presented DaTQUANT putamen z‐score of <‐2.0 at the most recent scan.ConclusionThese findings suggest that a decline in putamen uptake on 123I‐FP‐CIT SPECT in iRBD serves as a predictor and a surrogate biomarker for progression of iRBD to an overt synucleinopathy.

AbstractBackgroundImpaired olfaction has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases and may be a useful tool to aid in diagnosis or track disease progression. We sought to compare olfaction in participants with the clinical diagnoses of idiopathic REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), or Alzheimer’s disease dementia (AD).MethodParticipants from the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center database who had a diagnosis of RBD (n=27, 56% male), DLB (n=51, 84% male), or AD (n=83, 47% male), and were given the Brief Smell Identification Test (B‐SIT) were included in this analysis. The B‐SIT score was calculated as the sum of correct responses (12 possible). Scores were categorized as reflecting anosmia (<6), hyposmia (6‐10), and normal olfactory function (>10). All participants underwent clinical and neuropsychological evaluations.ResultGlobal cognition was lower in AD and DLB than RBD (MMSE 21.5 ±4.9 in AD, 23.3 ±4.3 in DLB, 28.8 ± 1.2 in RBD; p <0.001). The mean B‐SIT total score was significantly lower for DLB (4.5 ± 3.1) compared to RBD (7.5 ± 3.0) or AD (7.0 ± 2.7) (p<0.001) using an ANOVA F‐test. Anosmia was present in 76% of DLB, which compared to 32% in RBD, and 32% in AD (p=0.9). Hyposmia was present in 18% of DLB, 47% of RBD, and 52% of AD (p=ns). Of 22 patients with normal olfaction, X% were DLB, X% RBD, and X% AD (p=X). An item analysis illustrated that participants with DLB were less likely to identify Menthol, Clove, Strawberry, Smoke, and Soap than those with RBD and AD. On serial examination, 12 RBD (60%) patients’ B‐SIT score decreased by at least one point at their most recent visit compared to their baseline visit.ConclusionThese findings suggest that impaired olfactory function is frequent in RBD, DLB and AD, with olfaction being worst in DLB in this cohort. Olfaction was declining in most of those with RBD who underwent serial evaluations. Further analyses are needed to determine if any scents are more sensitive to phenotype, progression, and degree of cognitive impairment. Supported by: NIH grants AG016574, NS100620, AG056639, AG015866

AbstractBackgroundMultiple imaging modalities have been individually shown to be useful in diagnosing Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB). Reduced striatonigral uptake on ioflupane‐SPECT reflects striatonigral dopamine dysfunction observed in DLB, while other imaging modalities assess different aspects of DLB, which potentially work complementarily when used together. We assessed how well ioflupane‐SPECT differentiates DLB from Alzheimer’s Disease Dementia (ADem) and whether adding another imaging modality to ioflupane‐SPECT would provide additional value.MethodIoflupane‐SPECT, MRI, FDG‐PET, and PiB‐PET were assessed on 35 DLB and 14 ADem patients (including 12 patients with eventual autopsy confirmation). Striatonigral dopamine transporter uptake was evaluated semi‐quantitatively with ioflupane‐SPECT using DaTQUANT software (GE Healthcare) to calculate z‐scores of putamen uptake. Hippocampal volume was calculated with structural MRI, cingulate island sign (CIS) ratio with FDG‐PET, and global cortical PiB retention with PiB‐PET.ResultLower DaTQUANT z‐scores of putamen were observed in DLB patients compared to ADem patients (c‐statistic 0.896, p<0.001). Ioflupane‐SPECT showed higher c‐statistic in differentiating DLB from ADem than hippocampal volume on MRI (c‐statistic 0.718, p=0.034), CIS on FDG‐PET (c‐statistic 0.869, p=0.003), or global cortical PiB retention on PiB‐PET (c‐statistic 0.869, p=0.002), but some overlap between two diagnostic groups was still observed with the single imaging modality. Among these imaging modalities, ioflupane‐SPECT was the only modality correlated with the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) part III, while only PiB‐PET correlated with Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test score. Adding another imaging modality to ioflupane‐SPECT enhanced c‐statistics (+MRI c‐statistic 0.931, p<0.001; +FDG‐PET c‐statistic 0.957, p=0.005; +PiB‐PET c‐statistic 0.955, p=0.007), and ioflupane‐SPECT in combination with both FDG‐PET and PiB‐PET showed the highest c‐statistic of 0.974 (p=0.043).ConclusionIoflupane‐SPECT is an excellent imaging modality to identify DLB by detecting striatonigral dopamine dysfunction which is strongly associated with motor impairment in DLB. Correlative neuroimaging with MRI, FDG‐PET, or PiB‐PET may add small incremental value in differentiation of DLB and ADem. Supported by NIH grants (AG016574, AG006786, AG015866, NS100620, AG062677), grant from GE Healthcare, the Mayo Clinic Dorothy and Harry T. Mangurian Jr. Lewy Body Dementia Program, the Deal Family Foundation, and the Little Family Foundation.

AbstractBackgroundDementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) is the second most common cause of degenerative dementia but the evolution of the core clinical features of DLB has not been clearly defined. The objective of this study was to identify the temporal relationship between each core feature from the estimated onset of cognitive symptoms.MethodParticipants include 485 patients with probable DLB who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic Alzheimer Disease Research Center with neurologic and neurocognitive assessment. Each core clinical feature was compared using Kaplan‐Meier (KM) curves with the sentinel event representing age at which each core feature developed, or time from estimated cognitive onset.ResultThe sample was disproportionately male (76%). Patients were followed longitudinally, with 84% followed until death. Mean MMSE at the last evaluation was 18.3 ± 7.8. KM curves for age of onset and cumulative incidence for DLB core features as time from cognitive onset are provided. REM‐sleep behavior disorder (RBD) developed earliest and in 77% of our sample with a median KM survival estimate of 69 years (95% CI: 67.6–70.8). RBD was present in greater than 50% of patients at cognitive symptom onset. The median KM survival estimate for cognitive symptom onset was 70.2 years (95% CI: 69.3‐71.0). Parkinsonism developed in 89% with a median KM survival estimate of 73.7 years (95% CI: 72.7‐74.7). 76% had fluctuations with a similar median KM survival estimate of 74.6 years (95% CI: 73.7‐75.8). Visual hallucinations (VH) were present in 70% emerging at a median KM survival estimate of 80.2 years (95% CI: 79.5‐ 81.3). Cumulative incidence estimates for median time from cognitive onset to parkinsonism, fluctuations and VH were 2 years (95% CI: 2.0‐2.5), 2.3 years (95% CI: 2.0‐3.2) and 4.3 years (95% CI: 4.0‐4.8 years), respectively.ConclusionIn this DLB cohort, RBD was most likely to precede cognitive onset. The evolution of the other core features after cognitive onset was parkinsonism and fluctuations and then VH. While VH occur about 4 years after cognitive symptom onset, parkinsonism and fluctuations occur within the first 2 years.