Wellington, Cheryl L.

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 INTRODUCTION Neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification aids in diagnosing and predicting neurological disorders, but clinical and laboratory practices vary across centers. Differences in result interpretation and reporting further challenge test commutability. This study aimed to review the global analytical and post‐analytical methods used for NfL measurement in routine clinical practice across different contexts. METHODS We established an international working group (WG) and distributed a survey to its members to gather information on context of use (COU), (pre) analytical methods, cutoff usage, as well as the interpretation and reporting of NfL measurements. RESULTS Among the centers, 63% measured NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 87% in blood, and 53% in both. COU was widespread, with 50% defining pathological cutoffs based on publications and 42% considering age. Reporting was primarily done through numeric results (95%). DISCUSSION Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice. Highlights Unique international overview of current analytical and post‐analytical methods for neurofilament light chain (NfL) measurement in routine clinical practice. Tailored sheets for each neurological application. Strategies to harmonize cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation of NfL's measurement.

AbstractBackgroundThe quantification of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proved useful in many contexts, for the diagnosis and prognosis of various neurological disorders. There is, however, a diversity of practices between centers, essentially linked to the context of use (COU), analytical methods, consideration of comorbidities, determination of cut‐points or use of interpretation scales. Finally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may differ from one center to another, raising the question of test commutability. To date, no consensus has been reached between the different laboratories involved to define the most appropriate conclusions/comments based on COU and cut‐points. This work is an essential step towards consensual harmonization of the clinical use of NfL after CSF and/or blood analysis in various neurological contexts, as advocated by the Alzheimer's Association "Biofluid Based Biomarkers PIA" working group.MethodThis international project involves 58 clinical laboratories in 16 countries, specializing in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. By means of a questionnaire, we obtained a description of the COU, pre‐analytical and analytical (biological fluid and method used to quantify NfL) protocols of all the centers involved.ResultsOf the centers, 42% quantified NfL in CSF, 29% in serum and 28% in plasma, and 1% in dried blood spot. The COUs were as follows: Frontotemporal dementia (FTD, 17%), Alzheimer's disease (AD, 16%), multiple sclerosis (MS, 16%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, 11%), psychiatric syndrome (PS, 10%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (CJD, 8%), Parkinson's disease (PD, 8%), peripheral neuropathy (PN, 7%) and traumatic brain injury (TBI, 7%). Most centers define pathological cut‐points based on published literature and take age into account (50%).ConclusionOur initial results highlight the state of the art in terms of the clinical use of NfL analysis in CSF and blood in the context of different neurological diseases. We have now defined a coordinator for each COU subgroup and are organizing consensus meetings to harmonize the use and reporting of NfL measurements for the identified clinical applications. The results of these next steps will be presented.

The Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging (CCNA) was created by the Canadian federal government through its health research funding agency, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), in 2014, as a response to the G7 initiative to fight dementia. Two five-year funding cycles (2014–2019; 2019–2024) have occurred following peer review, and a third cycle (Phase 3) has just begun. A unique construct was mandated, consisting of 20 national teams in Phase I and 19 teams in Phase II (with research topics spanning from basic to clinical science to health resource systems) along with cross-cutting programs to support them. Responding to the needs of researchers within the CCNA teams, a unique sample of 1173 deeply phenotyped patients with various forms of dementia was accrued and studied over eight years (COMPASS-ND). In the second phase of funding (2019–2024), a national dementia prevention program (CAN-THUMBS UP) was set up. In a short time, this prevention program became a member of the World Wide FINGERS prevention consortium. In this article, the challenges, successes, and impacts of CCNA in Canada and internationally are discussed. Short-term deliverables have occurred, along with considerable promise of impacts in the longer term. The creation of synergy, networking, capacity building, engagement of people with lived experience, and economies of scale have contributed to the considerable success of CCNA by all measures. CCNA is evidence that an organized “centrally-organized” approach to dementia research can catalyze important progress nationally and yield significant and measurable results.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONThe apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) is an established central player in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD), with distinct apoE isoforms exerting diverse effects. apoE influences not only amyloid‐beta and tau pathologies but also lipid and energy metabolism, neuroinflammation, cerebral vascular health, and sex‐dependent disease manifestations. Furthermore, ancestral background may significantly impact the link between APOE and AD, underscoring the need for more inclusive research.METHODSIn 2023, the Alzheimer's Association convened multidisciplinary researchers at the “AAIC Advancements: APOE” conference to discuss various topics, including apoE isoforms and their roles in AD pathogenesis, progress in apoE‐targeted therapeutic strategies, updates on disease models and interventions that modulate apoE expression and function.RESULTSThis manuscript presents highlights from the conference and provides an overview of opportunities for further research in the field.DISCUSSIONUnderstanding apoE's multifaceted roles in AD pathogenesis will help develop targeted interventions for AD and advance the field of AD precision medicine.Highlights APOE is a central player in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease. APOE exerts a numerous effects throughout the brain on amyloid‐beta, tau, and other pathways. The AAIC Advancements: APOE conference encouraged discussions and collaborations on understanding the role of APOE.

Abstract Vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia (VCID) are characterized by the aging neurovascular unit being confronted with and failing to cope with biological insults due to systemic and cerebral vascular disease, proteinopathy including Alzheimer's biology, metabolic disease, or immune response, resulting in cognitive decline. This report summarizes the discussion and recommendations from a working group convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to evaluate the state of the field in VCID research, identify research priorities, and foster collaborations. As discussed in this report, advances in understanding the biological mechanisms of VCID across the wide spectrum of pathologies, chronic systemic comorbidities, and other risk factors may lead to potential prevention and new treatment strategies to decrease the burden of dementia. Better understanding of the social determinants of health that affect risks for both vascular disease and VCID could provide insight into strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in VCID.

Abstract White matter hyperintensities (WMHs) are frequently seen on brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of older people. Usually interpreted clinically as a surrogate for cerebral small vessel disease, WMHs are associated with increased likelihood of cognitive impairment and dementia (including Alzheimer's disease [AD]). WMHs are also seen in cognitively healthy people. In this collaboration of academic, clinical, and pharmaceutical industry perspectives, we identify outstanding questions about WMHs and their relation to cognition, dementia, and AD. What molecular and cellular changes underlie WMHs? What are the neuropathological correlates of WMHs? To what extent are demyelination and inflammation present? Is it helpful to subdivide into periventricular and subcortical WMHs? What do WMHs signify in people diagnosed with AD? What are the risk factors for developing WMHs? What preventive and therapeutic strategies target WMHs? Answering these questions will improve prevention and treatment of WMHs and dementia.

Abstract Increasing evidence recognizes Alzheimer's disease (AD) as a multifactorial and heterogeneous disease with multiple contributors to its pathophysiology, including vascular dysfunction. The recently updated AD Research Framework put forth by the National Institute on Aging–Alzheimer's Association describes a biomarker‐based pathologic definition of AD focused on amyloid, tau, and neuronal injury. In response to this article, here we first discussed evidence that vascular dysfunction is an important early event in AD pathophysiology. Next, we examined various imaging sequences that could be easily implemented to evaluate different types of vascular dysfunction associated with, and/or contributing to, AD pathophysiology, including changes in blood‐brain barrier integrity and cerebral blood flow. Vascular imaging biomarkers of small vessel disease of the brain, which is responsible for >50% of dementia worldwide, including AD, are already established, well characterized, and easy to recognize. We suggest that these vascular biomarkers should be incorporated into the AD Research Framework to gain a better understanding of AD pathophysiology and aid in treatment efforts.

Abstract Scientific evidence continues to demonstrate the linkage of vascular contributions to cognitive impairment and dementia such as Alzheimer's disease. In December, 2013, the Alzheimer's Association, with scientific input from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute from the National Institutes of Health, convened scientific experts to discuss the research gaps in our understanding of how vascular factors contribute to Alzheimer's disease and related dementia. This manuscript summarizes the meeting and the resultant discussion, including an outline of next steps needed to move this area of research forward.