Citations

Abstract Background Allowable total error (ATE) is a quality concept that defines acceptable analytical performance for a clinical laboratory assay. ATE will vary in terms of the amount of error permissible not only between assays but also based on the test setting and the assay’s clinical use. In the clinical laboratory, ATE limits are routinely applied, for example, when evaluating new analytical methodology or equipment for patient testing, troubleshooting unacceptable quality control, or in evaluating instrument comparability. Content Currently, there are no universally applicable standards for defining the maximum magnitude of allowable error. However, there are several resources available for users to consider when setting ATE limits. Examples include clinical outcomes studies, biological variation of the measurand, state-of-the-art, professional organizations, and requirements set by regulatory agencies and proficiency testing/external quality assessment scheme organizers. Each of these approaches varies in terms of the resulting magnitude of allowable error for the same assay. This review describes these resources in more detail and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Summary ATE users should be aware of different resources and their limitations before defining acceptance criteria for an assay in their clinical laboratory.

AbstractBackgroundUnderstanding the relationship between AβPET and AβCSF biomarkers will define their potential utility in Aβ treatment. Few longitudinal or neuropathological comparisons have been reported. We assessed the relationship of AβPET and AβCSF biomarkers in a large community cohort.MethodParticipants 50+ years with coincident AβPET and AβCSF biomarkers (pTau181/Aβ42, n=505, and Aβ42/40, n=54) were included. Of these participants, a subgroup was identified that had neuropathology data (n=47) of which many had longitudinal AβPET and CSF testing. The relationships of AβPET and CSF biomarkers were assessed cross‐sectionally in all participants and longitudinally in those with autopsy data. Analyses were performed using AβPET Meta‐ROI and AβPET early‐Aβ‐deposition ROIs (ROIs with early Aβ deposition: fusiform, angular, inferior temporal, middle temporal, middle occipital, and calcarine).ResultIn biomarker tests performed at the same time, more participants were AβPET+ and CSF‐ than AβPET‐ and CSF+ using Meta‐ROI AβPET. This discordance occurred more frequently when using early‐Aβ‐deposition regions (Figure 1). Of 47 participants with autopsy data, 35 had Thal stage ≥1. The sensitivity for earliest detection of cortical Aβ neuropathology by AβPET was 89% (31/35) and by CSF was 66%, (23/35). Eight of these 35 had positive AβPET findings and negative coincident CSF tests at the first time tested. Of these, 5/8 were Meta‐ROI and early AβPET ROI positive. The other 3/8 were only positive on early‐Aβ AβPET ROIs. Four of the 8 with negative CSF and positive AβPET had subsequent testing and 2/4 became positive on CSF tests after 1.5 years while 2/4 continued to be negative on subsequent testing.ConclusionAβPET is more sensitive for detection of early cortical Aβ deposition than CSF biomarkers in cross‐sectional or autopsy data. While the assessment of AβPET by standard Meta‐ROI AβPET methods showed cortical Aβ deposition occurring when not indicated by CSF biomarkers, AβPET ROIs for early Aβ deposition detected additional participants that were AβPET positive and AβCSF negative. These findings have implications for detecting early Aβ neuropathology among CU participants in Aβ prevention trials when robust detection is needed. Further work is needed to compare Aβ plasma biomarkers and AβPET using these methods.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONUnderstanding the relationship between amyloid beta (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) and Aβ cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers will define their potential utility in Aβ treatment. Few population‐based or neuropathologic comparisons have been reported.METHODSParticipants 50+ years with Aβ PET and Aβ CSF biomarkers (phosphorylated tau [p‐tau]181/Aβ42, n = 505, and Aβ42/40, n = 54) were included from the Mayo Clinic Study on Aging. From these participants, an autopsy subgroup was identified (n = 47). The relationships of Aβ PET and Aβ CSF biomarkers were assessed cross‐sectionally in all participants and longitudinally in autopsy data.RESULTSCross‐sectionally, more participants were Aβ PET+ versus Aβ CSF− than Aβ PET− versus Aβ CSF+ with an incremental effect when using Aβ PET regions selected for early Aβ deposition. The sensitivity for the first detection of Thal phase ≥ 1 in longitudinal data was higher for Aβ PET (89%) than p‐tau181/Aβ42 (64%).DISCUSSIONAβ PET can detect earlier cortical Aβ deposition than Aβ CSF biomarkers. Aβ PET+ versus Aβ CSF− findings are several‐fold greater using regional Aβ PET analyses and in peri‐threshold‐standardized uptake value ratio participants.Highlights Amyloid beta (Aβ) positron emission tomography (PET) has greater sensitivity for Aβ deposition than Aβ cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in early Aβ development. A population‐based sample of participants (n = 505) with PET and CSF tests was used. Cortical regions showing early Aβ on Aβ PET were also used in these analyses. Neuropathology was used to validate detection of Aβ by Aβ PET and Aβ CSF biomarkers.

AbstractBackgroundNeurofilament light chain (NfL) is an emerging blood‐based biomarker useful for assessing neuro‐axonal injury in several neurological conditions. Plasma NfL concentrations reflect the extent of axonal damage, making it a general marker of neurodegenerative disease progression. This study evaluates the analytical performance characteristics of the Quanterix NfL Advantage method in EDTA‐plasma.MethodThe assay was performed per manufacturer’s instructions on the Quanterix Simoa HD‐X Analyzer. Analytical validation included analyte stability, imprecision, lower limit of quantification (LLOQ), analytical measurement range (AMR), accuracy, and interferences. One‐sided reference intervals were established using quantile regression methods among 1100 cognitive normal individuals, age 20 to 95 years without known chronic kidney disease, stroke, or myocardial infarction.ResultNfL was stable in plasma three days ambient, seven days refrigerate, 90 days frozen (‐20C), and over 3 freeze/thaw cycles. Intra and inter‐assay imprecision, expressed as % coefficient of variation (%CV), ranged from 3.4 – 6.0% and 5.9 – 11.6% respectively. The LLOQ was evaluated using patient plasma pools at concentrations of 1.7 and 3.6 pg/mL. %CVs were 16.8% and 9.7% respectively, and the LLOQ was set at 3.0 pg/mL. Accuracy was assessed by spiking 5 plasma samples with NfL calibratoran 87% average recovery (range 81‐94%) was observed. The AMR of 3.0 – 1500 pg/mL was verified with a regression slope of 0.93 and r2 > 0.99. Additionally, plasma admixtures covering the AMR showed acceptable linear response (slope of 1.02 and r² >0.99). The assay was not affected by icterus to 100 mg/dL, lipemia to 1000 mg/dL, hemolysis to 1000 mg/dL at NfL concentrations >30 pg/mL or to 200 mg/dL at NfL concentrations ≤30 pg/mL. NfL increased with age but did not differ by sex. The data supported age‐based reference intervals broken down into 10‐year intervals. The 97.5th percentile limits were: 20s: ≤8.4 pg/mL, 30s: ≤11.4 pg/mL, 40s: ≤15.4 pg/mL, 50s: ≤20.8 pg/mL, 60s: ≤28.0 pg/mL, 70s: ≤37.9 pg/mL, 80+: ≤51.2 pg/mL.ConclusionThe analytical performance characteristics of the plasma Quanterix NfL advantage assay were deemed acceptable for clinical laboratory implementation. The establishment of NfL reference intervals will aid in the clinical interpretation of patient plasma NfL concentrations.

Abstract Introduction : Plasma glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) may be associated with amyloid burden, neurodegeneration, and stroke but its specificity for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the general population is unclear. We examined associations of plasma GFAP with amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET), cortical thickness, white matter hyperintensities (WMH), and cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). Methods : The study included 200 individuals from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging who underwent amyloid and tau PET and magnetic resonance imaging and had plasma GFAP concurrently assayed; multiple linear regression and hurdle model analyses were used to investigate associations controlling for age and sex. Results : GFAP was associated with amyloid and tau PET in multivariable models. After adjusting for amyloid, the association with tau PET was no longer significant. GFAP was associated with cortical thickness, WMH, and lobar CMBs only among those who were amyloid‐positive. Discussion : This cross‐sectional analysis demonstrates the utility of GFAP as a plasma biomarker for AD‐related pathologies.

AbstractBackgroundBlood‐based biomarkers of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration are entering clinical use. It is critical to understand what factors affect these plasma marker levels for accurate clinical interpretation. Herein we examined factors associated with plasma Ab42, Ab40, neurofilament light (NfL), total tau (T‐tau), and the ratio of Ab42 to Ab40 (Ab42/40).MethodThe plasma markers were measured for 996 participants (859 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 133 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], 4 dementia) from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA), aged 51 to 95 years. The Quanterix Simoa® HD‐1 analyzer was employed to measure the plasma markers using the Simoa® Neurology 3‐Plex A (N3PA) (T‐tau, Ab42, Ab40) (catalog #101995) and the Simoa® NF‐light (catalog #103180). All other data was collected during in‐person MCSA visits or abstracted from the medical record. Statistical significance was determined using an alpha level of 0.05.ResultAmong CU, all of the plasma markers showed correlation with age. T‐tau (Spearman’s rho = 0.113, p<0.001) showed the weakest correlation and NfL (rho = 0.695, p<0.001) had the strongest. Women had higher levels of T‐tau (Median women: 2.782 vs. 2.390, p<0.001) and lower Ab42/40 (0.033 vs. 0.035, p=0.024) compared to men. In linear regression models predicting z‐scored plasma markers and adjusted for age and sex, several statistically significant predictors were found. For example, higher Charlson comorbidity index and chronic kidney disease were associated with higher levels of all markers; slower gait speed was associated with higher levels for all but Ab42/40 where no relationship was seen. A higher BMI was associated with higher levels of Ab42, Ab40, and T‐tau whereas NfL tended to be lower with increased BMI. Among participants with MCI or dementia, the relationship between gait speed or chronic kidney disease with NfL and T‐tau strengthened considerably.ConclusionMultiple variables affect plasma markers of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration among CU in the general population. Some relationships differed among MCI and dementia participants. Incorporating this information is critical for accurate interpretation of the marker levels and for the development of reference ranges.

AbstractBackgroundDecreased amyloid β1‐42 (Aβ42) and increased tau (t‐Tau and p‐Tau) concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect the pathological changes of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and aid in the diagnosis of AD dementia. In the United States, the ADmark® assay has been almost exclusively used for the measurement of these biomarkers in clinical practice. Recently, our institution switched from the ADmark® assay to the Roche Elecsys assays. The goal of this study was to determine if differences exist between these methods in classification of patients as having changes indicative of AD pathology.MethodPatients undergoing ADMark® testing (n= 73) were recruited to participate in this IRB‐approved study. Two simultaneous CSF aliquots were obtained. For ADMark®, 2.0mL were collected into a 5mL polypropylene (PP) tube and shipped frozen to Athena Diagnostics per collection instructions for testing (Innotest® immunoassays for Aβ42, t‐Tau, and p‐Tau). For the Roche Elecsys assays (Aβ42, t‐Tau, and p‐Tau), 2.0mL were collected into a 2.5mL low bind PP tube, frozen, and then tested at Mayo Clinic Laboratories. Comparative analysis was performed between the two testing methodologies and to clinical findings.ResultOverall concordance between the ADMark® Aβ42/t‐Tau index (ATI) and Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 was 89% with 8 (11%) discrepant cases. Four cases were classified as normal by the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 but borderline (n=3) or abnormal (n=1) by ADMark® ATI. Four cases were classified as abnormal by the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 and borderline by ADMark® ATI. In these cases, the normal Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42 result was most consistent with clinical diagnosis. When compared to clinical diagnosis, cases with clinical suspicion of AD dementia were abnormal in 84% and 92% of cases with the ADMark® ATI and the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42, respectively. In cases without clinical suspicion of AD dementia, results were abnormal in 19% and 21% of cases with the ADMark® ATI and the Roche p‐Tau/Aβ42, respectively. There were 2 cases with clinical suspicion of AD dementia and 5 cases without suspicion of AD dementia that were classified as borderline by ADMark® ATI.ConclusionRoche p‐Tau/Aβ42 showed comparable performance to ADMark® ATI when correlating results to clinical diagnosis of AD dementia.

AbstractIntroductionBlood‐based biomarkers of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration are entering clinical use. It is critical to understand what factors affect the levels of these markers.MethodsPlasma markers (Aβ42, Aβ40, NfL, T‐tau, Aβ42/40 ratio) were measured on the Quanterix Simoa HD‐1 analyzer for 996 Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) participants, aged 51 to 95 years. All other data were collected during in‐person MCSA visits or abstracted from the medical record.ResultsAmong cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants, all plasma markers correlated with age. Linear regression models revealed multiple relationships. For example, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and chronic kidney disease were associated with higher levels of all biomarkers. Some relationships differed between mild cognitive impairment and dementia participants.DiscussionMultiple variables affect plasma biomarkers of amyloid pathology and neurodegeneration among CU in the general population. Incorporating this information is critical for accurate interpretation of the biomarker levels and for the development of reference ranges.

Abstract Introduction Measurement of amyloid beta (Aβ40 and Aβ42) and tau (phosphorylated tau [p‐tau] and total tau [t‐tau]) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can be utilized to differentiate clinical and preclinical Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) from other neurodegenerative processes. Methods CSF biomarkers were measured in 150 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. P‐tau/Aβ42 (Roche Elecsys, Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) and Aβ42/40 (Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) ratios were compared to one another and to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) classification. Results Strong correlation was observed between LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40, as well as Elecsys and LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 (Spearman's ρ = –0.827, –0.858, and 0.960, respectively). Concordance between LUMIPULSE p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 was 96% and between Elecsys p‐tau/Aβ42 and both LUMIPULSE ratios was 97%. All ratios had > 94% overall, positive, and negative percent agreement with amyloid PET classification. Discussion These data suggest that p‐tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios provide similar clinical information in the assessment of amyloid pathology.