Budelier, Melissa M.

Abstract Background Clinicians’ views on clinical readiness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBM) are not well understood. Method The Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment Biofluid‐Based Biomarkers Professional Interest Area conducted a survey to elicit clinician opinions on AD BBM implementation, including contexts of use, assay selection, reporting and result interpretation. Result Clinician respondents ( n = 212) practiced in Europe (56%), North America (24%), Caribbean and Central or South America (11%) and other continents (9%). Most respondents were medical doctors (80%) practicing in secondary or tertiary care (88%) (Table 1). For 56% of respondents, CSF AD biomarkers or amyloid PET were accessible, but 48% agreed and 52% disagreed with implementation of AD BBM in any clinical context (Table 2). Respondents emphasized the need for data from diverse populations and educational resources to support test interpretation. Conclusion Surveyed clinicians generally agreed with published appropriate use recommendations but were divided on AD BBM readiness for clinical use.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Clinicians’ views on the clinical readiness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs) are not well understood. METHODS The Alzheimer's Association International Society to Advance Alzheimer's Research and Treatment Biofluid‐Based Biomarkers Professional Interest Area conducted a survey to elicit clinician opinions on AD BBM implementation, including contexts of use, assay selection, reporting, and result interpretation. RESULTS Clinician respondents ( n = 212) practiced in Europe (56%), North America (24%), the Caribbean and Central/South America (11%), and other continents (9%). Most respondents were medical doctors (80%) practicing in secondary or tertiary care (88%). For 56%, cerebrospinal fluid AD biomarkers or amyloid positron emission tomography were accessible, but 48% agreed and 52% disagreed with the implementation of AD BBMs in any clinical context. Respondents emphasized the need for data from diverse populations and educational resources to support test interpretation. DISCUSSION Surveyed clinicians generally agreed with published appropriate use recommendations but were divided on AD BBM readiness for clinical use. Highlights A survey of clinicians was conducted regarding clinical readiness of Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs). Views were split on AD BBM clinical readiness: 48% agreed, 52% disagreed. Most responders supported AD BBM use for treatment decisions. Most responders opposed AD BBM testing in asymptomatic individuals. Test performance data and educational materials to aid interpretation were of high importance.

AbstractBackgroundRecent advances in the development of novel Alzheimer’s disease (AD) measures of amyloid, tau, and neurodegeneration in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood have enabled a better understanding of the links between amyloid‐beta (Aβ), tau species and neurodegeneration in the brain, CSF, and blood. The discoveries of novel tau species in CSF and blood, including specific phospho‐tau (p‐tau) and truncated species containing the microtubule binding region of tau (MTBR‐tau) which aggregates in tau tangles, have greatly expanded our understanding of tau biology and tau target development. The longitudinal Aβ, tau, and neurofilament light chain (NfL) changes previously measured in CSF are now being measured accurately in blood, enabling interpretation and understanding of AD progression in much larger and more robust populations.MethodWe analyzed longitudinal CSF and/or blood plasma mass spectrometry measures of Aβ42/Aβ40, multiple p‐tau species (including p‐tau217, 231, 181, 205, etc.), total tau, MTBR‐tau (e.g., MTBR‐tau243, MTBR‐tau299, and MTBR‐tau354), and NfL in sporadic AD and dominantly inherited AD cohorts. Mass spectrometry results were compared to amyloid and tau aggregation measures by Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scans and clinical and cognitive measures in local and international clinical cohorts including ADNI, AIBL, BioFINDER, Mayo Clinic, the Knight ADRC, and the DIAN.ResultThe longitudinal results indicate that a pathophysiological cascade of events begin with altered CSF and blood plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, followed by increases in amyloid plaques as measured by amyloid PET, associated with increased phosphorylation of specific CSF tau species (e.g., p‐tau217, p‐tau181, etc.), before increases in p‐tau205, NfL, total tau concentrations, hypometabolism, and atrophy. Finally, some species of MTBR‐tau increase before or with tau aggregation by tau PET and onset of clinical symptoms and correlate with longitudinal tau aggregation and clinical progression.ConclusionThese findings indicate that CSF and blood plasma Aβ, p‐tau, MTBR‐tau and NfL measures are highly precise biomarkers of brain amyloidosis, tauopathy, and neurodegeneration and can accurately identify stages of preclinical and clinical AD.

Abstract Background Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid associated with illicit drug use and overdose deaths. The SEFRIA Immunalysis (IAL) and ARK fentanyl assays are both FDA-cleared, open channel immunoassays for fentanyl detection in urine. However, limited data are available in the literature comparing these assays. The objective of this study was to perform a direct comparison of these two fentanyl immunoassays. Methods IAL and ARK fentanyl immunoassays were performed on a Roche Cobas e602 automated chemistry analyzer. Repeatability and total imprecision were compared by diluting fentanyl into urine at concentrations above, below, and at the manufacturers’ cutoffs of 1.0 ng/mL. Cross-reactivity was assessed for norfentanyl and the fentanyl analogs acetylfentanyl, acrylfentanyl, and furanylfentanyl. Concordance was assessed in 90 patient samples using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as the gold standard. Results Repeatability varied from 11.4%–17.8% on the IAL assay and 2.8%–5.5% on the ARK assay. Total imprecision was 18.9%–40.7% on the IAL assay and 2.9%–6.4% on the ARK assay. Both assays cross-reacted with acetylfentanyl (∼100%), acrylfentanyl (∼100%), and furanylfentanyl (∼20%), but only the ARK assay cross-reacted with norfentanyl (∼3%). An admixture of 0.5 ng/mL fentanyl and 6 ng/mL norfentanyl produced a positive result on the ARK assay. Total concordance between IAL and ARK for 90 tested patient samples was 93% (kappa = 0.85). Relative to LC-MS/MS, the IAL assay had a concordance of 90% (kappa = 0.79) and the ARK assay had a concordance of 94% (kappa = 0.88). Including norfentanyl in the LC-MS/MS confirmation increased the concordance of the ARK to 96% (kappa = 0.90). Conclusions The ARK assay recognized the metabolite norfentanyl, demonstrated superior precision, and had better concordance with LC-MS/MS compared to the IAL assay.