Figdore, Daniel J.

Abstract Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs) are increasingly used in clinical trials and clinical practice. However, widespread adoption of BBMs requires further understanding of factors that might influence the interpretation of these biomarkers which would allow for the development of standardized sample collection protocols. For example, studies of the effect of fasting on AD BBM concentrations have yielded inconsistent findings. In this study, we evaluated plasma concentrations of amyloid‐beta(Aβ) 42, Aβ40, phosphorylated Tau ( p ‐tau) 181, p ‐tau217, and neurofilament light chain (NfL) in cognitively normal individuals under fasting and non‐fasting conditions. Method EDTA‐plasma was collected from healthy donors ( n = 14; age >55yrs old) two weeks apart, at the same time of day. The first sample collection was under fasting conditions in which donors did not eat or drink (except water) for at least 12 hours prior to collection. The second sample collection was under non‐fasting conditions in which donors were instructed to eat a meal in the morning, approximately half an hour prior to collection. Plasma Aβ42, Aβ40, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau217, and NfL concentrations were measured on the Fujirebio Lumipulse G1200 analyzer. Wilcoxon signed‐rank test was used to compare values between the fasting and non‐fasting results. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess biomarker correlation between fasting status. Result Moderate to strong correlation was observed between the fasting and non‐fasting measurements: p ‐tau217 (r s : 0.86), p ‐tau181 (r s : 0.89), NfL (r s : 0.94), p ‐tau217/Aβ42 (r s : 0.80), Aβ42/40 (r s : 0.66), Aβ42 (r s : 0.77), and Aβ40 (r s : 0.92). Average percent difference between the 2 conditions was: p ‐tau217 27%, p ‐tau181 6%, NfL 9%, p ‐tau217/ Aβ42 25%, Aβ42/40 4%, Aβ42 2%, and Aβ40 ‐6%. Statistically significant differences ( p ≤ 0.05) between fasting and non‐fasting measurements were observed for p ‐tau217, NfL, p ‐tau217/Aβ42, Aβ42/Aβ40, and Aβ42; but not for Aβ40 or p ‐tau181. Conclusion This data suggests that for some AD BBMs, there may be statistically significant differences in concentrations of samples collected in fasting versus non‐fasting conditions. However, further studies are needed to determine if the observed differences may affect the clinical interpretation of these BBMs in individuals with amyloid related pathology.

Abstract Background Anti‐amyloid therapy trials have reported changes in some Alzheimer's disease (AD) blood biomarkers (BBMs) suggesting that these BBMs may be useful minimally invasive measures of amyloid clearance and treatment outcomes. However, a better understanding of how AD BBMs changes at the individual level reflect treatment response in relation to other relevant clinical endpoints is necessary before they can be adopted for treatment monitoring. Here, several AD BBMs were assessed longitudinally in patients undergoing lecanemab therapy. Method Patients undergoing lecanemab therapy at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN were recruited to participate in this study. Patients were asked to provide an EDTA‐plasma sample before treatment initiation during the first infusion visit and thereafter at 3‐, 6‐, 12‐, and 18 months post‐treatment. p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, GFAP, NfL, Aβ42, Aβ40, Aβ42/40, and p ‐tau217/Aβ42 measurements were obtained using Fujirebio Lumipulse assays. Biomarker median differences were assessed between all time points. Patients were grouped into three categories: a decreased biomarker (median decrease of at least 10%), an increased biomarker (median increase of at least 10%), and a stable biomarker (median change < +/−10%.) Biomarker data up to 6 months after treatment is presented. Result Of forty‐one patients enrolled since November 2023, twenty had time points up to 6 months. None of the biomarkers showed a statistically significant median change from baseline at 3 months ( p >0.05). At 6 months, only Aβ42/40 showed a statistically significant median change (decrease) between 0 and 6 months ( n = 20, p = 0.0058). Table 1 shows patients grouped by median biomarker changes from baseline to 6 months. GFAP, p ‐tau217, and Aβ42/40 exhibited the greatest number of patients with decreased biomarker concentrations (80%, 60%, and 60% of patients with median decreases of ‐25%, ‐26%, and ‐18% respectively), followed by p ‐tau181 (50% of patients; median decrease ‐22%), p ‐tau217/Aβ42 (45% of patients; median decrease ‐40%) and Aβ42 (45% of patients; median decrease ‐18%). None of the patients showed a decreased NfL or Aβ40 concentration. Conclusion Preliminarily analysis revealed that GFAP, p ‐tau217, and Aβ42/40 had the most frequent post‐lecanemab biomarker decreases. Additional sample collection is ongoing to assess the association of AD BBM changes with Amyloid PET over time.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) represent accessible alternatives to positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)‐based biomarkers in well‐characterized cohorts. It remains to be determined whether performance is maintained in outpatient clinics comprised of patients with multiple causes of cognitive impairment. METHODS Plasma phosphorylated tau217 (p‐tau217) and amyloid beta (Aβ) 42/40 were measured in 509 patients evaluated in a tertiary‐care memory clinic. Biomarker performance was compared across diagnoses, referencing established cutpoints for positive and negative biomarkers. RESULTS Plasma p‐tau217 distinguished patients with diagnoses of symptomatic AD with 95% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Integration of Aβ42 measurements (p‐tau217/Aβ42) incrementally improved specificity (86%). Plasma p‐tau217 and p‐tau217/Aβ42 concentrations closely associated with established CSF biomarkers of AD (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.94 and 0.96, respectively). Reduced kidney function associated with elevated plasma p‐tau217 and p‐tau217/Aβ42 concentrations in patients without AD (referencing CSF biomarkers). DISCUSSION Plasma p‐tau217 and p‐tau217/Aβ42 concentrations demonstrated robust diagnostic performance in a heterogeneous clinical cohort; interpretation requires consideration of kidney function. Highlights Plasma phosphorylated tau217 (p‐tau217) reliably identified clinic patients with Alzheimer's disease. A two‐cutpoint strategy yielded definitive results in 86% of patients. Integration of plasma amyloid beta (Aβ; p‐tau217/Aβ42) minimally improved diagnostic performance. Plasma p‐tau217 levels were increased in patients with kidney dysfunction.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONWe compare the stability of phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217, amyloid beta (Aβ)42, Aβ40, Aβ42/40, and p‐tau217/Aβ42 at different storage temperatures.METHODSTen ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid–plasma sample aliquots stored at frozen, refrigerated, and ambient temperatures were tested at various timepoints up to 30 days. The mean percent change from baseline was calculated.RESULTSAβ42 and Aβ40 concentrations decreased by >15% after 6 hours at ambient temperature and after 24 hours refrigerated, while p‐tau217 remained stable over 72 hours with < 10% deviation from baseline at either storage temperature. The Aβ42/40 ratio remained relatively constant as each analyte concentration decreased concurrently, while the p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratio deviated from baseline over time. All biomarkers were stable up to 30 days frozen.DISCUSSIONDifferences in the stability of Aβ42 and p‐tau217 may lead to altered p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratio results if samples are not handled properly during the pre‐analytical testing phase. Ideally, samples should be frozen promptly and sent to the laboratory frozen.Highlights Plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217, amyloid beta (Aβ)42, Aβ40, Aβ42/40, and p‐tau217/Aβ42 stability was assessed. P‐tau217 was stable, but Aβ42 and Aβ40 started decreasing by 6 hours at ambient temperature. The analyte stability differences led to falsely increased p‐tau217/Aβ42 ratios. Increases > 15% were seen in p‐tau217/Aβ42 after 6 hours at ambient temperature or 24 hours at 4°C.

AbstractBackgroundTau phosphorylated at threonine 217 (pTau217) is one of the most promising blood‐based biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). This study compares the performance of two plasma pTau217 immunoassays on the Simoa platform for detection of abnormal amyloid‐PET.MethodPlasma samples from 112 individuals without cognitive impairment and 114 with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD related dementia were evaluated. Testing was performed on the Quanterix Simoa® HD‐X Analyzer using the ALZpath Simoa® pTau217 and the Simoa® ACC pTau217 (Janssen antibodies) commercial assays. Amyloid‐PET imaging was performed using 11C‐Pittsburgh Compound B and a standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) cutoff of ≥1.52 (≥25 Centiloid) was used for abnormal (n= 147) vs. normal (n= 79) classification. Passing‐Bablok regression analysis and Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rho) were used to estimate bias and correlation between the assays, respectively. Correlation of each assay with Amyloid‐PET SUVR was evaluated. Amyloid‐PET status as the outcome and plasma pTau217 as predictor was used to estimate the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC).ResultThe pTau217 concentrations between the two assays showed an excellent correlation (Spearman’s rho= 0.94 [95% CI= 0.93 to 0.96, p<0.0001]). However, the Passing‐Bablok regression analysis equation for ALZpath (x‐axis) and ACC (y‐axis) was y= 0.1324x ‐ 0.0019, showing that measured pTau217 concentrations with the ALZpath assay were higher (∼87%) than with the ACC assay (concentrations ranged 0.057 to 3.5 pg/mL and 0.003 to 0.5 pg/mL, respectively). Correlations between amyloid‐PET SUVR and the two pTau217 immunoassays were almost identical with Spearman’s rho= 0.70 (95% CI= 0.62 to 0.76, p<0.0001) for ALZpath and 0.69 (95% CI= 0.61 to 0.75, p<0.0001) for ACC. The AUC for detection of an abnormal amyloid‐PET among the MCI/AD group was 0.88 (95% CI= 0.81 to 0.95) for ALZpath, and 0.89 (95% CI= 0.83 to 0.96) for ACC.ConclusionAnalytically, the two Simoa® pTau217 assays correlate well with each other, but results are not interchangeable due to a significant proportional bias. Clinically, the performance of the assays was largely equivalent for the detection of abnormal amyloid‐PET by AUC analysis based on their almost identical correlations with amyloid‐PET SUVR.

Abstract INTRODUCTION We aimed to evaluate clinical interpretation cutpoints for two plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217 assays (ALZpath and Lumipulse) as predictors of amyloid status for implementation in clinical practice. METHODS Clinical performance of plasma p‐tau217 against amyloid positron emission tomography status was evaluated in participants with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia ( n = 427). RESULTS Using a one‐cutpoint approach (negative/positive), neither assay achieved ≥ 90% in both sensitivity and specificity. A two‐cutpoint approach yielding 92% sensitivity and 96% specificity provided the desired balance of false positives and false negatives, while categorizing 20% and 39% of results as indeterminate for the Lumipulse and ALZpath assays, respectively. DISCUSSION This study provides a systematic framework for selection of assay‐specific cutpoints for clinical use of plasma p‐tau217 for determination of amyloid status. Our findings suggest that a two‐cutpoint approach may have advantages in optimizing diagnostic accuracy while minimizing potential harm from false positive results. Highlights Phosphorylated tau (p‐tau)217 cutpoints for detection of amyloid pathology were established. A two‐cutpoint approach exhibited the best performance for clinical laboratory use. p‐tau217 assays differed in the percentage of results categorized as intermediate.