Jönsson, Linus

Abstract Advances in biomarker technology, digital cognitive assessments, and amyloid‐targeting therapies have redefined the opportunities for accurate and early diagnosis and care of Alzheimer's disease (AD). These advances also create new possibilities for intervention before the onset of cognitive impairment. This paradigm shift has increased the focus on Stages 1 and 2 of AD, in which individuals are cognitively unimpaired but exhibit biological evidence of disease. While early identification of AD offers an opportunity to intervene early to delay progression and preserve quality of life, it also presents complex challenges related to communicating diagnostic results to patients and their families, contextualizing the cost effectiveness of early diagnosis and treatment, and implementation of and equitable access to treatments. Recent, successfully enrolled, preclinical AD trials highlight the complex strategies required to identify asymptomatic, biomarker‐positive individuals on a large scale, and demonstrate critical knowledge gaps in inclusion, follow‐up, and long‐term outcome measurement. The Spring 2025 Alzheimer's Association Research Roundtable (AARR) meeting brought together academics, clinicians, industry, and regulatory leaders to exchange perspectives on current challenges, key learnings, and potential strategies for identifying and treating individuals in very early stages of AD, effectively and safely. This paper presents key takeaways from the Spring 2025 AARR meeting. Highlights New criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) enable early identification of AD pathology. Blood tests and digital cognitive assessment tools may facilitate early and personalized care. Plasma biomarkers may be scalable in clinical settings but need confirmation or follow‐up assessments in those individuals with equivocal results. Early therapy shows best results in people with lower initial amyloid and tau burden.

AbstractBackgroundGlial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is a marker of cerebral astrogliosis and occasionally elevated in patients with dementia. GFAP in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), is routinely requested in referrals to neurochemistry laboratories; however, its ability to differentiate dementias and diagnostic capability is unclear. Our aim was to elucidate this, using two large datasets.MethodFirst, GFAP data measured since 2015 was retrieved from the database of the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory at the Sahlgrenska University hospital. We then cross‐referenced with the Swedish dementia registry (SveDem). Here, information on ten different diagnoses such as early onset AD (EAD [<65 years]), late onset AD (LAD [≥65 years]), Parkinson disease with dementia (PDD), vascular dementia (VaD) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), each with specific diagnostic criteria, were retrieved.The GFAP data was log10‐transformed, followed by an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and a subsequent post‐hoc Tukey’s test, with GFAP as dependent variable, diagnosis as independent variable and sex and age as covariates.ResultIn total, 1912 individuals (mean [SD] age, 71.9 [8.2] years; 52% male), were included. Lower log10‐transformed GFAP concentrations were seen in PDD (mean [SD], 2.68, [0.28] pg/mL), than in EAD, LAD, VaD and FTD; here, mean concentrations of 2.76 (0.24), 2.89 (0.23), 2.89 (0.32) and 2.76 (0.25) pg/mL were observed, respectively.In the post hoc analysis, GFAP differentiated VaD from EAD (p<0.001). PDD concentrations were significantly different from VaD (p<0.001) and LAD (p<0.001). Further, it also differentiated FTD from VaD (p=0.006) and LAD (p=0.001).ConclusionCSF GFAP could on a group level help differentiate VaD from EAD, FTD and PDD. Also, it could differentiate PDD from LAD. These results bear potential clinical relevance, where clinicians in some uncertain cases could use this marker as a differential tool.