Teunissen, Charlotte E.

Abstract Grey matter network topology is altered in Alzheimer’s disease and these alterations are related to cognitive decline. Understanding the biological underpinnings of loss of brain connectivity may provide insights into mechanisms related to developing Alzheimer’s dementia (i.e. dementia A+). We investigated which biological processes as measured in CSF proteomics were associated with loss of brain connections across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. We included 347 individuals with abnormal CSF amyloid [mean age ± standard deviation (SD) 66 ± 8; 98 cognitively unimpaired—A+, 88 mild cognitive impairment—A+, 161 dementia A+] and 146 cognitively unimpaired individuals with normal CSF amyloid (mean age ± SD 62 ± 8) and available T1w MRI-scans and CSF proteomic data (3097 proteins using tandem mass tag spectrometry) from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort. We used an automated pipeline to construct grey matter networks from 3D-T1 sequences and for each network, calculated the small-worldness coefficient, which we previously found to be robustly related to cognitive decline. Linear models were applied to test associations between CSF protein levels and connectivity measures using an interaction term for clinical stage while controlling for connectivity density, age and sex. We validated our results in data from the Alzheimer’s disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Pathway enrichment analysis was performed for proteins associated with loss of brain connectivity (P < 0.05) using the Gene Ontology database. Individuals across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum had lower small-worldness coefficients compared with controls (ANOVA P < 0.001). In amyloid positive individuals, higher levels of 222 proteins and lower levels of 482 proteins were associated with lower small-worldness coefficients and were enriched for innate immune system and neuroplasticity pathways, respectively. Stratified for disease stage, most protein associations with lower small-worldness coefficients were found in mild cognitive impairment A+ (n = 527 proteins) and dementia A+ (n = 799 proteins) with considerable overlap (n = 239 proteins). Proteins in these stages were enriched for complement activation and synaptic integrity. In cognitive unimpairment A+, we found proteins enriched for processes involved in apoptosis. We did not find any enriched biological processes in controls. Repeating analyses in ADNI indicated that similar biological processes were associated with altered grey matter network connectivity. Higher CSF levels of proteins involved in immune responses and lower levels of proteins related to neuroplasticity were associated with lower small-worldness coefficients across the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. This suggests that preserving cognitive function in the presence of amyloid and prevention of dementia A+ may require therapies that strengthen synapses and targets the innate immune system in addition to amyloid and tau.

Abstract Since 2016, the Alzheimer's Association and the Fondation Alzheimer have hosted Global Alzheimer's Leadership Series (GoALS) global think tanks, with world‐leading experts for innovative discussions to advance Alzheimer's disease (AD) research and care. The second GoALS think tank, held in June 2024 in Paris, focused on the relationship between biological changes and clinical manifestations of AD in the context of the evolving therapeutic landscape. Discussions spanned real‐world experiences of providers, patients, and their families, theoretical considerations, and health system challenges. The lived experience perspective was central to these discussions. The importance of shared decision‐making, clear and transparent communication, and the need for real‐world data to holistically support patients during their experiences were highlighted. This manuscript shares key insights from both the think tank meeting in Paris and a featured research session at the 2024 Alzheimer's Association International Conference that expanded the discussion themes for broader dissemination with the community.

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 Background In recent years, blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) have transformed the diagnostic landscape of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), with some now approaching readiness for clinical implementation. This progress aligns with the growing importance of accurate early diagnostics and availability of anti‐Aβ therapies for the treatment of early symptomatic AD, reinforcing the need for more rapid and early diagnostic capabilities. To address this need, the Alzheimer’s Association convened a multidisciplinary panel of clinical experts, subject‐matter specialists, and guideline methodologists to conduct a systematic review and develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic evaluation of AD. The scope of this guideline is focused on individuals with cognitive impairment ‐ either MCI or dementia ‐ who are undergoing diagnostic assessment in secondary or tertiary care settings. Method The panel conducted a systematic review to assess BBMs' diagnostic test accuracy in detecting amyloid pathology for triaging (≥90% sensitivity, ≥75% specificity) and confirmatory (≥90% sensitivity and specificity) diagnostic workup. The BBMs of interest included plasma p ‐tau and Aβ tests measuring the following analytes: p ‐tau217, % p ‐tau217, p ‐tau181, p ‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio. The reference standard tests included CSF, amyloid PET, or neuropathology examination. The panel applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE Evidence‐to‐Decision Framework to develop its recommendations. Result Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were evaluated. Using predefined decision thresholds, the panel determined whether each test has 1) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to be used as a triaging test where a positive test is to be confirmed by PET or CSF, 2) sufficient diagnostic test accuracy as a confirmatory test to replace PET or CSF, or 3) insufficient diagnostic test accuracy to recommend current use in clinical practice. Recommendations will be provided in case any BBMs met a priori DTA thresholds. Conclusion BBMs can improve early AD diagnosis and expand access to disease‐modifying therapies. Evidence‐based guidelines are key to standardizing their use and will be updated as new evidence and applications emerge.

Background The association between lifestyle factors and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathophysiology remains incompletely understood. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the association of alcohol consumption, smoking behavior, sleep quality and physical, cognitive, and social activity with cerebral amyloid pathology. Methods For this cross-sectional study, we selected participants from the Amyloid Biomarker Study data pooling initiative. We used generalized estimating equations to assess associations of dichotomized lifestyle measures with amyloid pathology. Results We included 9171 participants with normal cognition (NC) and 2555 participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from the Amyloid Biomarker Study. Of participants with NC, 58% were women, 34% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 27% had amyloid pathology. Of participants with MCI, 48% were women, 47% were APOE ε4 carrier, and 57% had amyloid pathology. In NC, cognitively active participants were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.66–0.89, p < 0.001). In MCI, participants who had ever smoked or had sleep problems were less likely to have amyloid pathology (OR = 0.85, 95%CI 0.73–0.99, p = 0.029; OR = 0.62, 95%CI 0.45–0.86, p = 0.004). Conclusions In NC, cognitive activity was associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. In MCI, favorable lifestyle behaviors were not associated with a lower frequency of amyloid pathology. The results of the current study contribute to the broader evidence base on lifestyle and AD by further characterizing the role of lifestyle behaviors in AD pathology across different clinical stages.

Abstract BACKGROUND This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to assess the diagnostic test accuracy of blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) for detecting Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The overarching goal is to inform the development of a clinical practice guideline, led by the Alzheimer's Association, for use in clinical practice. METHODS A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted from January 2019 to November 2024. Studies evaluating the diagnostic test accuracy of plasma phosphorylated tau (p‐tau) and amyloid beta (Aβ) tests (p‐tau217, %p‐tau217, p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and Aβ42/Aβ40) compared to reference standard tests (cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography [PET], or neuropathology) in individuals with cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment or dementia) in specialized care settings were included. Pooled diagnostic test accuracy measures were calculated, including sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios. Across a range of pre‐test probabilities, we evaluated how much a positive or a negative test result would lead to a change in the probability of having amyloid positivity (post‐test probability). All analyses were conducted for each test within each biomarker. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS Across 49 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, 31 different BBM tests were examined. When evaluated using a single cut‐point, the diagnostic test accuracy varied considerably across tests: the pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.2–57.4) to 91.4% (95% CI: 86.6–94.6), and the pooled specificity ranged from 61.5% (95% CI: 45.6–75.3) to 96.7% (95% CI: 87.8–99.2). Differences in post‐test probability based on a range of pre‐test probabilities varied greatly across tests. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence across tests ranged from moderate to very low. Most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, particularly in domains related to patient selection, index test conduct, and reference standard. CONCLUSION This systematic review provides a comprehensive synthesis of the current evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs for detecting AD pathology in cognitively impaired individuals in specialized care settings. The findings serve as a foundation for an accompanying clinical practice guideline that provides evidence‐based recommendations for BBM use in the clinical diagnostic pathway. Given continuous developments in this rapidly evolving field, ongoing evaluation will be critical to ensure the synthesized evidence and clinical guidelines remain up to date and maintain clinical relevance. Highlights This is the first comprehensive systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of blood‐based biomarker (BBM) tests specifically in individuals with objective cognitive impairment seen in specialized care settings. Across 49 studies, BBM test performance varied widely. Pooled sensitivity ranged from 49.3% to 91.4% and specificity from 61.5% to 96.7%, depending on the analyte and assay platform. This review followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence. This review served as the evidence base for the Alzheimer's Association's new clinical practice guidelines on BBMs, providing structured, evidence‐based guidance for implementing BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease. The review underscores that BBM test performance is assay‐ and platform specific and advises clinicians and laboratory directors to interpret results in the context of the specific test used and integrate the results with a comprehensive clinical assessment.

Importance Advances in Alzheimer disease (AD) have shifted research focus to earlier disease stages, necessitating more scalable approaches to identify cognitively unimpaired individuals with amyloid β (Aβ) pathology. Objective To assess the utility of plasma phosphorylated tau 217 (p-tau217) for classifying Aβ status in cognitively unimpaired individuals, both as a stand-alone test and in a 2-step approach where positive plasma results were confirmed using a second modality (Aβ positron emission tomography [PET] or cerebrospinal fluid [CSF]). Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional cohort study used data collected between June 2009 and March 2024. We included 2916 cognitively unimpaired participants from 12 international independent observational cohorts in the US, Europe, Australia, and Canada with available plasma p-tau217 levels and CSF or PET Aβ biomarkers. Performance comparisons between mass spectrometry and immunoassay-based p-tau217 measurements were also performed (n = 964). Exposures Plasma p-tau217 levels measured by immunoassay. Main Outcome and Measures Aβ status, determined by CSF or Aβ PET biomarkers. Results Participants had a mean (SD) age of 66.9 (9.9) years; 971 (33.3%) were Aβ positive by either CSF or PET, 1667 (57.2%) were women, and 1108 (38.1%) carried at least 1 APOE ε4 allele. As a stand-alone test, plasma p-tau217 achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 79% (95% CI, 74-84) and an overall accuracy of 81% (95% CI, 80-82). In a 2-step workflow, the PPV and accuracy significantly increased to 91% (95% CI, 86-95). While this approach required screening of 677 individuals with plasma p-tau217 to identify 100 Aβ-positive individuals, compared to 536 participants when using PET alone, it reduced the need for PET testing to 124. Immunoassays demonstrated comparable PPVs to mass spectrometry (80% [95% CI, 74-86] vs 85% [95% CI, 81-90]; P = .12) but significantly lower overall accuracy (82% [95% CI, 79-84]% vs 88 [95% CI, 86-90]; P &amp;lt; .001) and true Aβ-positive detection rate (49% [95% CI, 43-55] vs 69% [95% CI, 64-75]; P &amp;lt; .001). Conclusions and Relevance The findings highlight the potential of plasma p-tau217 as a stand-alone test—or when used in a sequential 2-step approach alongside PET or CSF testing—as a cost-effective, scalable, and minimally burdensome strategy for identifying preclinical AD. Tailored screening workflows that incorporate p-tau217 can improve efficiency in participant selection for preclinical AD trials and, in the future, help guide access to disease-modifying treatments.

Abstract OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE A panel of clinicians, subject‐matter experts, and guideline methodologists convened by the Alzheimer's Association conducted a systematic review and formulated evidence‐based recommendations for using blood‐based biomarkers (BBMs) in the diagnostic workup of suspected Alzheimer's disease (AD) within specialized care settings. The scope focuses on individuals with objective cognitive impairment, including those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia, who are undergoing evaluation by providers trained and experienced in memory disorders, where AD is the suspected underlying etiology. METHODS The panel conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs in detecting AD pathology. The BBMs of interest included plasma phosphorylated‐tau (p‐tau) and amyloid‐beta (Aβ) tests measuring the following analytes: p‐tau217, ratio of p‐tau217 to non‐p‐tau217 ×100 (%p‐tau17), p‐tau181, p‐tau231, and ratio of Aβ42 to Aβ40. The reference standard tests included cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers, amyloid positron emission tomography (PET), or neuropathology. The panel applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the GRADE evidence‐to‐decision (EtD) Framework to develop its recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The key recommendations in this Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) are: (1) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and ≥75% specificity can be used as a triaging test and (2) BBM tests with ≥90% sensitivity and specificity can serve as a substitute for amyloid PET imaging or CSF AD biomarker testing in patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care for memory disorders. The panel cautions users of this guideline that there is significant variability in diagnostic test accuracy and many commercially available BBM tests do not meet these thresholds, especially using a single cutoff. Additionally, these tests do not serve as a substitute for comprehensive clinical evaluation by a healthcare professional and should be used only as part of a full diagnostic workup of patients with cognitive impairment presenting to specialized care settings, and with careful consideration of pretest probability of AD pathology. CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS This CPG provides performance‐based, brand‐agnostic recommendations for the use of BBMs in the diagnostic workup of suspected AD within specialized care settings. By linking recommendations to a systematic review and associated living updates, and using a robust and transparent methodology, the guideline ensures scientific rigor, adaptability, and sustained relevance as evidence evolves. Clinicians are encouraged to stay informed about emerging paradigms—such as biomarker combinations or ratios and multi‐threshold testing—that may further refine the diagnostic accuracy of BBMs as the field evolves.

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.