Dataset Information

Head-to-Head Comparison of 8 Plasma Amyloid-β 42/40 Assays in Alzheimer Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Blood-based tests for brain amyloid-β (Aβ) pathology are needed for widespread implementation of Alzheimer disease (AD) biomarkers in clinical care and to facilitate patient screening and monitoring of treatment responses in clinical trials.

Objective

To compare the performance of plasma Aβ42/40 measured using 8 different Aβ assays when detecting abnormal brain Aβ status in patients with early AD.

Design, setting, and participants

This study included 182 cognitively unimpaired participants and 104 patients with mild cognitive impairment from the BioFINDER cohort who were enrolled at 3 different hospitals in Sweden and underwent Aβ positron emission tomography (PET) imaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma collection from 2010 to 2014. Plasma Aβ42/40 was measured using an immunoprecipitation-coupled mass spectrometry developed at Washington University (IP-MS-WashU), antibody-free liquid chromatography MS developed by Araclon (LC-MS-Arc), and immunoassays from Roche Diagnostics (IA-Elc); Euroimmun (IA-EI); and Amsterdam University Medical Center, ADx Neurosciences, and Quanterix (IA-N4PE). Plasma Aβ42/40 was also measured using an IP-MS-based method from Shimadzu in 200 participants (IP-MS-Shim) and an IP-MS-based method from the University of Gothenburg (IP-MS-UGOT) and another immunoassay from Quanterix (IA-Quan) among 227 participants. For validation, 122 participants (51 cognitively normal, 51 with mild cognitive impairment, and 20 with AD dementia) were included from the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative who underwent Aβ-PET and plasma Aβ assessments using IP-MS-WashU, IP-MS-Shim, IP-MS-UGOT, IA-Elc, IA-N4PE, and IA-Quan assays.

Main outcomes and measures

Discriminative accuracy of plasma Aβ42/40 quantified using 8 different assays for abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 and Aβ-PET status.

Results

A total of 408 participants were included in this study. In the BioFINDER cohort, the mean (SD) age was 71.6 (5.6) years and 49.3% of the cohort were women. When identifying participants with abnormal CSF Aβ42/40 in the whole cohort, plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 showed significantly higher accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.90) than LC-MS-Arc Aβ42/40, IA-Elc Aβ42/40, IA-EI Aβ42/40, and IA-N4PE Aβ42/40 (AUC range, 0.69-0.78; P < .05). Plasma IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 performed significantly better than IP-MS-UGOT Aβ42/40 and IA-Quan Aβ42/40 (AUC, 0.84 vs 0.68 and 0.64, respectively; P < .001), while there was no difference in the AUCs between IP-MS-WashU Aβ42/40 and IP-MS-Shim Aβ42/40 (0.87 vs 0.83; P = .16) in the 2 subcohorts where these biomarkers were available. The results were similar when using Aβ-PET as outcome. Plasma IPMS-WashU Aβ42/40 and IPMS-Shim Aβ42/40 showed highest coefficients for correlations with CSF Aβ42/40 (r range, 0.56-0.65). The BioFINDER results were replicated in the Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [5.4] years; 43.4% women), where the IP-MS-WashU assay performed significantly better than the IP-MS-UGOT, IA-Elc, IA-N4PE, and IA-Quan assays but not the IP-MS-Shim assay.

Conclusions and relevance

The results from 2 independent cohorts indicate that certain MS-based methods performed better than most of the immunoassays for plasma Aβ42/40 when detecting brain Aβ pathology.

SUBMITTER: Janelidze S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8453354 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Various plasma biomarkers for amyloid-β (Aβ) have shown high predictability of amyloid PET positivity. However, the characteristics of discordance between amyloid PET and plasma Aβ42/40 positivity are poorly understood. Thorough interpretation of discordant cases is vital as Aβ plasma biomarker is imminent to integrate into clinical guidelines. We aimed to determine the characteristics of discordant groups between amyloid PET and plasma Aβ42/40 positivity, and inter-assays variability depending on plasma assays. We compared tau burden measured by PET, brain volume assessed by MRI, cross-sectional cognitive function, longitudinal cognitive decline and polygenic risk score (PRS) between PET/plasma groups (PET-/plasma-, PET-/plasma+, PET+/plasma-, PET+/plasma+) using Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative database. Additionally, we investigated inter-assays variability between immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry method developed at Washington University (IP-MS-WashU) and Elecsys immunoassay from Roche (IA-Elc). PET+/plasma+ was significantly associated with higher tau burden assessed by PET in entorhinal, Braak III/IV, and Braak V/VI regions, and with decreased volume of hippocampal and precuneus regions compared to PET-/plasma-. PET+/plasma+ showed poor performances in global cognition, memory, executive and daily-life function, and rapid cognitive decline. PET+/plasma+ was related to high PRS. The PET-/plasma+ showed intermediate changes between PET-/plasma- and PET+/plasma+ in terms of tau burden, hippocampal and precuneus volume, cross-sectional and longitudinal cognition, and PRS. PET+/plasma- represented heterogeneous characteristics with most prominent variability depending on plasma assays. Moreover, IP-MS-WashU showed more linear association between amyloid PET standardized uptake value ratio and plasma Aβ42/40 than IA-Elc. IA-Elc showed more plasma Aβ42/40 positivity in the amyloid PET-negative stage than IP-MS-WashU. Characteristics of PET-/plasma+ support plasma biomarkers as early biomarker of amyloidopathy prior to amyloid PET. Various plasma biomarker assays might be applied distinctively to detect different target subjects or disease stages.

Project description:ImportanceAccurate blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) might improve the diagnostic accuracy in primary care, referrals to memory clinics, and screenings for AD trials.ObjectiveTo examine the accuracy of plasma β-amyloid (Aβ) and tau measured using fully automated assays together with other blood-based biomarkers to detect cerebral Aβ.Design, setting, and participantsTwo prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter studies. Study participants were consecutively enrolled between July 6, 2009, and February 11, 2015 (cohort 1), and between January 29, 2000, and October 11, 2006 (cohort 2). Data were analyzed in 2018. The first cohort comprised 842 participants (513 cognitively unimpaired [CU], 265 with mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 64 with AD dementia) from the Swedish BioFINDER study. The validation cohort comprised 237 participants (34 CU, 109 MCI, and 94 AD dementia) from a German biomarker study.Main outcome and measuresThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio was used as the reference standard for brain Aβ status. Plasma Aβ42, Aβ40 and tau were measured using Elecsys immunoassays (Roche Diagnostics) and examined as predictors of Aβ status in logistic regression models in cohort 1 and replicated in cohort 2. Plasma neurofilament light chain (NFL) and heavy chain (NFH) and APOE genotype were also examined in cohort 1.ResultsThe mean (SD) age of the 842 participants in cohort 1 was 72 (5.6) years, with a range of 59 to 88 years, and 446 (52.5%) were female. For the 237 in cohort 2, mean (SD) age was 66 (10) years with a range of 23 to 85 years, and 120 (50.6%) were female. In cohort 1, plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 predicted Aβ status with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.77-0.83). When adding APOE, the AUC increased significantly to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). Slight improvements were seen when adding plasma tau (AUC, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88) or tau and NFL (AUC, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89) to Aβ42, Aβ40 and APOE. The results were similar in CU and cognitively impaired participants, and in younger and older participants. Applying the plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 model from cohort 1 in cohort 2 resulted in slightly higher AUC (0.86; 95% CI, 0.81-0.91), but plasma tau did not contribute. Using plasma Aβ42, Aβ40, and APOE in an AD trial screening scenario reduced positron emission tomography costs up to 30% to 50% depending on cutoff.Conclusions and relevancePlasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 measured using Elecsys immunoassays predict Aβ status in all stages of AD with similar accuracy in a validation cohort. Their accuracy can be further increased by analyzing APOE genotype. Potential future applications of these blood tests include prescreening of Aβ positivity in clinical AD trials to lower the costs and number of positron emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures.

Project description:Background Blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) might facilitate identification of participants for clinical trials targeting amyloid beta (Abeta) accumulation, and aid in AD diagnostics. We examined the potential of plasma markers Abeta(1-42/1-40), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) and neurofilament light (NfL) to identify cerebral amyloidosis and/or disease severity. Methods We included individuals with a positive (n?=?176: 63?±?7?years, 87 (49%) females) or negative (n?=?76: 61?±?9?years, 27 (36%) females) amyloid PET status, with syndrome diagnosis subjective cognitive decline (18 PET+, 25 PET?), mild cognitive impairment (26 PET+, 24 PET?), or AD-dementia (132 PET+). Plasma Abeta(1-42/1-40), GFAP, and NfL were measured by Simoa. We applied two-way ANOVA adjusted for age and sex to investigate the associations of the plasma markers with amyloid PET status and syndrome diagnosis; logistic regression analysis with Wald’s backward selection to identify an optimal panel that identifies amyloid PET positivity; age, sex, and education-adjusted linear regression analysis to investigate associations between the plasma markers and neuropsychological test performance; and Spearman’s correlation analysis to investigate associations between the plasma markers and medial temporal lobe atrophy (MTA). Results Abeta(1-42/1-40) and GFAP independently associated with amyloid PET status (p?=?0.009 and p?<?0.001 respectively), and GFAP and NfL independently associated with syndrome diagnosis (p?=?0.001 and p?=?0.048 respectively). The optimal panel identifying a positive amyloid status included Abeta(1-42/1-40) and GFAP, alongside age and APOE (AUC?=?88% (95% CI 83–93%), 82% sensitivity, 86% specificity), while excluding NfL and sex. GFAP and NfL robustly associated with cognitive performance on global cognition and all major cognitive domains (GFAP: range standardized ? (s?)?=???0.40 to ??0.26; NfL: range s??=???0.35 to ??0.18; all: p?<?0.002), whereas Abeta(1-42/1-40) associated with global cognition, memory, attention, and executive functioning (range s??=?0.22 – 0.11; all: p?<?0.05) but not language. GFAP and NfL showed moderate positive correlations with MTA (both: Spearman’s rho>?0.33, p?<?0.001). Abeta(1-42/1-40) showed a moderate negative correlation with MTA (Spearman’s rho?=???0.24, p?=?0.001). Discussion and conclusions Combination of plasma Abeta(1-42/1-40) and GFAP provides a valuable tool for the identification of amyloid PET status. Furthermore, plasma GFAP and NfL associate with various disease severity measures suggesting potential for disease monitoring.