1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Blood biomarkers in mild cognitive impairment patients: Relationship between analytes and progression to Alzheimer disease dementia

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Blood‐based biomarkers are promising tools for the diagnosis of Alzheimer disease (AD) at prodromal stages (mild cognitive impairment [MCI]) and are hoped to be implemented as screening tools for patients with cognitive complaints. In this work, we evaluated the potential of peripheral neurological biomarkers to predict progression to AD dementia and the relation between blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD markers in MCI patients referred from a general neurological department.

          Methods

          A group of 106 MCI patients followed at the Neurology Department of Coimbra University Hospital was included. Data regarding baseline neuropsychological evaluation, CSF levels of amyloid β 42 (Aβ42), Aβ40, total tau (t‐Tau), and phosphorylated tau 181 (p‐Tau181) were available for all the patients. Aβ42, Aβ40, t‐Tau, p‐Tau181, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) levels were determined in baseline stored serum and plasma samples by commercial SiMoA (Single Molecule Array) assays. Progression from MCI to AD dementia was assessed at follow‐up (mean = 5.8 ± 3.4 years).

          Results

          At baseline, blood markers NfL, GFAP, and p‐Tau181 were significantly increased in patients who progressed to AD at follow‐up ( p < 0.001). In contrast, plasma Aβ42/40 ratio and t‐Tau showed no significant differences between groups. NfL, GFAP, and p‐Tau181 demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy to identify progression to AD dementia (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.81, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively), which improved when combined (AUC = 0.89). GFAP and p‐Tau181 were correlated with CSF Aβ42. Association of p‐Tau181 with NfL was mediated by GFAP, with a significant indirect association of 88% of the total effect.

          Conclusions

          Our findings highlight the potential of combining blood‐based GFAP, NfL, and p‐Tau181 to be applied as a prognostic tool in MCI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          The diagnosis of dementia due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

          The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia. Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            NIA-AA Research Framework: Toward a biological definition of Alzheimer’s disease

            In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association created separate diagnostic recommendations for the preclinical, mild cognitive impairment, and dementia stages of Alzheimer’s disease. Scientific progress in the interim led to an initiative by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association to update and unify the 2011 guidelines. This unifying update is labeled a “research framework” because its intended use is for observational and interventional research, not routine clinical care. In the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer’s Association Research Framework, Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is defined by its underlying pathologic processes that can be documented by postmortem examination or in vivo by biomarkers. The diagnosis is not based on the clinical consequences of the disease (i.e., symptoms/signs) in this research framework, which shifts the definition of AD in living people from a syndromal to a biological construct. The research framework focuses on the diagnosis of AD with biomarkers in living persons. Biomarkers are grouped into those of β amyloid deposition, pathologic tau, and neurodegeneration [AT(N)]. This ATN classification system groups different biomarkers (imaging and biofluids) by the pathologic process each measures. The AT(N) system is flexible in that new biomarkers can be added to the three existing AT(N) groups, and new biomarker groups beyond AT(N) can be added when they become available. We focus on AD as a continuum, and cognitive staging may be accomplished using continuous measures. However, we also outline two different categorical cognitive schemes for staging the severity of cognitive impairment: a scheme using three traditional syndromal categories and a six-stage numeric scheme. It is important to stress that this framework seeks to create a common language with which investigators can generate and test hypotheses about the interactions among different pathologic processes (denoted by biomarkers) and cognitive symptoms. We appreciate the concern that this biomarker-based research framework has the potential to be misused. Therefore, we emphasize, first, it is premature and inappropriate to use this research framework in general medical practice. Second, this research framework should not be used to restrict alternative approaches to hypothesis testing that do not use biomarkers. There will be situations where biomarkers are not available or requiring them would be counterproductive to the specific research goals (discussed in more detail later in the document). Thus, biomarker-based research should not be considered a template for all research into age-related cognitive impairment and dementia; rather, it should be applied when it is fit for the purpose of the specific research goals of a study. Importantly, this framework should be examined in diverse populations. Although it is possible that β-amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau deposits are not causal in AD pathogenesis, it is these abnormal protein deposits that define AD as a unique neurodegenerative disease among different disorders that can lead to dementia. We envision that defining AD as a biological construct will enable a more accurate characterization and understanding of the sequence of events that lead to cognitive impairment that is associated with AD, as well as the multifactorial etiology of dementia. This approach also will enable a more precise approach to interventional trials where specific pathways can be targeted in the disease process and in the appropriate people.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: Recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease

              The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of developing criteria for the symptomatic predementia phase of Alzheimer's disease (AD), referred to in this article as mild cognitive impairment due to AD. The workgroup developed the following two sets of criteria: (1) core clinical criteria that could be used by healthcare providers without access to advanced imaging techniques or cerebrospinal fluid analysis, and (2) research criteria that could be used in clinical research settings, including clinical trials. The second set of criteria incorporate the use of biomarkers based on imaging and cerebrospinal fluid measures. The final set of criteria for mild cognitive impairment due to AD has four levels of certainty, depending on the presence and nature of the biomarker findings. Considerable work is needed to validate the criteria that use biomarkers and to standardize biomarker analysis for use in community settings. Copyright © 2011 The Alzheimer's Association. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                European Journal of Neurology
                Euro J of Neurology
                Wiley
                1351-5101
                1468-1331
                June 2023
                March 20 2023
                June 2023
                : 30
                : 6
                : 1565-1573
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Center for Innovative Biomedicine and Biotechnology University of Coimbra Coimbra Portugal
                [2 ] Center for Informatics and Systems, Department of Informatics Engineering University of Coimbra Coimbra Portugal
                [3 ] Faculty of Medicine University of Coimbra Coimbra Portugal
                [4 ] Neurology Department Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra Coimbra Portugal
                [5 ] Center for Research in Neuropsychology and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences University of Coimbra Coimbra Portugal
                Article
                10.1111/ene.15762
                36880887
                86a63753-5400-4a9f-af6c-cc21924d4901
                © 2023

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article