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

      Validity and Performance of Blood Biomarkers for Alzheimer Disease to Predict Dementia Risk in a Large Clinic-Based Cohort

      research-article

      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 Objective

          Blood biomarkers for Alzheimer disease (AD) have consistently proven to be associated with CSF or PET biomarkers and effectively discriminate AD from other neurodegenerative diseases. Our aim was to test their utility in clinical practice, from a multicentric unselected prospective cohort where patients presented with a large spectrum of cognitive deficits or complaints.

          Methods

          The MEMENTO cohort enrolled 2,323 outpatients with subjective cognitive complaint (SCC) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) consulting in 26 French memory clinics. Participants had neuropsychological assessments, MRI, and blood sampling at baseline. CSF sampling and amyloid PET were optional. Baseline blood Aβ42/40 ratio, total tau, p181-tau, and neurofilament light chain (NfL) were measured using a Simoa HD-X analyzer. An expert committee validated incident dementia cases during a 5-year follow-up period.

          Results

          Overall, 2,277 individuals had at least 1 baseline blood biomarker available (n = 357 for CSF subsample, n = 649 for PET subsample), among whom 257 were diagnosed with clinical AD/mixed dementia during follow-up. All blood biomarkers but total tau were mildly correlated with their equivalence in the CSF (r = 0.33 to 0.46, p < 0.0001) and were associated with amyloid-PET status ( p < 0.0001). Blood p181-tau was the best blood biomarker to identify amyloid-PET positivity (area under the curve = 0.74 [95% CI = 0.69; 0.79]). Higher blood and CSF p181-tau and NfL concentrations were associated with accelerated time to AD dementia onset with similar incidence rates, whereas blood Aβ42/40 was less efficient than CSF Aβ42/40. Blood p181-tau alone was the best blood predictor of 5-year AD/mixed dementia risk (c-index = 0.73 [95% CI = 0.69; 0.77]); its accuracy was higher in patients with clinical dementia rating (CDR) = 0 (c-index = 0.83 [95% CI = 0.69; 0.97]) than in patients with CDR = 0.5 (c-index = 0.70 [95% CI = 0.66; 0.74]). A “clinical” reference model (combining demographics and neuropsychological assessment) predicted AD/mixed dementia risk with a c-index = 0.88 [95% CI = 0.86–0.91] and performance increased to 0.90 [95% CI = 0.88; 0.92] when adding blood p181-tau + Aβ42/40. A “research” reference model (clinical model + apolipoprotein E genotype and AD signature on MRI) had a c-index = 0.91 [95% CI = 0.89–0.93] increasing to 0.92 [95% CI = 0.90; 0.93] when adding blood p181-tau + Aβ42/40. Chronic kidney disease and vascular comorbidities did not affect predictive performances.

          Discussion

          In a clinic-based cohort of patients with SCC or MCI, blood biomarkers may be good hallmarks of underlying pathology but add little to 5-year dementia risk prediction models including traditional predictors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • 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: not found

            Sensitivity of revised diagnostic criteria for the behavioural variant of frontotemporal dementia.

            Based on the recent literature and collective experience, an international consortium developed revised guidelines for the diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. The validation process retrospectively reviewed clinical records and compared the sensitivity of proposed and earlier criteria in a multi-site sample of patients with pathologically verified frontotemporal lobar degeneration. According to the revised criteria, 'possible' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia requires three of six clinically discriminating features (disinhibition, apathy/inertia, loss of sympathy/empathy, perseverative/compulsive behaviours, hyperorality and dysexecutive neuropsychological profile). 'Probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia adds functional disability and characteristic neuroimaging, while behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia 'with definite frontotemporal lobar degeneration' requires histopathological confirmation or a pathogenic mutation. Sixteen brain banks contributed cases meeting histopathological criteria for frontotemporal lobar degeneration and a clinical diagnosis of behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia, Alzheimer's disease, dementia with Lewy bodies or vascular dementia at presentation. Cases with predominant primary progressive aphasia or extra-pyramidal syndromes were excluded. In these autopsy-confirmed cases, an experienced neurologist or psychiatrist ascertained clinical features necessary for making a diagnosis according to previous and proposed criteria at presentation. Of 137 cases where features were available for both proposed and previously established criteria, 118 (86%) met 'possible' criteria, and 104 (76%) met criteria for 'probable' behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia. In contrast, 72 cases (53%) met previously established criteria for the syndrome (P < 0.001 for comparison with 'possible' and 'probable' criteria). Patients who failed to meet revised criteria were significantly older and most had atypical presentations with marked memory impairment. In conclusion, the revised criteria for behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia improve diagnostic accuracy compared with previously established criteria in a sample with known frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Greater sensitivity of the proposed criteria may reflect the optimized diagnostic features, less restrictive exclusion features and a flexible structure that accommodates different initial clinical presentations. Future studies will be needed to establish the reliability and specificity of these revised diagnostic guidelines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Diagnosis and management of dementia with Lewy bodies

              The Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) Consortium has refined its recommendations about the clinical and pathologic diagnosis of DLB, updating the previous report, which has been in widespread use for the last decade. The revised DLB consensus criteria now distinguish clearly between clinical features and diagnostic biomarkers, and give guidance about optimal methods to establish and interpret these. Substantial new information has been incorporated about previously reported aspects of DLB, with increased diagnostic weighting given to REM sleep behavior disorder and 123iodine-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy. The diagnostic role of other neuroimaging, electrophysiologic, and laboratory investigations is also described. Minor modifications to pathologic methods and criteria are recommended to take account of Alzheimer disease neuropathologic change, to add previously omitted Lewy-related pathology categories, and to include assessments for substantia nigra neuronal loss. Recommendations about clinical management are largely based upon expert opinion since randomized controlled trials in DLB are few. Substantial progress has been made since the previous report in the detection and recognition of DLB as a common and important clinical disorder. During that period it has been incorporated into DSM-5, as major neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies. There remains a pressing need to understand the underlying neurobiology and pathophysiology of DLB, to develop and deliver clinical trials with both symptomatic and disease-modifying agents, and to help patients and carers worldwide to inform themselves about the disease, its prognosis, best available treatments, ongoing research, and how to get adequate support.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Neurology
                Neurology
                neurology
                neur
                NEUROLOGY
                Neurology
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0028-3878
                1526-632X
                31 January 2023
                31 January 2023
                : 100
                : 5
                : e473-e484
                Affiliations
                From the Univ. Bordeaux (V.P.), CNRS UMR 5293, Institut des Maladies Neurodégénératives; CHU de Bordeaux (V.P.), Pôle de Neurosciences Cliniques, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche; Univ. Bordeaux (V.B., G.C., C.D.), Inserm U1219, PHARes Team, Institut de Santé Publique, d'Epidémiologie et de Développement (ISPED); CHU Bordeaux (V.B., G.C., C.D.), CIC 1401 EC, Pôle Santé Publique; CHU de Bordeaux (I.P.), Département d’Immunologie et d’Immunogénétique; Univ. Paris-Saclay (J.-F.M.), CEA, CNRS, Baobab UMR9027, Neurospin, CATI Multicenter Neuroimaging Platform, US52, UAR 9031, Gif-sur-Yvette; Sorbonne-Université (B.D.), Service des Maladies Cognitives et Comportementales et Institut de La Mémoire et de La Maladie d'Alzheimer (IM2A), Hôpital de La Salpêtrière, AP-PH, Paris; Univ. Toulouse (P.-J.O.), Inserm U1027, Gérontopôle, Departement de Gériatrie, CHU Purpan, Toulouse; Univ. Lille (F.P.), Inserm U1171, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, CHU Lille, DISTAlz, Lille; Univ. Strasbourg (F.B.), CNRS, ICube Laboratory, UMR 7357, Fédération de Médecine Translationnelle de Strasbourg, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, Pôle de Gériatrie, Strasbourg; Univ. Paris (C.P.), Inserm U1144, Groupe Hospitalier Lariboisière Fernand-Widal, AP-HP; Univ. Paris Cité (O.H.), EA 4468, AP-HP, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Centre, Service de Gériatrie, Hôpital Broca; CHU de Montpellier (K.B.), Pôle de Neurosciences, Département de Neurologie, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, Montpellier; Univ. Aix Marseille (M.C.), Inserm UMR 1106, Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, Département de Neurologie et de Neuropsychologie, AP-HM, Marseille; Univ. Angers (C.A.), UPRES EA 4638, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, Département de Gériatrie, CHU d’Angers, Angers; Univ. Lyon (P.K.-S.), Inserm U1028, CNRS UMR5292, Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences de Lyon, Centre Mémoire Ressource et Recherche de Lyon (CMRR), Hôpital des Charpennes, Hospices Civils de Lyon; Univ. Picardie (O.G.), UR UPJV4559, Laboratoire de Neurosciences Fonctionnelles et Pathologies, Service de Neurologie, CHU Amiens; Univ. Normandie (D.W.), UNIROUEN, Inserm U1245, Departement de Neurologie, CNR-MAJ, CHU de Rouen; Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche Grenoble Arc Alpin (M.S.), Pôle de Psychiatrie et Neurologie, CHU Grenoble Alpes; CHU de Nantes (C.B.-B.), Département de Neurologie, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et Recherche, Nantes; Univ. Bordeaux (I.B.-M.), CNRS UMR 5536, Centre de Résonance Magnétique des Systèmes Biologiques, Pôle de Gérontologie Clinique, CHU de Bordeaux; and Univ. Clermont Auvergne (I.J.), CNRS, CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Centre Mémoire de Ressources et de Recherche, Service de Psychiatrie de L’Adulte A et Psychologie Médicale, Clermont Auvergne INP, Institut Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand.
                Author notes
                Correspondence Dr. Planche vincent.planche@ 123456u-bordeaux.fr

                Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.

                [*]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                The Article Processing Charge was funded by the authors.

                Submitted and externally peer reviewed. The handling editors were Brad Worrall, MD, MSc, FAAN, and Andrea Schneider, MD, PhD.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3713-227X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9880-9788
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6714-3247
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1363-0143
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7199-8109
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7022
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6789-6620
                Article
                WNL-2022-201341 00000
                10.1212/WNL.0000000000201479
                9931079
                36261295
                185183ff-cd7c-4053-bc8a-107f4b52739c
                Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Neurology.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND), which permits downloading and sharing the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.

                History
                : 16 May 2022
                : 13 September 2022
                Categories
                26
                39
                54
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                ONLINE-ONLY

                Comments

                Comment on this article