| 1. |
- Alawode, Deborah O T, et al.
(author)
-
Transitioning from cerebrospinal fluid to blood tests to facilitate diagnosis and disease monitoring in Alzheimer's disease.
- 2021
-
In: Journal of internal medicine. - : Wiley. - 1365-2796 .- 0954-6820. ; 290:3, s. 583-601
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Alzheimer's disease (AD) is increasingly prevalent worldwide, and disease-modifying treatments may soon be at hand; hence now, more than ever, there is a need to develop techniques that allow earlier and more secure diagnosis. Current biomarker-based guidelines for AD diagnosis, which have replaced the historical symptom-based guidelines, rely heavily on neuroimaging and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling. Whilst these have greatly improved the diagnostic accuracy of AD pathophysiology, they are less practical for application in primary care, population-based and epidemiological settings, or where resources are limited. In contrast, blood is a more accessible and cost-effective source of biomarkers in AD. In this review paper, using the recently proposed amyloid, tau and neurodegeneration [AT(N)] criteria as a framework towards a biological definition of AD, we discuss recent advances in biofluid-based biomarkers, with a particular emphasis on those with potential to be translated into blood-based biomarkers. We provide an overview of the research conducted both in CSF and in blood to draw conclusions on biomarkers that show promise. Given the evidence collated in this review, plasma neurofilament light chain (N), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau; T) show particular potential for translation into clinical practice. However, p-tau requires more comparisons to be conducted between its various epitopes before conclusions can be made as to which one most robustly differentiates AD from non-AD dementias. Plasma amyloid beta (A) would prove invaluable as an early screening modality, but it requires very precise tests and robust pre-analytical protocols.
|
|
| 2. |
- Banerjee, Gargi, et al.
(author)
-
Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarkers in Cerebral Amyloid Angiopathy.
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. - 1875-8908. ; 74:4, s. 1189-1201
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There is limited data on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in sporadic amyloid-β (Aβ) cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA).To determine the profile of biomarkers relevant to neurodegenerative disease in the CSF of patients with CAA.We performed a detailed comparison of CSF markers, comparing patients with CAA, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and control (CS) participants, recruited from the Biomarkers and Outcomes in CAA (BOCAA) study, and a Specialist Cognitive Disorders Service.We included 10 CAA, 20 AD, and 10 CS participants (mean age 68.6, 62.5, and 62.2 years, respectively). In unadjusted analyses, CAA patients had a distinctive CSF biomarker profile, with significantly lower (p < 0.01) median concentrations of Aβ38, Aβ40, Aβ42, sAβPPα, and sAβPPβ. CAA patients had higher levels of neurofilament light (NFL) than the CS group (p < 0.01), but there were no significant differences in CSF total tau, phospho-tau, soluble TREM2 (sTREM2), or neurogranin concentrations. AD patients had higher total tau, phospho-tau and neurogranin than CS and CAA groups. In age-adjusted analyses, differences for the CAA group remained for Aβ38, Aβ40, Aβ42, and sAβPPβ. Comparing CAA patients with amyloid-PET positive (n = 5) and negative (n = 5) scans, PET positive individuals had lower (p < 0.05) concentrations of CSF Aβ42, and higher total tau, phospho-tau, NFL, and neurogranin concentrations, consistent with an "AD-like" profile.CAA has a characteristic biomarker profile, suggestive of a global, rather than selective, accumulation of amyloid species; we also provide evidence of different phenotypes according to amyloid-PET positivity. Further replication and validation of these preliminary findings in larger cohorts is needed.
|
|
| 3. |
- Keshavan, Ashvini, et al.
(author)
-
CSF biomarkers for dementia.
- 2022
-
In: Practical neurology. - : BMJ. - 1474-7766 .- 1474-7758. ; 22:4, s. 285-294
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Although cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker testing is incorporated into some current guidelines for the diagnosis of dementia (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)), it is not widely accessible for most patients for whom biomarkers could potentially change management. Here we share our experience of running a clinical cognitive CSF service and discuss recent developments in laboratory testing including the use of the CSF amyloid-β 42/40 ratio and automated assay platforms. We highlight the importance of collaborative working between clinicians and laboratory staff, of preanalytical sample handling, and discuss the various factors influencing interpretation of the results in appropriate clinical contexts. We advocate for broadening access to CSF biomarkers by sharing clinical expertise, protocols and interpretation with colleagues working in psychiatry and elderly care, especially when access to CSF may be part of a pathway to disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.
|
|
| 4. |
- Paterson, Ross W, et al.
(author)
-
Cerebrospinal fluid in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: clinical utility of an extended panel of biomarkers in a specialist cognitive clinic
- 2018
-
In: Alzheimer's research & therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1758-9193. ; 10, s. 1-11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are increasingly being used to support a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Their clinical utility for differentiating AD from non-AD neurodegenerative dementias, such as dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), is less well established. We aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of an extended panel of CSF biomarkers to differentiate AD from a range of other neurodegenerative dementias.We used immunoassays to measure conventional CSF markers of amyloid and tau pathology (amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42, total tau (T-tau), and phosphorylated tau (P-tau)) as well as amyloid processing (AβX-38, AβX-40, AβX-42, soluble amyloid precursor protein (sAPP)α, and sAPPβ), large fibre axonal degeneration (neurofilament light chain (NFL)), and neuroinflammation (YKL-40) in 245 patients with a variety of dementias and 30 controls. Patients fulfilled consensus criteria for AD (n = 156), DLB (n = 20), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD; n = 45), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA; n = 17), and semantic dementia (SD; n = 7); approximately 10% were pathology/genetically confirmed (n = 26). Global tests based on generalised least squares regression were used to determine differences between groups. Non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were used to quantify how well each biomarker discriminated AD from each of the other diagnostic groups (or combinations of groups). CSF cut-points for the major biomarkers found to have diagnostic utility were validated using an independent cohort which included causes of AD (n = 104), DLB (n = 5), bvFTD (n = 12), PNFA (n = 3), SD (n = 9), and controls (n = 10).There were significant global differences in Aβ1-42, T-tau, T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratio, P-tau-181, NFL, AβX-42, AβX-42/X-40 ratio, APPα, and APPβ between groups. At a fixed sensitivity of 85%, AβX-42/X-40 could differentiate AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD with specificities of 93%, 85%, and 100%, respectively; for T-tau/Aβ1-42 these specificities were 83%, 70%, and 86%. AβX-42/X-40 had similar or higher specificity than Aβ1-42. No biomarker or ratio could differentiate AD from DLB or PNFA with specificity > 50%. Similar sensitivities and specificities were found in the independent validation cohort for differentiating AD and other dementias and in a pathology/genetically confirmed sub-cohort.CSF AβX-42/X-40 and T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratios have utility in distinguishing AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD. None of the biomarkers tested had good specificity at distinguishing AD from DLB or PNFA.
|
|
| 5. |
- Paterson, Ross W, et al.
(author)
-
Serum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarker profiles in acute SARS-CoV-2-associated neurological syndromes.
- 2021
-
In: Brain communications. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2632-1297. ; 3:3
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Preliminary pathological and biomarker data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection can damage the nervous system. To understand what, where and how damage occurs, we collected serum and CSF from patients with COVID-19 and characterized neurological syndromes involving the PNS and CNS (n = 34). We measured biomarkers of neuronal damage and neuroinflammation, and compared these with non-neurological control groups, which included patients with (n = 94) and without (n = 24) COVID-19. We detected increased concentrations of neurofilament light, a dynamic biomarker of neuronal damage, in the CSF of those with CNS inflammation (encephalitis and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis) [14 800 pg/ml (400, 32 400)], compared to those with encephalopathy [1410 pg/ml (756, 1446)], peripheral syndromes (Guillain-Barré syndrome) [740 pg/ml (507, 881)] and controls [872 pg/ml (654, 1200)]. Serum neurofilament light levels were elevated across patients hospitalized with COVID-19, irrespective of neurological manifestations. There was not the usual close correlation between CSF and serum neurofilament light, suggesting serum neurofilament light elevation in the non-neurological patients may reflect peripheral nerve damage in response to severe illness. We did not find significantly elevated levels of serum neurofilament light in community cases of COVID-19 arguing against significant neurological damage. Glial fibrillary acidic protein, a marker of astrocytic activation, was not elevated in the CSF or serum of any group, suggesting astrocytic activation is not a major mediator of neuronal damage in COVID-19.
|
|
