4.7 Review

Transitioning from cerebrospinal fluid to blood tests to facilitate diagnosis and disease monitoring in Alzheimer's disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 290, Issue 3, Pages 583-601

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/joim.13332

Keywords

Alzheimer's disease; Blood; Cerebrospinal fluid; Diagnosis; Disease monitoring; Fluid biomarkers

Funding

  1. UK Dementia Research Institute at UCL
  2. Alzheimer's Society Clinical Research Training Fellowship [AS-CTF-18-001]
  3. Rosetrees Trust
  4. National Institute for Health Research
  5. Medical Research Council
  6. Alzheimer's Association
  7. Swedish Research Council [2017-00915, 2018-02532]
  8. Alzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA [RDAPB-201809-2016615]
  9. Swedish Alzheimer Foundation [AF-742881]
  10. Hjarnfonden, Sweden [FO2017-0243]
  11. Swedish government [ALFGBG-715986]
  12. European Union Joint Programme for Neurodegenerative Disorders [JPND2019-466-236]
  13. National Institute of Health (NIH), USA [1R01AG068398-01]
  14. European Research Council [681712]
  15. Swedish State Support for Clinical Research [ALFGBG720931]
  16. Alzheimer Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF), USA [201809-2016862]
  17. AD Strategic Fund
  18. Alzheimer's Association [ADSF-21-831376-C, ADSF-21-831381-C, ADSF-21-831377-C]
  19. Olav Thon Foundation
  20. Erling-Persson Family Foundation
  21. Stiftelsen for Gamla Tjanarinnor, Hjarnfonden, Sweden [FO2019-0228]
  22. European Union [860197]
  23. International Journal of Experimental Pathology
  24. University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre
  25. MRC [UKDRI-1001] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Alzheimer's disease is increasingly prevalent worldwide, with a need for earlier and more secure diagnosis techniques. Current biomarker-based guidelines for AD diagnosis heavily rely on neuroimaging and CSF sampling, while blood-based biomarkers show potential for more accessible and cost-effective testing. Plasma neurofilament light chain and phosphorylated tau exhibit promise, but further comparisons are needed for p-tau to differentiate AD from non-AD dementias reliably. Plasma amyloid beta could serve as an early screening tool, but requires precise tests and robust pre-analytical protocols.
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. While 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available