Home › Research › Biomarkers
Comparison of plasma and neuroimaging biomarkers to predict cognitive decline in non-demented memory clinic patients
Mendes AJ, Ribaldi F, Lathuiliere A, Ashton NJ, Zetterberg H, Abramowicz M, Scheffler M, Assal F et al.. Alzheimer's research & therapy, 2024-05-16
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background Plasma biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology, neurodegeneration, and neuroinflammation are ideally suited for secondary prevention programs in self-sufficient persons at-risk of dementia. Plasma biomarkers have been shown to be highly correlated with traditional imaging biomarkers. However, their comparative predictive value versus traditional AD biomarkers is still unclear in cognitively unimpaired (CU) subjects and with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods Plasma (Aβ42/40, p-tau181, p-tau231, NfL, and GFAP) and neuroimaging (hippocampal volume, centiloid of amyloid-PET, and tau-SUVR of tau-PET) biomarkers were assessed at baseline in 218 non-demented subjects (CU = 140; MCI = 78) from the Geneva Memory Center. Global cognition (MMSE) was evaluated at baseline and at follow-ups up to 5.7 years. We used linear mixed-effects models and Cox proportional-hazards regression to assess the association between biomarkers and cognitive decline. Lastly, sample size calculations using the linear mixed-effects models were performed on subjects positive for amyloid-PET combined with tau-PET and plasma biomarker positivity. Results Cognitive decline was significantly predicted in MCI by baseline plasma NfL (β=-0.55), GFAP (β=-0.36), hippocampal volume (β = 0.44), centiloid (β=-0.38), and tau-SUVR (β=-0.66) (all p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis with amyloid-positive MCI participants also showed that only NfL and GFAP were the only significant predictors of cognitive decline among plasma biomarkers. Overall, NfL and tau-SUVR showed the highest prognostic values (hazard ratios of 7.3 and 5.9). Lastly, we demonstrated that adding NfL to the inclusion criteria could reduce the sample sizes of future AD clinical trials by up to one-fourth in subjects with amyloid-PET positivity or by half in subjects with amyloid-PET and tau-PET positivity. Conclusions Plasma NfL and GFAP predict cognitive decline in a similar manner to traditional imaging techniques in amyloid-positive MCI patients. Hence, even though they are non-specific biomarkers of AD, both can be implemented in memory clinic workups as important prognostic biomarkers. Likewise, future clinical trials might employ plasma biomarkers as additional inclusion criteria to stratify patients at higher risk of cognitive decline to reduce sample sizes and enhance effectiveness.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mendes, A. J., Ribaldi, F., Lathuiliere, A., Ashton, N. J., Zetterberg, H., Abramowicz, M., et al. (2024). Comparison of plasma and neuroimaging biomarkers to predict cognitive decline in non-demented memory clinic patients. Alzheimer's research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01478-9
Vancouver
Mendes AJ, Ribaldi F, Lathuiliere A, Ashton NJ, Zetterberg H, Abramowicz M, et al. Comparison of plasma and neuroimaging biomarkers to predict cognitive decline in non-demented memory clinic patients. Alzheimer's research & therapy. 2024. doi:10.1186/s13195-024-01478-9. PMID: 38755703.
BibTeX
@article{mendes2024-38755703,
author = {Mendes, A. J. and Ribaldi, F. and Lathuiliere, A. and Ashton, N. J. and Zetterberg, H. and Abramowicz, M. and Scheffler, M. and Assal, F. and others},
title = {{Comparison of plasma and neuroimaging biomarkers to predict cognitive decline in non-demented memory clinic patients}},
journal = {Alzheimer's research \& therapy},
year = {2024},
doi = {10.1186/s13195-024-01478-9},
pmid = {38755703},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13195-024-01478-9}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- However, their comparative predictive value versus traditional AD biomarkers is still unclear in cognitively unimpaired (CU) subjects and with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
- Results Cognitive decline was significantly predicted in MCI by baseline plasma NfL (β=-0.55), GFAP (β=-0.36), hippocampal volume (β = 0.44), centiloid (β=-0.38), and tau-SUVR (β=-0.66) (all p < 0.05).
- Subgroup analysis with amyloid-positive MCI participants also showed that only NfL and GFAP were the only significant predictors of cognitive decline among plasma biomarkers.
- Overall, NfL and tau-SUVR showed the highest prognostic values (hazard ratios of 7.3 and 5.9).
- Lastly, we demonstrated that adding NfL to the inclusion criteria could reduce the sample sizes of future AD clinical trials by up to one-fourth in subjects with amyloid-PET positivity or by half in subjects with amyloid-PET and tau-PET positivity.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 45/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Alzheimer's research & therapy) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 4 / 5 | 2024 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 38755703) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 26 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100. |
| Total | 45 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.