Home › Research › Biomarkers
Plasma amyloid-β42/40 and apolipoprotein E for amyloid PET pre-screening in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease
Cullen NC, Janelidze S, Stomrud E, Bateman RJ, Palmqvist S, Hansson O, Mattsson-Carlgren N.. Brain communications, 2023-01-24
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
The extent to which newly developed blood-based biomarkers could reduce screening costs in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease is mostly unexplored. We collected plasma amyloid-β42/40, apolipoprotein E ε4 status and amyloid PET at baseline in 181 cognitively unimpaired participants [the age of 72.9 (5.3) years; 61.9% female; education of 11.9 (3.4) years] from the Swedish BioFINDER-1 study. We tested whether a model predicting amyloid PET status from plasma amyloid-β42/40, apolipoprotein E status and age (combined) reduced cost of recruiting amyloid PET + cognitively unimpaired participants into a theoretical trial. We found that the percentage of cognitively unimpaired participants with an amyloid PET + scan rose from 29% in an unscreened population to 64% [(49, 79); P < 0.0001] when using the biomarker model to screen for high risk for amyloid PET + status. In simulations, plasma screening also resulted in a 54% reduction of the total number of amyloid PET scans required and reduced total recruitment costs by 43% [(31, 56), P < 0.001] compared to no pre-screening when assuming a 16× PET-to-plasma cost ratio. Total savings remained significant when the PET-to-plasma cost ratio was assumed to be 8× or 4×. This suggests that a simple plasma biomarker model could lower recruitment costs in Alzheimer's trials requiring amyloid PET positivity for inclusion.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Cullen, N. C., Janelidze, S., Stomrud, E., Bateman, R. J., Palmqvist, S., Hansson, O., et al. (2023). Plasma amyloid-β42/40 and apolipoprotein E for amyloid PET pre-screening in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease. Brain communications. https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad015
Vancouver
Cullen NC, Janelidze S, Stomrud E, Bateman RJ, Palmqvist S, Hansson O, et al. Plasma amyloid-β42/40 and apolipoprotein E for amyloid PET pre-screening in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease. Brain communications. 2023. doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcad015. PMID: 36926368.
BibTeX
@article{cullen2023-36926368,
author = {Cullen, N. C. and Janelidze, S. and Stomrud, E. and Bateman, R. J. and Palmqvist, S. and Hansson, O. and Mattsson-Carlgren, N.},
title = {{Plasma amyloid-β42/40 and apolipoprotein E for amyloid PET pre-screening in secondary prevention trials of Alzheimer's disease}},
journal = {Brain communications},
year = {2023},
doi = {10.1093/braincomms/fcad015},
pmid = {36926368},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/braincomms/fcad015}
}
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 names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We found that the percentage of cognitively unimpaired participants with an amyloid PET + scan rose from 29% in an unscreened population to 64% [(49, 79); P < 0.0001] when using the biomarker model to screen for high risk for amyloid PET + status.
- In simulations, plasma screening also resulted in a 54% reduction of the total number of amyloid PET scans required and reduced total recruitment costs by 43% [(31, 56), P < 0.001] compared to no pre-screening when assuming a 16× PET-to-plasma cost ratio.
- Total savings remained significant when the PET-to-plasma cost ratio was assumed to be 8× or 4×.
- This suggests that a simple plasma biomarker model could lower recruitment costs in Alzheimer's trials requiring amyloid PET positivity for inclusion.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Blood tests & biomarkers →
Study details
- Effect size61.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomised / 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 multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 50 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Brain communications) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2023 — within 6 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 | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation 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 |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36926368) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 29 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 50 out of 100. |
| Total | 50 / 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 Biomarkers
Also tagged “plasma-amyloid”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “plasma-amyloid”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.