Biomarkers and the diagnosis of preclinical dementia

Metabolomics and Risk of Dementia: A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

BACKGROUND

The projected increase in the prevalence of dementia has sparked interest in understanding the pathophysiology and underlying causal factors in its development and progression. Identifying novel biomarkers in the preclinical or prodromal phase of dementia may be important for predicting early disease risk. Applying metabolomic techniques to prediagnostic samples in prospective studies provides the opportunity to identify potential disease biomarkers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on the associations between metabolite markers and risk of dementia and related dementia subtypes in human studies with a prospective design.

DESIGN

We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science databases from inception through December 8, 2023. Thirteen studies (mean/median follow-up years: 2.1-21.0 y) were included in the review.

RESULTS

Several metabolites detected in biological samples, including amino acids, fatty acids, acylcarnitines, lipid and lipoprotein variations, hormones, and other related metabolites, were associated with risk of developing dementia. Our systematic review summarized the adjusted associations between metabolites and dementia risk; however, our findings should be interpreted with caution because of the heterogeneity across the included studies and potential sources of bias. Further studies are warranted with well-designed prospective cohort studies that have defined study populations, longer follow-up durations, the inclusion of additional diverse biological samples, standardization of techniques in metabolomics and ascertainment methods for diagnosing dementia, and inclusion of other related dementia subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the limited systematic reviews on metabolomics and dementia by summarizing the prospective associations between metabolites in prediagnostic biological samples with dementia risk. Our review discovered additional metabolite markers associated with the onset of developing dementia and may help aid in the understanding of dementia etiology. The protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; registration ID: CRD42022357521).

Diagnostic Accuracy of Blood-Based Biomarker Panels: A Systematic Review

Background

Because of high prevalence of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is an urgent need for inexpensive and minimally invasive diagnostic tests to detect biomarkers in the earliest and asymptomatic stages of the disease. Blood-based biomarkers are predicted to have the most impact for use as a screening tool and predict the onset of AD, especially in LMICs. Furthermore, it has been suggested that panels of markers may perform better than single protein candidates.

Methods

Medline/Pubmed was searched to identify current relevant studies published from January 2016 to December 2020. We included all full-text articles examining blood-based biomarkers as a set of protein markers or panels to aid in AD's early diagnosis, prognosis, and characterization.

Results

Seventy-six articles met the inclusion criteria for systematic review. Majority of the studies reported plasma and serum as the main source for biomarker determination in blood. Protein-based biomarker panels were reported to aid in AD diagnosis and prognosis with better accuracy than individual biomarkers. Conventional (amyloid-beta and tau) and neuroinflammatory biomarkers, such as amyloid beta-42, amyloid beta-40, total tau, phosphorylated tau-181, and other tau isoforms, were the most represented. We found the combination of amyloid beta-42/amyloid beta-40 ratio and APOEε4 status to be most represented with high accuracy for predicting amyloid beta-positron emission tomography status.

Conclusion

Assessment of Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in blood as a non-invasive and cost-effective alternative will potentially contribute to early diagnosis and improvement of therapeutic interventions. Given the heterogeneous nature of AD, combination of markers seems to perform better in the diagnosis and prognosis of the disease than individual biomarkers.

Ethical aspects of facilitating the recruitment of people with dementia for clinical trials: A call for further debate

Under-representation of people with dementia in clinical research remains a significant obstacle to develop evidence-based practice guidelines and recommendation for dementia care and slows down the development of disease-modifying pharmacological interventions. This is partly due to the ethical challenges and complexities of recruiting people with dementia for clinical trials. The traditional approach adopted by research ethics committees and regulatory bodies has been to protect people with dementia as a vulnerable population from harms of participating in research. There are concerns that this approach is unduly rigid, precludes the conduct of necessary research, and has exclusionary, paternalistic and discriminatory ramifications. As such, there are increasing calls to shift to a new hybrid facilitative/protective approach. This paper identifies 4 strategies to operationalise the facilitative/protective approach in the context of dementia research. These are: (i) embedding dementia research in clinical care; (ii) increasing the recruitment of people at preclinical stages of dementia; (iii) streamlined proxy consent procedures; and (iv) advance research consent. I note that all 4 strategies hold the promise of facilitating the recruitment of people with dementia in clinical research. Nonetheless, they give rise to a diverse range of new ethical concerns and issues. This necessitates further scholarly work to explore possible ways to address the ethical concerns and issues arisen by the uptake of protective/facilitative approach. In particular, further research is necessary to clarify, to what extent, the said strategies ameliorate or increase the vulnerability of people with dementia.

Novel fluid biomarkers to differentiate frontotemporal dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies from Alzheimer's disease: A systematic review

RATIONALE

Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) are two common forms of neurodegenerative dementia, subsequent to Alzheimer's disease (AD). AD is the only dementia that includes clinically validated cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers in the diagnostic criteria. FTD and DLB often overlap with AD in their clinical and pathological features, making it challenging to differentiate between these conditions.

AIM

This systematic review aimed to identify if novel fluid biomarkers are useful in differentiating FTD and DLB from AD. Increasing the certainty of the differentiation between dementia subtypes would be advantageous clinically and in research.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies that quantified and assessed diagnostic accuracy of novel fluid biomarkers in clinically diagnosed patients with FTD or DLB, in comparison to patients with AD. Meta-analyses were performed on biomarkers that were quantified in 3 studies or more.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 614 results, from which, 27 studies were included. When comparing bio-fluid levels in AD and FTD patients, neurofilament light chain (NfL) level was often higher in FTD, whilst brain soluble amyloid precursor protein β (sAPPβ) was higher in patients with AD. When comparing bio-fluid levels in AD and DLB patients, α-synuclein ensued heterogeneous findings, while the noradrenaline metabolite (MHPG) was found to be lower in DLB. Ratios of Aβ42/Aβ38 and Aβ42/Aβ40 were lower in AD than FTD and DLB and offered better diagnostic accuracy than raw amyloid-β (Aβ) concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

Several promising novel biomarkers were highlighted in this review. Combinations of fluid biomarkers were more often useful than individual biomarkers in distinguishing subtypes of dementia. Considering the heterogeneity in methods and results between the studies, further validation, ideally with longitudinal prospective designs with large sample sizes and unified protocols, are fundamental before conclusions can be finalised.