B-025 Evaluation of Bias Between Alzheimer’s Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers Assays and Their Concordance With Amyloid-PET on the Fujirebio Lumipulse and Quanterix Simoa Platforms

Abstract

Abstract Background Blood-based biomarkers (BBBs) are a growing area of study for improving Alzheimer’s disease (AD) clinical evaluation. BBBs have been demonstrated to correlate with AD CSF biomarkers as well as neuroimaging results for assessment of amyloid pathology. Currently BBBs may be used as a screening tool for patient selection in clinical trials, and alongside more well characterized biomarkers like amyloid-PET and CSF markers for evaluation of individuals presenting with cognitive impairment. A comparative study of several AD BBBs assays was performed to assess bias between two platforms, as well as correlation to markers of amyloid pathology. Methods The study included 146 plasma samples from 112 cognitively normal (CN), and 34 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD dementia individuals. Plasma Aβ42, Aβ40, and pTau181 concentrations were obtained using the Fujirebio Lumipulse and Quanterix Simoa immunoassays. Assay comparison between Fujirebio and Quanterix were performed for Aβ42, Aβ40, Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio, pTau181, and pTau181/Aβ42 ratio using Passing-Bablok regression and regression slopes were obtained. Amyloid-PET was performed using Pittsburg Compound B, and a standard uptake value ratio (SUVR) of 1.48 was used to classify amyloid status. In the CN group, 69 were amyloid negative, and 43 were amyloid positive. In the MCI/AD dementia group, 8 were amyloid negative and 26 were amyloid positive. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) was used to determine correlation between assays and correlation of each with Amyloid-PET SUVRs. Results Between Fujirebio (y) and Quanterix (x) assays, measured Aβ42 and Aβ40 concentrations showed a large bias with y = 5.23x − 14.25, and y = 4.42x − 264.87, respectively. A moderate to strong correlation was observed between assays for Aβ42 and Aβ40 with rho values of 0.641 (P < 0.0001), and 0.498 (P < 0.0001), respectively. The ratio of Aβ42/Aβ40 corrected this bias with y = 0.96x + 0.03 and rho = 0.509 (P < 0.0001). pTau181 showed little bias between methods with y = 0.92x + 0.48, and a rho = 0.592 (P < 0.0001). However, the pTau181/Aβ42 ratio showed a large bias driven mostly by differences in the Aβ42 concentrations with y = 0.27x + 0.04 and rho = 0.574 (P < 0.0001). Quanterix assay results correlated with amyloid-PET SUVR yielded rho coefficients of AB42/40 ratio = −0.219 (P = 0.079), pTau181 = 0.380 (P < 0.0001), and pTau181/Aβ42 ratio = 0.466 (P < 0.0001). Fujirebio assay results correlated with amyloid-PET SUVR showed AB42/40 ratio rho = −0.551 (P < 0.0001), pTau181 rho = 0.370 (P < 0.0001), and pTau181/Aβ42 ratio rho = 0.391 (P < 0.0001). Conclusion This study demonstrates that some BBBs methods differ significantly between manufacturers. Little bias was observed between the Aβ42/Aβ40 and pTau181 determinations for the evaluated platforms; however, significant bias was observed in Aβ42, Aβ40, and the pTau181/Aβ42 ratio. The Fujirebio platform demonstrated stronger correlation of the Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio with amyloid-PET SUVR, while Quanterix showed better correlation of the pTau181/Aβ42 ratio. The pTau181 assays showed similar correlation to amyloid-PET SUVR. Bias between assays as well as clinical correlation differences may preclude the generalization of clinical performance of AD BBBs assays between platforms.