Alzheimer's & dementia (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
Evaluation of plasma neurofilament and glial fibrillary acidic protein to predict or detect amyloid related imaging abnormalities.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schwartz Nicholas U, Ellingson Tara, Nguyen Hong, Lin Zoe, Ashton Nicholas J, Dage Jeffrey L, Deniz Kaancan, Dietz Connor D, Ljubenkov Peter A, Miller Bruce L, Nael Kambiz, Possin Katherine, Rojas Julio C, Rosen Howie J, Saloner Rowan, Soleimani-Meigooni David N, Staffaroni Adam M, Stephens Melanie L, Tammewar Gautam, Wang Yingbing, La Joie Renaud, Rabinovici Gil D, Boxer Adam L, VandeVrede Lawren
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Amyloid-targeting therapies (ATT) require frequent magnetic resonance imaging monitoring to detect vasogenic edema and hemorrhage, i.e., amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) are potential blood-based biomarkers (BBM) of ARIA.
METHODS: Plasma NfL and GFAP were longitudinally collected in an ATT clinic and natural log transformed. Baseline, pre-ARIA, and trajectories were compared between patients with (N = 15) and without (N = 45) ARIA.
RESULTS: Baseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.77; ln[NfL] Simoa 2.87 ± 0.47 pg/mL vs 2.98 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.30, ln[GFAP] ECLIA 4.95 ± 0.36 pg/mL vs 4.88 ± 0.47 pg/mL, p = 0.69). No significant changes were seen at the timepoint preceding ARIA, and ARIA incidence made no detectable impact on biomarker trajectories.
DISCUSSION: Biobanking in treatment clinics can evaluate clinical utility of BBMs as monitoring tools. These findings do not support a strong association between NfL or GFAP and ARIA in the ATT clinic.
METHODS: Plasma NfL and GFAP were longitudinally collected in an ATT clinic and natural log transformed. Baseline, pre-ARIA, and trajectories were compared between patients with (N = 15) and without (N = 45) ARIA.
RESULTS: Baseline NfL and GFAP did not differ between patients with or without ARIA (ln[NfL] ECLIA 1.24 ± 0.38 pg/mL vs 1.25 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.77; ln[NfL] Simoa 2.87 ± 0.47 pg/mL vs 2.98 ± 0.40 pg/mL, p = 0.30, ln[GFAP] ECLIA 4.95 ± 0.36 pg/mL vs 4.88 ± 0.47 pg/mL, p = 0.69). No significant changes were seen at the timepoint preceding ARIA, and ARIA incidence made no detectable impact on biomarker trajectories.
DISCUSSION: Biobanking in treatment clinics can evaluate clinical utility of BBMs as monitoring tools. These findings do not support a strong association between NfL or GFAP and ARIA in the ATT clinic.