Alzheimer's disease biomarker utilization at first referral enhances differential diagnostic precision with simultaneous exclusion of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Most suspected Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) cases are eventually diagnosed with other disorders. We assessed the utility of investigating Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers and neurofilament light (NfL) in patients when CJD is suspected. The study cohort consisted of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples referred for CJD biomarker screening wherein amyloid beta 1-42 (Aβ1-42), phosphorylated tau 181 (p-tau181), and total tau (t-tau) could be assessed via Elecsys immunoassays (n = 419) and NfL via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA; n = 161). In the non-CJD sub cohort (n = 371), 59% (219/371) had A+T- (abnormal Aβ1-42 only) and 21% (79/371) returned A+T+ (abnormal Aβ1-42 and p-tau181). In the 48 CJD subjects, a similar AD biomarker profile distribution was observed. To partially address the prevalence of likely pre-symptomatic AD, NfL was utilized to assess for neuronal damage. NfL was abnormal in 76% (25/33) of A+T- subjects 40 to 69 years of age, 80% (20/25) of whom had normal t-tau. This study reinforces AD as an important differential diagnosis of suspected CJD, highlighting that incorporating AD biomarkers and NfL at initial testing is worthwhile.

An accurate fully automated panel of plasma biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease

INTRODUCTION

There is a great need for fully automated plasma assays that can measure amyloid beta (Aβ) pathology and predict future Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia.

METHODS

Two cohorts (n = 920) were examined: Panel A+ (n = 32 cognitively unimpaired [CU], n = 106 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and n = 89 AD) and BioFINDER-1 (n = 461 CU, n = 232 MCI). Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181, two p-tau217 variants, ApoE4 protein, neurofilament light, and GFAP were measured using Elecsys prototype immunoassays.

RESULTS

The best biomarker for discriminating Aβ-positive versus Aβ-negative participants was Aβ42/Aβ40 (are under the curve [AUC] 0.83-0.87). Combining Aβ42/Aβ40, p-tau181, and ApoE4 improved the AUCs significantly (0.90 to 0.93; P< 0.01). Adding additional biomarkers had marginal effects (ΔAUC ≤0.01). In BioFINDER, p-tau181, p-tau217, and ApoE4 predicted AD dementia within 6 years in CU (AUC 0.88) and p-tau181, p-tau217, and Aβ42/Aβ40 in MCI (AUC 0.87).

DISCUSSION

The high accuracies for Aβ pathology and future AD dementia using fully automated instruments are promising for implementing plasma biomarkers in clinical trials and clinical routine.

Diagnostic performance of CSF biomarkers in a well-characterized Australian cohort of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

The most frequently utilized biomarkers to support a pre-mortem clinical diagnosis of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (sCJD) include concentrations of the 14-3-3 and total tau (T-tau) proteins, as well as the application of protein amplification techniques, such as the real time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) assay, in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Utilizing CSF from a cohort of neuropathologically confirmed (definite) sCJD (n = 50) and non-CJD controls (n = 48), we established the optimal cutpoints for the fully automated Roche Elecsys^® immunoassay for T-tau and the CircuLexTM 14-3-3 Gamma ELISA and compared these to T-tau protein measured using a commercially available assay (INNOTEST hTAU Ag) and 14-3-3 protein detection by western immunoblot (WB). These CSF specimens were also assessed for presence of misfolded prion protein using the RT-QuIC assay. T-tau showed similar diagnostic performance irrespective of the assay utilized, with ~90% sensitivity and specificity. The 14-3-3 protein detection by western blot (WB) has 87.5% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity. The 14-3-3 ELISA demonstrated 81.3% sensitivity and 84.4% specificity. RT-QuIC was the single best performing assay, with a sensitivity of 92.7% and 100% specificity. Our study indicates that a combination of all three CSF biomarkers increases sensitivity and offers the best chance of case detection pre-mortem. Only a single sCJD case in our cohort was negative across the three biomarkers, emphasizing the value of autopsy brain examination on all suspected CJD cases to ensure maximal case ascertainment.

Utility of Roche Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 S in ascertaining post-vaccine neutralizing antibodies

With widespread global COVID-19 vaccine coverage, a scalable, cost-effective, and standardized tool to ascertain post-vaccine immunity is a dire need. Neither clinical evaluations of vaccine efficacy, nor live virus antibody neutralization assays fulfill these criteria. Commercially available anti-S binding immunological assays have the potential to fill this gap, but need to be systematically evaluated for their utility to serve as surrogates for the aforementioned, widely accepted tools of determining vaccine efficacy. In this study, we evaluated an anti-S binding immunological assay (Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S) by utilizing two hundred and fifty-five archived serum specimens, either pre-pandemic, or those exposed to natural infections or vaccines with their neutralizing titers pre-determined through a live virus, pseudotyped antibody neutralization assay. Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S demonstrated good sensitivity (98%) and specificity (99%), just as has been reported in some other previously conducted studies using this assay. Only a mild correlation, however, with the live virus pseudotyped lentivirus antibody neutralization assay (Spearman's r = 0.26) was observed. We conclude that, as such, Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S has a high sensitivity and specificity for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 S proteins, though the assay does not always correlate well with live virus assays for quantitative outcomes.

Robustness of CSF Aβ42/40 and Aβ42/P-tau181 measured using fully automated immunoassays to detect AD-related outcomes

INTRODUCTION

This study investigated the comparability of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cutoffs for Elecsys immunoassays for amyloid beta (Aβ)42/Aβ40 or Aβ42/phosphorylated tau (p-tau)181 and the effects of measurement variability when predicting Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related outcomes (i.e., Aβ-positron emission tomography [PET] visual read and AD neuropathology).

METHODS

We studied 750 participants (BioFINDER study, Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative [ADNI], and University of California San Francisco [UCSF]). Youden's index was used to identify cutoffs and to calculate accuracy (Aβ-PET visual read as outcome). Using longitudinal variability in Aβ-negative controls, we identified a gray zone around cut-points where the risk of an inconsistent predicted outcome was >5%.

RESULTS

For Aβ42/Aβ40, cutoffs across cohorts were <0.059 (BioFINDER), <0.057 (ADNI), and <0.058 (UCSF). For Aβ42/p-tau181, cutoffs were <41.90 (BioFINDER), <39.20 (ADNI), and <46.02 (UCSF). Accuracy was ≈90% for both Aβ42/Aβ40 and Aβ42/p-tau181 using these cutoffs. Using Aβ-PET as an outcome, 8.7% of participants fell within a gray zone interval for Aβ42/Aβ40, compared to 4.5% for Aβ42/p-tau181. Similar findings were observed using a measure of overall AD neuropathologic change (7.7% vs. 3.3%). In a subset with CSF and plasma Aβ42/40, the number of individuals within the gray zone was ≈1.5 to 3 times greater when using plasma Aβ42/40.

DISCUSSION

CSF Aβ42/p-tau181 was more robust to the effects of measurement variability, suggesting that it may be the preferred Elecsys-based measure in clinical practice and trials.

Comparison of ACCEL ELISA COVID-19 with Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 for Screening of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Although real-time reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), simpler and faster antibody detection tests can be complementary for diagnosis of COVID-19. To manage the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for serologic testing has increased. In this report, the newly developed antibody detection assays ACCEL ELISA COVID-19 (ACCEL) and Elecsys anti-SARS-CoV-2 (Elecsys) were evaluated.

METHODS

Serum samples submitted for routine laboratory testing were analyzed (66 and 161 PCR-positive and PCR-negative samples). After the samples were aliquoted, antibody detection tests were performed using ACCEL and Elecsys assays.

RESULTS

When detection of viral RNA using RT-PCR was set as the reference method for diagnosis of COVID-19, the sensitivity was 83.3% and 75.8, and the specificity was 96.9 and 99.4% in ACCEL and Elecsys, respectively. The true positivity rates of ACCEL and Elecsys assays were 57.1%/42.9%, 57.1%/28.6%, 77.8%/66.7%, and 97.1%/97.1% among the specimens collected ≤3, 4-7, 8-14, and >14 days after symptom onset, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCEL assay showed high sensitivity in samples collected within 7 days after symptom onset. Because many patients are asymptomatic in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the ACCEL assay could be a good screening tool due to high sensitivity in the early stage of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Comparison of IL-6 measurement methods with a special emphasis on COVID-19 patients according to equipment and sample type

Background

Interleukin‐6 (IL‐6) is a multifunctional cytokine associated with various diseases, including coronavirus disease (COVID‐19). Although IL‐6 levels can be assessed using serum samples, use of the AFIAS (Boditech Med Inc.) automated immunoassay analyzer enables quick and simple measurement of IL‐6 levels in both serum and whole blood specimens. This study aimed to assess the correlation between IL‐6 measurements obtained from the AFIAS IL‐6 assay and Elecsys IL‐6 assay (Roche Diagnostics). Additionally, utilization of the AFIAS IL‐6 assay was evaluated.

Methods

The IL‐6 levels from 113 serum samples quantified using two assay systems were evaluated for their degree of correlation. Meanwhile, the linearity, analytical sensitivity, and precision/reproducibility of the AFIAS IL‐6 assay were also assessed.

Results

Quantification of IL‐6 with the AFIAS IL‐6 and Elecsys IL‐6 assays showed excellent agreement (kappa 0.802) and were found to be correlated (y = −0.2781 + 1.068x; 95% confidence interval: 1.007–1.124). AFIAS IL‐6 showed good analytical performances. IL‐6 levels were significantly higher in deceased patients compared to those with non‐complicated disease and those who were intubated (p = 0.002 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Finally, IL‐6 levels more accurately predicted poor prognosis in patients, than did C‐reactive protein (area under the curve, 0.716 vs. 0.634).

Conclusion

The overall analytical performance of the AFIAS assay was comparable to that of the Elecsys IL‐6 assay. In light of the ongoing COVID‐19 pandemic, the AFIAS may be an attractive tool for measuring IL‐6 levels.

P-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios in CSF are equally predictive of amyloid PET status

INTRODUCTION

Measurement of amyloid beta (Aβ40 and Aβ42) and tau (phosphorylated tau [p-tau] and total tau [t-tau]) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) can be utilized to differentiate clinical and preclinical Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD) from other neurodegenerative processes.

METHODS

CSF biomarkers were measured in 150 participants from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging and the Alzheimer's Disease Research Center. P-tau/Aβ42 (Roche Elecsys, Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) and Aβ42/40 (Fujirebio LUMIPULSE) ratios were compared to one another and to amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) classification.

RESULTS

Strong correlation was observed between LUMIPULSE p-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40, as well as Elecsys and LUMIPULSE p-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 (Spearman's ρ = -0.827, -0.858, and 0.960, respectively). Concordance between LUMIPULSE p-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 was 96% and between Elecsys p-tau/Aβ42 and both LUMIPULSE ratios was 97%. All ratios had > 94% overall, positive, and negative percent agreement with amyloid PET classification.

DISCUSSION

These data suggest that p-tau/Aβ42 and Aβ42/40 ratios provide similar clinical information in the assessment of amyloid pathology.

Comparing CSF amyloid-beta biomarker ratios for two automated immunoassays, Elecsys and Lumipulse, with amyloid PET status

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated for two novel automated biomarker assays how cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta (Aβ)1- 42-ratios improved the concordance with amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) positivity compared to Aβ1- 42 alone.

METHODS

We selected 288 individuals from the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort across the Alzheimer's disease clinical spectrum when they had both CSF and amyloid PET visual read available, regardless of diagnosis. CSF Aβ1- 42, phosphorylated tau (p-tau), and total tau (t-tau) were measured with Elecsys and Lumipulse assays, and Aβ1-40 with Lumipulse. CSF cut-points were defined using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) for amyloid PET positivity.

RESULTS

For both Elecsys and Lumipulse the p-tau/Aβ1- 42, Aβ1- 42/Aβ1- 40, and t-tau/Aβ1- 42 ratios showed similarly good concordance with amyloid PET (Elecsys: 93,90,90%; Lumipulse: 94,92,90%) and were higher than Aβ1- 42 alone (Elecsys 85%; Lumipulse 84%).

DISCUSSION

Biomarker ratios p-tau/Aβ1- 42, Aβ1- 42/Aβ1- 40, t-tau/Aβ1- 42 on two automated platforms show similar optimal concordance with amyloid PET in a memory clinic cohort.

Comparison of 2 fully automated tests detecting antibodies against nucleocapsid N and spike S1/S2 proteins in COVID-19

Automated assays for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics have recently come available. We compared the performance of the Elecsys® Anti–SARS-CoV-2 and LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG tests. The seroconversion panel comprised of 120 samples from 13 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. For the sensitivity and specificity testing, samples from COVID-19 outpatients >15 days after positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) result (n = 35) and serum control samples collected before the COVID-19 era (n = 161) were included in the material. Samples for the detection of possible cross-reactions were also tested. Based on our results, the SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be quite reliably detected 2 weeks after NAAT positivity and 3 weeks after the symptom onset with both tests. However, since some COVID-19 patients were positive only with Elecsys®, the antibodies should be screened against N-antigen (Elecsys®) and reactive samples confirmed with S antigen (LIAISON®), but both results should be reported. In some COVID-19 patients, the serology can remain negative.

•

Elecsys® and LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests performed reliably.

•

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies should be confirmed with different antigens to increase accuracy.

•

In some patients, the COVID-19 serology may remain completely negative.

Diagnostic performance of Elecsys immunoassays for cerebrospinal fluid Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in a nonacademic, multicenter memory clinic cohort: The ABIDE project

Introduction

We compared the automated Elecsys and manual Innotest immunoassays for cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in a multicenter diagnostic setting.

Methods

We collected CSF samples from 137 participants in eight local memory clinics. Amyloid β(1–42) (Aβ42), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau (p-tau) were centrally analyzed with Innotest and Elecsys assays. Concordances between methods were assessed.

Results

Biomarker results strongly correlated between assays with Spearman's ρ 0.94 for Aβ42, 0.98 for t-tau, and 0.98 for p-tau. Using Gaussian mixture modeling, cohort-specific cut-points were estimated at 1092 pg/mL for Aβ42, 235 pg/mL for t-tau, and 24 pg/mL for p-tau. We found an excellent concordance of biomarker abnormality between assays of 97% for Aβ42 and 96% for both t-tau and p-tau.

Discussion

The high concordances between Elecsys and Innotest in this nonacademic, multicenter cohort support the use of Elecsys for CSF Alzheimer's disease diagnostics and allow conversion of results between methods.

•

Method comparison of 137 CSF samples collected in eight nonacademic memory clinics.

•

Innotest and Elecsys strongly correlated: ρ = 0.94 Aβ42; 0.98 t-tau; 0.98 p-tau.

•

Concordances of biomarker abnormalities: 97% Aβ42; 96% t-tau and p-tau.

•

Concordance of NIA-AA–based Alzheimer's disease profile (Aβ42 decreased and p-tau increased): 89%.

•

Preanalytical protocol deviations did not show effects on biomarker correlations.

Evaluation of Sensitivity and Specificity Performance of Elecsys HTLV-I/II Assay in a Multicenter Study in Europe and Japan

Screening of blood for human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1 and type 2 (HTLV-1 and -2, respectively) is important to diagnose and prevent infection and ensure the safety of blood supplies. The Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay is a newly developed, electrochemiluminescence screening assay for the detection of HTLV-1/2 infection. The sensitivity and specificity of the Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay were determined using well-characterized HTLV-1/2-positive serum and plasma samples and routine diagnostic and blood donor samples expected to be HTLV negative, respectively. These results were compared with those for at least one of the following CE-marked assays at seven independent laboratories and the Roche Diagnostics facility in Penzberg, Germany: Abbott Architect rHTLV-I/II, Ortho Avioq HTLV-I/II Microelisa system, Abbott Prism HTLV-I/HTLV-II, and DiaSorin Murex HTLV I+II. Fujirebio INNO-LIA HTLV-I/II Score was used as a confirmatory assay. The Elecsys HTLV-I/II, Abbott Architect rHTLV-I/II, and Abbott Prism HTLV-I/HTLV-II assays detected all HTLV-1/2-positive samples (sensitivity, 100%). Sensitivity for Ortho Avioq HTLV-I/II was 98.63%. The Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay had a specificity of 99.95% in blood donor samples, which was comparable to results for the other assays (range, 99.91 to 100%). In routine diagnostic samples, the specificity of the Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay was 99.83%, compared with 99.70% for Abbott Architect rHTLV-I/II. Specificity for the Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay in potentially cross-reactive samples was 100%, compared with 99.0% for Ortho Avioq HTLV-I/II and 99.2% for DiaSorin Murex HTLV I+II. The Elecsys HTLV-I/II assay has the sensitivity and specificity to support its use as a routine screening assay for detecting HTLV infection.

Performance evaluation of two immunoassays for 25-hydroxyvitamin D

Although immunoassays in measuring 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] have been improved recently, relatively large differences are still seen between results of 25(OH)D measured by immunoassays and by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In the present studies, we compared two immunoassays with LC-MS/MS for measuring 25(OH)D concentrations. Concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D₂ [25(OH)D₂] and 25-hydroxyvitamin D₃ [25(OH)D₃] in serum samples from 59 healthy subjects were measured by two immunoassays including Siemens ADVIA Centaur Vitamin D Total (Centaur) and Roche Elecsys Vitamin D Total (Elecsys) and LC-MS/MS. To determine the cross reactivity of Elecsys and Centaur toward 25(OH)D₂, a dosage of 200,000 IU vitamin D₂ was given after first sampling. Serum samples were obtained 30 days later and concentrations of 25(OH)D₂ and 25(OH)D₃ were measured again. The results showed poor agreement between the immunoassays and LC-MS/MS in 25(OH)D₂ and 25(OH)D₃ measurements. The percentage of 25(OH)D₂ cross-reactivity was 45.3% for Centaur and 41.2% for Elecsys and there was no significant difference between Centaur and Elecsys. In conclusion, Centaur and Elecsys perform unsatisfactorily in measuring 25(OH)D levels, especially for 25(OH)D₂ cross-reactivity. Therefore, clinicians need to be aware of the underestimation of vitamin D status when using these immunoassays for measuring individuals supplemented with vitamin D₂.

Comparison of Elecsys Anti-HCV II Assay With Other HCV Screening Assays

OBJECTIVE

Early detection of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is an important step in preventing progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Serologic assays for anti-HCV antibody are valuable first-line tests in the screening and diagnosis of HCV infection. This study's aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay for HCV screening.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1,044 routine sera, 20 known HCV-positive samples, plus 54 preselected weakly positive samples were tested for anti-HCV with Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay, Elecsys Anti-HCV assays, InTec HCV enzymoimmunoassay (EIA), and Livzon Anti-HCV EIA. Interference test was assessed with additional 423 specimens without clinical evidence of HCV infection: preselected HCV weak reactive samples; dialysis samples; anti-HBc (antibody to HBV core antigen) (+), anti-Treponema pallidum (+), and anti-HIV (+) sera; and samples form autoimmune/alcoholic hepatitis or systemic Lupus erythematosus (SLE). Discrepant results were evaluated with recombinant immunoblot assay. The seroconversion panels were evaluated to assess how early each assay could detect HCV infection.

RESULTS

The specificity (99.81%) of the Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay was less than that with the two EIA comparison methods. However, false-negative results were easily seen in the EIA assays. When serial bleeds of HCV panels were compared with the above-mentioned methods, the assay detected acute HCV infection only 3.5 days after a positive HCV-RNA nucleic acid test and earlier than the comparator assays.

CONCLUSION

Sensitivities and specificities of the anti-HCV assays were sufficiently high for use in this study. The Elecsys Anti-HCV II assay is suitable for screening and reliable early detection of HCV infection.