A comprehensive head-to-head comparison of key plasma phosphorylated tau 217 biomarker tests
Plasma phosphorylated-tau 217 (p-tau217) is currently the most promising biomarker for reliable detection of Alzheimer's disease pathology. Various p-tau217 assays have been developed, but their relative performance is unclear. We compared key plasma p-tau217 tests using cross-sectional and longitudinal measures of amyloid-β (Aβ)-PET, tau-PET and cognition as outcomes and benchmarked them against CSF biomarker tests. Samples from 998 individuals [mean (range) age 68.5 (20.0-92.5) years, 53% female] from the Swedish BioFINDER-2 cohort, including both cognitively unimpaired and cognitively impaired individuals, were analysed. Plasma p-tau217 was measured with mass spectrometry assays [the ratio between phosphorylated and non-phosphorylated (%p-tau217WashU) and p-tau217WashU] and with immunoassays (p-tau217Lilly, p-tau217Janssen and p-tau217ALZpath). CSF biomarkers included p-tau217Lilly, the US Food and Drug Administration-approved p-tau181/Aβ42Elecsys, and p-tau181Elecsys. All plasma p-tau217 tests exhibited a high ability to detect abnormal Aβ-PET [area under the curve (AUC) range: 0.91-0.96] and tau-PET (AUC range: 0.94-0.97). Plasma %p-tau217WashU had the highest performance, with significantly higher AUCs than all the immunoassays (Pdiff < 0.007). For detecting Aβ-PET status, %p-tau217WashU had an accuracy of 0.93 (immunoassays: 0.83-0.88), sensitivity of 0.91 (immunoassays: 0.84-0.87) and a specificity of 0.94 (immunoassays: 0.85-0.89). Among immunoassays, p-tau217Lilly and plasma p-tau217ALZpath had higher AUCs than plasma p-tau217Janssen for Aβ-PET status (Pdiff < 0.006), and p-tau217Lilly outperformed plasma p-tau217ALZpath for tau-PET status (Pdiff = 0.025). Plasma %p-tau217WashU exhibited stronger associations with all PET load outcomes compared with immunoassays; baseline Aβ-PET load (R2: 0.72; immunoassays: 0.47-0.58; Pdiff < 0.001), baseline tau-PET load (R2: 0.51; immunoassays: 0.38-0.45; Pdiff < 0.001), longitudinal Aβ-PET load (R2: 0.53; immunoassays: 0.31-0.38; Pdiff < 0.001) and longitudinal tau-PET load (R2: 0.50; immunoassays: 0.35-0.43; Pdiff < 0.014). Among immunoassays, plasma p-tau217Lilly was more associated with Aβ-PET load than plasma p-tau217Janssen (Pdiff < 0.020) and with tau-PET load than both plasma p-tau217Janssen and plasma p-tau217ALZpath (all Pdiff < 0.010). Plasma %p-tau217 also correlated more strongly with baseline cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination) than all immunoassays (R2: %p-tau217WashU: 0.33; immunoassays: 0.27-0.30; Pdiff < 0.024). The main results were replicated in an external cohort from Washington University in St Louis (n = 219). Finally, p-tau217NULISA showed similar performance to other immunoassays in subsets of both cohorts. In summary, both mass spectrometry- and immunoassay-based p-tau217 tests generally perform well in identifying Aβ-PET, tau-PET and cognitive abnormalities, but %p-tau217WashU performed significantly better than all the examined immunoassays. Plasma %p-tau217 may be considered as a stand-alone confirmatory test for Alzheimer's disease pathology, whereas some immunoassays might be better suited as triage tests where positive results are confirmed with a second test, which needs to be determined by future reviews incorporating results from multiple cohorts.
Authors
- Tammie L.S. Benzinger (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8114-0552)
- Nicholas James Ashton (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3579-8804)
- Alexa Pichet Binette (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5218-3337)
- Divya Bali (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3178-1586)
- Randall John Bateman (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7729-1702)
- Kaj Blennow (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1890-4193)
- Carlos Cruchaga (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5261-689X)
- Niklas Mattsson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8885-7724)
- Burak Arslan (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7229-3226)
- Anna Orduña Dolado (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8287-0754)
- Oskar Hansson (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8467-7286)
- Gemma Salvadó (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5210-9230)
- Cyrus A. Raji (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9086-0105)
- Gallen Triana‐Baltzer (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0612-1236)
- Nicolas R. Barthélemy (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4937-2860)
- Hartmuth C. Kolb (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-5792)
- Laura Ibáñez (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2381-7059)
- Suzanne E. Schindler (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1680-1465)
- Henrik Zetterberg (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3930-4354)
- Andrew J. Aschenbrenner (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4317-7282)
- Noëlle Warmenhoven
- Jigyasha Timsina (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4794-9187)
- Shorena Janelidze
Institutions
- Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Malmö University (SE)
- King's College London (GB)
- Lund University (SE)
- South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Washington University in St. Louis (US)
- Stavanger University Hospital (NO)
- Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation (HK)
- Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
- Centre for Mental Health (GB)
- Hope Center for Neurological Disorders (US)
- Wallenberg Wood Science Center (SE)
- UK Dementia Research Institute (GB)
- Skåne University Hospital (SE)
- National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery (GB)
- University College London (GB)
- University of Gothenburg (SE)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Brain
- Published
- 2024-10-26
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awae346
- Citations
- 75
- Primary Topic
- Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 28.92