Blood biomarkers have great potential to advance clinical care and accelerate trials in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Plasma phospho-tau181 (p-tau181) is a promising blood biomarker however, it is unknown if levels increase in presymptomatic AD. Therefore, we investigated the timing of p-tau181 changes using 153 blood samples from 70 individuals in a longitudinal study of familial AD (FAD). Plasma p-tau181 was measured, using an in-house Single molecule array assay. We compared p-tau181 between symptomatic carriers, presymptomatic carriers, and non-carriers, adjusting for age and sex. We examined the relationship between p-tau181 and neurofilament light and estimated years to/from symptom onset (EYO), as well as years to/from actual onset in a symptomatic subgroup. Additionally, we studied associations between p-tau181 and clinical severity, as well testing for differences between genetic subgroups. Twenty-four were presymptomatic carriers (mean baseline EYO-9•6 years) while 27 were non-carriers. Compared with non-carriers, plasma p-tau181 concentration was higher in both symptomatic (p<0•001) and presymptomatic mutation carriers (p<0•001). Plasma p-tau181 showed considerable intra-individual variability but individual values discriminated symptomatic (AUC 0•93 [95% CI 0•85−0•98]) and presymptomatic (EYO ≥-7 years) (AUC 0•86 [95% CI 0•72−0•94]) carriers from non-carriers of the same age and sex. From a fitted model there was evidence (p=0•050) that p-tau181 concentrations were higher in mutation carriers than non-carriers from 16 years prior to estimated symptom onset. Our finding that plasma p-tau181 concentration is increased in symptomatic and presymptomatic FAD suggests potential utility as an easily accessible biomarker of AD pathology.

Background: The panel of fluid-and imaging-based biomarkers available for neurodegenerative disease research is growing and has the potential to close important gaps in research and the clinic. With this growth and increasing use, appropriate implementation and interpretation are paramount. Various biomarkers feature nuanced differences in strengths, limitations, and biases that must be considered when investigating disease etiology and clinical utility. For example, neuropathological investigations of Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis can fall in disagreement with conclusions reached by biomarker-based investigations. Considering the varied strengths, limitations, and biases of different research methodologies and approaches may help harmonize disciplines within the neurodegenerative disease field. Purpose of review: Along with separate review articles covering fluid and imaging biomarkers in this issue of Alzheimer's Research and Therapy, we present the result of a discussion from the 2019 Biomarkers in Neurodegenerative Diseases course at the University College London. Here, we discuss themes of biomarker use in neurodegenerative disease research, commenting on appropriate use, interpretation, and considerations for implementation across different neurodegenerative diseases. We also draw attention to areas where biomarker use can be combined with other disciplines to understand issues of pathophysiology and etiology underlying dementia. Lastly, we highlight novel modalities that have been proposed in the landscape of neurodegenerative disease research and care.

No abstract