Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) covers a spectrum of neurodegenerative disorders with different phenotypes, genetic backgrounds, and pathological states. Its clinicopathological diversity challenges the diagnostic process and the execution of clinical trials, calling for specific diagnostic biomarkers of pathologic FTD types. There is also a need for biomarkers that facilitate disease staging, quantification of severity, monitoring in clinics and observational studies, and for evaluation of target engagement and treatment response in clinical trials. This review discusses current FTD biofluid‐based biomarker knowledge taking into account the differing applications. The limitations, knowledge gaps, and challenges for the development and implementation of such markers are also examined. Strategies to overcome these hurdles are proposed, including the technologies available, patient cohorts, and collaborative research initiatives. Access to robust and reliable biomarkers that define the exact underlying pathophysiological FTD process will meet the needs for specific diagnosis, disease quantitation, clinical monitoring, and treatment development.

Background: Reliable, widely accessible and affordable biomarkers for predicting Alzheimer’s disease (AD) brain pathology status are a necessity to aid development of prevention strategies in cognitively healthy at-risk older adults, at the right timepoint. Measurements of the key neuropathological hallmark beta-amyloid (Aβ) by PET neuroimaging or cerebrospinal fluid measures reflect its accumulation in the brain, yet recent methodological advancements now enable blood-based measures reflecting cerebral amyloid burden. Objectives: The current study validated the capacity of plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 measured using six different assays to predict amyloid positivity in a subgroup of cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants in the ADNI study and assessed its ability to discriminate CU from AD cases. We also explored economic viability of using two different plasma amyloid assays for pre-screening in AD prevention trials and as routine clinical diagnostic tool, versus amyloid PET alone. Design: A cross-sectional analysis of plasma and brain amyloid data, including comparative cost analysis of the plasma biomarkers in relation to brain amyloid PET. Setting: Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Participants: ADNI participants consisting of 115 CU, mild cognitive impairment and AD cases who had plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 measured with six platforms. Measurements: Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 was measured via six different platforms: three immunoassays (Roche, Quanterix and ADx Neurosciences) and three mass spectrometry (MS) based assays (WashU, Shimadzu and Gothenburg). Aβ-PET imaging was conducted within three months of plasma sampling using [18F]florbetapir. Results: There was a weak to moderate correlation of plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 ratio between platforms. The MS-based WashU test had the highest capacity to discriminate between CU and AD (area under the curve, AUC = 0.734, 95% CI: 0.613-0.854; P = 0.008). Within the CU group, the WashU plasma amyloid test had the best discriminative capacity to distinguish Aβ+ from Aβ– (AUC = 0.753, 95% CI: 0.601-0.905; P = 0.003) closely followed by the immunoassay from Roche (AUC = 0.737, 95% CI: 0.597-0.877; P = 0.006). The exploratory economic analyses showed that the use of Roche or WashU plasma amyloid assay as a pre-screening tool prior to Aβ-PET scans for clinical trial recruitment significantly reduced total screening cost (saving up to $5882 per recruited patient) expected in an AD prevention trial. Conclusions: With few available treatment strategies, dementia prevention is a global priority. CU individuals at risk for AD are the target population for dementia prevention but have been poorly studied. Our findings confirming diagnostic value of ultrasensitive immunoassays and high-performance immunoprecipitation coupled with MS for measurement of plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 to detect PET amyloid positivity in CU participants allude to potential clinical utility of this biomarker. Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 could be optimal for pre-selecting at-risk candidates for more invasive and expensive investigations across AD prevention clinical trials and clinical care for a rapidly ageing population.

Since developing an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) has been encountered as a challenging task, attempts to prevent cognitive decline by lifestyle modifications have become increasingly appealing. Physical exercise, healthy diet, and cognitive training are all modifiable, non-pharmacological lifestyle factors considered to influence cognitive health. Implementing lifestyle modifications on animal models of AD and cognitive impairment may reveal underlying mechanisms of action by which healthy lifestyle contribute to brain health. In mice, different types of lifestyle interventions have been shown to improve cognitive abilities, alleviate AD-related pathology and neuroinflammation, restore mitochondrial function, and have a positive impact on neurogenesis and cell survival. Different proteins and pathways have been identified to mediate some of the responses, amongst them BDNF, Akt–GSK3β, JNK, and ROCK pathway. Although some important pathways have been identified as mediating improvements in brain health, more research is needed to confirm these mechanisms of action and to improve the understanding of their interplay. Moreover, multidomain lifestyle interventions targeting multiple risk factors simultaneously may be a promising avenue in future dementia prevention strategies. Therefore, future work is needed to better understand the synergistic impact of combinatory lifestyle strategies on cellular mechanisms and brain health.