IntroductionThe cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers amyloid-β (Aβ), tau and phosphorylated tau (p-tau181) are now used for the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Aβ40 is the most abundant Aβ peptide isoform in the CSF, and the Aβ 42/40 ratio has been proposed to better reflect brain amyloid production. However, its additional value in the clinical setting remains uncertain.MethodsA total of 367 subjects with cognitive disorders who underwent a lumbar puncture were prospectively included at three French memory centers (Paris-North, Lille and Montpellier; the PLM Study). The frequency of positive, negative and indeterminate CSF profiles were assessed by various methods, and their adequacies with the diagnosis of clinicians were tested using net reclassification improvement (NRI) analyses.ResultsOn the basis of local optimum cutoffs for Aβ42 and p-tau181, 22% of the explored patients had indeterminate CSF profiles. The systematic use of Aβ 42/40 ratio instead of Aβ42 levels alone decreased the number of indeterminate profiles (17%; P = 0.03), but it failed to improve the classification of subjects (NRI = −2.1%; P = 0.64). In contrast, the use of Aβ 42/40 ratio instead of Aβ42 levels alone in patients with a discrepancy between p-tau181 and Aβ42 led to a reduction by half of the number of indeterminate profiles (10%; P < 0.001) and was further in agreement with clinician diagnosis (NRI = 10.5%; P = 0.003).ConclusionsIn patients with a discrepancy between CSF p-tau181 and CSF Aβ42, the assessment of Aβ 42/40 ratio led to a reliable biological conclusion in over 50% of cases that agreed with a clinician’s diagnosis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13195-015-0114-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesNew diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) include cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers that allow diagnosis at the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, the impact of CSF biomarkers in MCI populations in clinical practice has been poorly evaluated. The objective of this study is to assess the use and impact in clinical practice of AD CSF biomarkers in French memory clinics.DesignWe performed a nation-wide, prospective survey between March 2012 and September 2014. Data over the same period was extracted from the French National Database (Banque Nationale Alzheimer, BNA) and compared with the results of the survey.Setting29 secondary and tertiary memory clinics in France.ParticipantsClinicians prescribing lumbar puncture (LP) in order to measure AD CSF biomarkers. Clinicians completed a two-part questionnaire for each of their patients undergoing LP.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAssessment of diagnosis, level of confidence before and after CSF biomarkers and impact on management in patients who underwent LP for CSF AD biomarkers in clinical routine.Results977 questionnaires were completed, of which 61 were excluded because of unknown initial/final diagnosis or non-contributory CSF results. Of 916 patients reported, 153 (16.7%) had MCI as the initial diagnosis, of which 51 (33.3%) displayed an AD profile. CSF biomarkers resulted in a change in diagnosis in 44 patients (28.8%). Confidence level significantly increased after LP (8.3±1.4vs 6.73±1.18, p<0.0001), and CSF results modified management in 71/156 patients (46.4%), including 36 (23.5%) enrolled in clinical trials. Comparison of change in diagnosis with the BNA population revealed no difference (32.24%, p=0.4).ConclusionThis nation-wide survey, reflecting clinical practice in French memory clinics, describes the impact of CSF AD biomarkers in patients with MCI in clinical practice.

Introduction:The current practice of quantifying cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers as an aid in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) varies from center to center. For a same biochemical profile, interpretation and reporting of results may differ, which can lead to misunderstandings and raises questions about the commutability of tests. Methods:We obtained a description of (pre-)analytical protocols and sample reports from 40 centers worldwide. A consensus approach allowed us to propose harmonized comments corresponding to the different CSF biomarker profiles observed in patients. Results:The (pre-)analytical procedures were similar between centers. There was considerable heterogeneity in cutoff definitions and report comments. We therefore identified and selected by consensus the most accurate and informative comments regarding the interpretation of CSF biomarkers in the context of AD diagnosis.Discussion: This is the first time that harmonized reports are proposed across worldwide specialized laboratories involved in the biochemical diagnosis of AD.