While amyloid-targeting therapies continue to predominate in the Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug development pipeline, there is increasing recognition that to effectively treat the disease it may be necessary to target other mechanisms and pathways as well. In December 2019, The EU/US CTAD Task Force discussed these alternative approaches to disease modification in AD, focusing on tau-targeting therapies, neurotrophin receptor modulation, anti-microbial strategies, and the innate immune response; as well as vascular approaches, aging, and non-pharmacological approaches such as lifestyle intervention strategies, photobiomodulation and neurostimulation. The Task Force proposed a general strategy to accelerate the development of alternative treatment approaches, which would include increased partnerships and collaborations, improved trial designs, and further exploration of combination therapy strategies.

Lecanemab (Leqembi®) is approved in the United States for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD) to be initiated in early AD (mild cognitive impairment [MCI] due to AD or mild AD dementia) with confirmed brain amyloid pathology. Appropriate Use Recommendations (AURs) are intended to help guide the introduction of new therapies into real-world clinical practice. Community dwelling patients with AD differ from those participating in clinical trials. Administration of lecanemab at clinical trial sites by individuals experienced with monoclonal antibody therapy also differs from the community clinic-based administration of lecanemab. These AURs use clinical trial data as well as research and care information regarding AD to help clinicians administer lecanemab with optimal safety and opportunity for effectiveness. Safety and efficacy of lecanemab are known only for patients like those participating in the phase 2 and phase 3 lecanemab trials, and these AURs adhere closely to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the trials. Adverse events may occur with lecanemab including amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA) and infusion reactions. Monitoring guidelines for these events are detailed in this AUR. Most ARIA with lecanemab is asymptomatic, but a few cases are serious or, very rarely, fatal. Microhemorrhages and rare macrohemorrhages may occur in patients receiving lecanemab. Anticoagulation increases the risk of hemorrhage, and the AUR recommends that patients requiring anticoagulants not receive lecanemab until more data regarding this interaction are available. Patients who are apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) gene carriers, especially APOE4 homozygotes, are at higher risk for ARIA, and the AUR recommends APOE genotyping to better inform risk discussions with patients who are lecanemab candidates. Clinician and institutional preparedness are mandatory for use of lecanemab, and protocols for management of serious events should be developed and implemented. Communication between clinicians and therapy candidates or those on therapy is a key element of good clinical practice for the use of lecanemab. Patients and their care partners must understand the potential benefits, the potential harms, and the monitoring requirements for treatment with this agent. Culture-specific communication and building of trust between clinicians and patients are the foundation for successful use of lecanemab.

Timely and accurate diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in clinical practice remains challenging. PET and CSF biomarkers are the most widely used biomarkers to aid diagnosis in clinical research but present limitations for clinical practice (i.e., cost, accessibility). Emerging blood-based markers have the potential to be accurate, cost-effective, and easily accessible for widespread clinical use, and could facilitate timely diagnosis. The EU/US CTAD Task Force met in May 2022 in a virtual meeting to discuss pathways to implementation of blood-based markers in clinical practice. Specifically, the CTAD Task Force assessed: the state-of-art for blood-based markers, the current use of blood-based markers in clinical trials, the potential use of blood-based markers in clinical practice, the current challenges with blood-based markers, and the next steps needed for broader adoption in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Advances in plasma biomarkers to detect Alzheimers disease (AD) biology allows researchers to improve the efficiency of participant recruitment into preclinical trials. Recently, protein levels of plasma amyloid-beta and tau proteins have been shown to be predictive of elevated amyloid in brain. Online registries, such as the Alzheimers Prevention Trials (APT) Webstudy, include and follow participants using remote assessments to facilitate efficient screening and enrollment of large numbers of individuals who may be at higher risk for AD. OBJECTIVES: The AlzMatch Pilot Study investigated the feasibility of recruiting individuals from an online registry for blood sample collection at community-based phlebotomy centers and plasma biomarker quantification to assess an individuals eligibility for AD preclinical trials. DESIGN: Pilot feasibility study with co-primary outcomes. SETTING: This pilot feasibility study included participants from the APT Webstudy, the remote assessment arm of the Trial-ready cohort for Preclinical and Prodromal AD (TRC-PAD) Platform. Novel design included collection of electronic consent, use of community laboratories for plasma collection, mass spectrometry-based biomarker assay, and telephone communication of plasma biomarker screening eligibility. PARTICIPANTS: Participants invited to the AlzMatch pilot feasibility study were active in the APT Webstudy, 50 years of age or older, resided within 50 miles of both a Quest Diagnostics Patient Services Center (a national diagnostic laboratory with convenient locations for sample collection and processing) and one of six TRC-PAD vanguard clinical trial sites, had no self-reported dementia diagnosis, were able to communicate in English and engaged with the APT Webstudy within the prior 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: Primary feasibility outcomes were completion of electronic consent (e-consent) for invited participants and collection of usable blood samples. Additional feasibility outcomes included invitation response rate, plasma biomarker eligibility status (based on amyloid beta-42/40 [Aβ42/40] concentration ratio), ApoE proteotype, and trial inclusion criterion), and completion of telephone contact to learn eligibility to screen for a study. RESULTS: 300 APT Webstudy participants were invited to consent to the AlzMatch study. The AlzMatch e-consent rate was 39% (n=117) (95% CI of 33.5%-44.5%) overall, which was higher than the expected rate of 25%. Similar consent rates were observed across participants based on self-defined sex (41% Female (n=75), 37% Male (n=42)) and race and ethnicity (37% from underrepresented groups (URG) (n=36), 40% not from URG (n=79)). Among those that consented (n=117), plasma was successfully collected from 74% (n=87) (95% CI of 66%-82%), with similar rates across sex (76% Female (n=57), 71% Male (n=30)) and race and ethnicity (75% URG (n=27) and 75% not from URG (n=59)). 60% (n=51) of participants with plasma biomarker results were eligible to screen for future preclinical AD trials. CONCLUSION: Electronic consent of participants through an online registry, blood sample collection at community-based centers, plasma biomarker quantification and reporting, and biomarker assessments for study eligibility were all feasible with similar engagement rates across demographic groups. Although this pilot was a small and selective sample, participants engaged and consented at higher than expected rates. We conclude that collecting blood at community laboratories for biomarker analyses may improve accessibility beyond research, and may facilitate broader access for clinical use of AD plasma biomarkers. Based on our results, an expanded version of the AlzMatch study is underway, which involves expanding invitations to additional APT Webstudy participants and clinical trial sites.