Analytical and clinical performance of eight Simoa® and Lumipulse® assays for automated measurement of plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217
Anna Lidia Wojdała, Jeroen Vanbrabant, Sherif Bayoumy, Daniel Antwi‐Berko, Nathalie Le Bastard, Wiesje M. van der Flier, Andreas Jeromin, Charlotte Lambrechts, Maxime Van Loo, Manu Vandijck, Erik Stoops, Inge M.W. Verberk, Charlotte E. Teunissen
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the Alzheimer's disease (AD) biomarkers measured in blood, phosphorylated forms of tau (p-tau) have been shown to exhibit a particularly high diagnostic potential. Here, we performed a comprehensive method comparison study, followed by evaluation of the diagnostic performance of eight recent plasma p-tau immunoassays targeting different tau phosphorylation sites, different tau fragments, and that are measured by two distinct platforms. METHODS: G600II/G1200 platforms. Design of the compared assays differed in regard to: (1) tau phosphorylation site targeted by the capture antibody (T181 or T217), and (2) epitope of the pan-tau detector antibody (N-terminal or mid-region). For each of the assays we determined precision and analytical sensitivity parameters and used Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots for pairwise comparison of p-tau181 or p-tau217 assays. Subsequently, we evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of all the assays for discrimination between AD-dem and Control groups. RESULTS: We found a strong, positive correlation between all the measurements. Fixed and/or proportional bias was observed for each of compared p-tau181 assay pairs or p-tau217 assay pairs. While both plasma p-tau181 and p-tau217 levels were significantly increased in AD-dem vs. Control groups as measured by all assays, higher median concentration AD-dem/Control fold change and AUC values were observed for p-tau217 (assays range: fold change 3.72-6.74, AUC 0.916-0.956) compared with p-tau181 (assays range 1.81-2.94, AUC 0.829-0.909), independently of the platform used. No significant differences were observed between diagnostic performance of p-tau181 assays or p-tau217 assays targeting tau N-terminus or mid-region. CONCLUSIONS: Although all plasma p-tau measurements enabled discrimination between clinical groups, p-tau217 assays showed the highest robustness, independently of the pan-tau detector antibody targeting N-terminal or mid-region, and independently of the platform used. Considering the observed method disagreement in measured absolute concentrations, we stress the need for development of certified reference material, harmonizing measurements across different platforms.