Background: The brain is rich in lipid content, so a physiopathological pathway in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) could be related to lipid metabolism impairment. The study of lipid profiles in plasma samples could help in the identification of early AD changes and new potential biomarkers. Methods: An untargeted lipidomic analysis was carried out in plasma samples from preclinical AD (n = 11), mild cognitive impairment-AD (MCI-AD) (n = 31), and healthy (n = 20) participants. Variables were identified by means of two complementary methods, and lipid families’ profiles were studied. Then, a targeted analysis was carried out for some identified lipids. Results: Statistically significant differences were obtained for the diglycerol (DG), lysophosphatidylethanolamine (LPE), lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC), monoglyceride (MG), and sphingomyelin (SM) families as well as for monounsaturated (MUFAs) lipids, among the participant groups. In addition, statistically significant differences in the levels of lipid families (ceramides (Cer), LPE, LPC, MG, and SM) were observed between the preclinical AD and healthy groups, while statistically significant differences in the levels of DG, MG, and PE were observed between the MCI-AD and healthy groups. In addition, 18:1 LPE showed statistically significant differences in the targeted analysis between early AD (preclinical and MCI) and healthy participants. Conclusion: The different plasma lipid profiles could be useful in the early and minimally invasive detection of AD. Among the lipid families, relevant results were obtained from DGs, LPEs, LPCs, MGs, and SMs. Specifically, MGs could be potentially useful in AD detection; while LPEs, LPCs, and SM seem to be more related to the preclinical stage, while DGs are more related to the MCI stage. Specifically, 18:1 LPE showed a potential utility as an AD biomarker.

Background: The VALCODIS (Valencian Cognitive Diseases Study) cohort was designed and studied at the Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe (Valencia, Spain) for the research of cognitive diseases, especially in the search for new biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Methods: Participants in the VALCODIS cohort had cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood samples, neuroimaging, and neuropsychological tests. The ApoE genotype was evaluated to identify its relationship with CSF biomarkers and neuropsychological tests in AD and non-AD participants. Results: A total of 1249 participants were included. They were mainly AD patients (n = 547) but also patients with other dementias (frontotemporal lobar dementia (n = 61), Lewy body dementia without AD CSF signature (n = 10), vascular dementia (n = 24) and other specific causes of cognitive impairment (n = 442), and patients with subjective memory complaints (n = 165)). In the ApoE genotype evaluation, significant differences were found for Aβ42 levels between genotypes in both AD and non-AD patients, as well as a negative correlation between tau values and a cognitive test in non-carriers and ε4 heterozygous. Conclusions: The VALCODIS cohort provides biologically diagnosed patients with demographical, clinical and biochemical data, and biological samples for further studies on early AD diagnosis. Also, the ApoE genotype evaluation showed correlations between CSF biomarkers and neuropsychological tests.

Introduction: Early and accurate Alzheimer’s disease (AD) diagnosis has evolved in recent years by the use of specific methods for detecting its histopathological features in concrete cases. Currently, biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and imaging techniques (amyloid PET) are the most used specific methods. However, some results between both methods are discrepant. Therefore, an evaluation of these discrepant cases is required. Objective: The aim of this work is to analyze the characteristics of cases showing discrepancies between methods for detecting amyloid pathology. Methodology: Patients from the Neurology Department of La Fe Hospital (n = 82) were diagnosed using both methods (CSF biomarkers and amyloid-PET). Statistical analyses were performed using logistic regression, and sex and age were included as covariables. Additionally, results of standard neuropsychological evaluations were taken into account in our analyses. Results: The comparison between CSF biomarker (Aβ42) and amyloid PET results showed that around 18% of cases were discrepant—mainly CFS-negative and PET-positive cases had CSF levels close to the cut-off point. In addition, a correlation between the episodic memory test and CSF biomarkers levels was observed. However, the same results were not obtained for other neuropsychological domains. In general, CSF- and PET-discrepant cases showed altered episodic memory in around 66% of cases, while 33% showed normal performance. Conclusions: In common clinical practice at tertiary memory centers, result discrepancies between tests of amyloid status are far more common than expected. However, episodic memory tests remain an important support method for AD diagnosis, especially in cases with discrepant results between amyloid PET and CSF biomarkers.